protestants, please help

[SteveVH]

Unless it is in Scripture, it cannot be required to be believed.

Had the Church not already held the doctrine of the Trinity in its Tradition, I would wager that it never would have evolved. The Scriptures support the doctrine of the Trinity, but it cannot be gleaned from the pages of Scripture when separated from the Tradition of the Church. It is, therefore, the Church who has authority, not the supporting documents.

If there is no indication of it in the Scriptures and it is something completely foreign, we have no basis on which to judge the authenticity of such oral teaching.

No you don’t, and that is very sad. But as Catholics, we do. We have the promise that Christ would remain with his Church until the end of time and that it would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit. This is as true prior to the writing and canonization of Scripture as it is subsequent to those events. Our confidence is in Christ and in his faithfulness. He always keeps his promises.

The Nicene Creed was written by fallible men who drew upon infallible Scriptures. The result is an orthodox presentation of the Christian faith.

Where does Scripture say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?

Luther did not reject Tradition. He only wanted it to be put in its proper place, with Scripture as the final authority.

Proper place according to who? Luther? What about the place it had held for 1500 years prior to Luther? What about the place it held prior to the canonization of Scripture?

 

[benjohnson]

What I am really looking for is not what the confessions say…but what Luther actually said or wrote about SS…

As a Lutheran, Father Luther’s definition of the practice that came to be know as Sola Scriptura would be nice to have - but not at all necessary. Any definition in the Confessions would be the one we would look to.

You’re probably well aware of how Lutherans view Sola Scriptrua as a practice of the church, in contrast to the the modern “me and my own interpretation of the bible”. Luther speaks to that second definition in Luther’s Letter to the Christians of Antwerp (1525):

“The devil seeing that this sort of disturbance could not last, has devised a new one ; and begins to rage in his members, I mean in the ungodly, through whom he makes his way in all sorts of chimerical follies and extravagant doctrines. This won’t have baptism, that denies the efficacy of the Lord’s supper; a third, puts a world between this and the last judgment ; others teach that Jesus Christ is not God ; some say this, others that ; and there are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads.”

…]

*"Dear friends, one of these spirits of disorder has come amongst you in flesh and blood ; he would lead you astray with the inventions of his pride: beware of him.

First, he tells you that all men have the Holy Ghost. Secondly, that the Holy Ghost is nothing more than our reason and our understanding. Thirdly, that all men have faith. Fourthly, that there is no hell, that at least the flesh only will be damned. Fifthly, that all souls will enjoy eternal life. Sixthly, that nature itself teaches us to do to our neighbour what we would he should do to us ; this he calls faith. Seventhly, that the law is not violated by concupiscence, so long as we are not consenting to the pleasure. Eighthly, that he that has not the Holy Ghost, is also without sin, for he is destitute of reason"*

If you’re Catholic, perhaps be content with this snippet from Luther’s letter: He’s a bit inflammatory in other parts

 

[JonNC]

]

=KEP1983;10954188]Here we see JonNC try to straddle the line of Sola Scriptura while also accepting Church Councils and creeds.

Most Protestants don’t give much authority to Church Councils. Church Councils are not thought of as being guided by the Holy Spirit to make infallible declarations. (I’d be interested to know if JonNC thinks the first 7 Councils were infallible-- most Protestants would deny a Council being infallible)

While this has been responded to, just this, there is no reason to deny the guidance of the Holy Spirit within the early Church. Something can be right, even authoritative for the whole Church, and hold the level of infallibility that scripture has. As I have quoted, and which has been reposted, councils and other writings of Tradition are accepted by us. We bind ourselves to the ancient creeds.
This is most certainly true.

Jon

 

[pablope]

As a Lutheran, Father Luther’s definition of the practice that came to be know as Sola Scriptura would be nice to have - but not at all necessary. Any definition in the Confessions would be the one we would look to.

So you are saying…Luther never actually defined it? Someone formally defined it and placed it in the Lutheran confessions?

You’re probably well aware of how Lutherans view Sola Scriptrua as a practice of the church, in contrast to the the modern “me and my own interpretation of the bible”. Luther speaks to that second definition in Luther’s Letter to the Christians of Antwerp (1525):

 

[JonNC]

Hi, Itwin…I know JonNC…and his confessionalism…

And I am familiar with Jon’s posting on SS.

What I am really looking for is not what the confessions say…but what Luther actually said or wrote about SS.

Is there? (is the question I am asking).

I’m sure there are quotes, but I do not have any at my fingertips. The second generation reformers do reference Luther specifically regarding this issue in the Formula of Concord:

9] In the pure churches and schools these public common writings have been always regarded as the sum and model of the doctrine which Dr. Luther, of blessed memory, has admirably deduced from God’s Word, and firmly established against the Papacy and other sects; and to his full explanations in his doctrinal and polemical writings we wish to appeal, in the manner and as far as Dr. Luther himself in the Latin preface to his published works has given necessary and Christian admonition concerning his writings, and has expressly drawn this distinction namely, that the Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine, to which the writings of no man should be regarded as equal, but to which everything should be subjected.

10] But [this is not to be understood as if] hereby other good, useful, pure books, expositions of the Holy Scriptures, refutations of errors, explanations of doctrinal articles, are not rejected; for as far as they are consistent with the above-mentioned type of doctrine, these are regarded as useful expositions and explanations, and can be used with advantage. But what has thus far been said concerning the summary of our Christian doctrine is intended to mean only this, that we should have a unanimously accepted, definite, common form of doctrine, which all our evangelical churches together and in common confess, from and according to which, because it has been derived from God’s Word, all other writings should be judged and adjusted as to how far they are to be approved and accepted.

Hopefully that helps.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=KEP1983;10955810]I suppose this is a charitable attempt at ecumenism. “Hey, the LCMS hold to the councils and creeds too!”

Hope you’re not opposed to this.

But they don’t. Their claim to hold to the first 7 councils and creeds isn’t true. I’ll show you how you can know, clearly, here:

This is similar to the claim of some Protestants who say that, regardless what Catholics say, they really do worship Mary.

To JonNC (or any other Protestant):
Do you believe that the first 7 Councils are infallible?

Not infallible as in on a par with scripture, but certainly correct and, for the Church, authoritative.

Do you believe that there are oral teachings taught by the Apostles that were not written in Scripture?

Yes, though knowing what they were is the question.

Do you believe that these oral teachings are infallible and equal to Scripture?

Yes, though see above.

Do you believe that these oral teachings were preserved by the Holy Spirit?

Yes, though see above.

When a Protestant says he accepts Tradition and Councils, but simply uses Scripture as their final authority, it’s simply not true. The Councils and Traditions are no more infallible than the Southern Baptist Convention held in Houston, Texas.

It gets tiresome, as I suspect most Catholics have experienced precisely this, when someone tells you what you believe.
I don’t know what the baptists decided in Houston, and there’s a good chance I would disagree with a good bit of it, but far be it from me to claim that I know better than they what they believe.

Jon

 

[pablope]

I’m sure there are quotes, but I do not have any at my fingertips. The second generation reformers do reference Luther specifically regarding this issue in the Formula of Concord:

Hopefully that helps.

Jon

Thanks Jon.

From what you provided:

*9] In the pure churches and schools these public common writings have been always regarded as the sum and model of the doctrine which Dr. Luther, of blessed memory, has admirably deduced from God’s Word, and firmly established against the Papacy and other sects; and to his full explanations in his doctrinal and polemical writings we wish to appeal, in the manner and as far as Dr. Luther himself in the Latin preface to his published works has given necessary and Christian admonition concerning his writings, and has expressly drawn this distinction namely, that the Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine, to which the writings of no man should be regarded as equal, but to which everything should be subjected.
*

What I deduce is it was not contained in one document, but from several documents?

And on this part…“and has expressly drawn this distinction namely”…was it Luther who drew this distinction himself?

Or someone deduced from his writings?

 

[ltwin]

Where does Scripture say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?

Several places actually. John 14: 26; John 16:7; and as clear as day light, John 15:26:

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.”

See also Acts 2:33.

 

[SteveVH]

Several places actually. John 14: 26; John 16:7; and as clear as day light, John 15:26:

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.”

See also Acts 2:33.

There is no argument that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Where does Scripture say that He proceeds from both the Father and the Son?

" But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." (John 14:26)

“But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7)

“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father–the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father–he will testify about me.”

“Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.” (Acts 2:33)

In each of these instances, implicitly, if not explicitly, the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, through the Son. None of these says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. The Son sends the Holy Spirit, but he also sends you and I. Why do you think this is a controversy between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches? The EO certainly don’t interpret the passages you cite as meaning proceeding from the Son. This idea was not extracted from the pages of Scripture, even if one can go back and see it there subsequent to hearing the teaching. It came from Sacred Tradition and though not explicitly stated in the written words, is certainly not contradicted by them. Scripture contains supporting documents to the deposit of faith. It does not contain, nor was it ever meant to contain the entire deposit of faith.

 

[ltwin]

There is no argument that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Where does Scripture say that He proceeds from both the Father and the Son?

" But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." (John 14:26)

“But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7)

"When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father–the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father–he will testify about me."

"Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear." (Acts 2:33)

In each of these instances, implicitly, if not explicitly, the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, through the Son. None of these says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. The Son sends the Holy Spirit, but he also sends you and I. Why do you think this is a controversy between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches? The EO certainly don’t interpret the passages you cite as meaning proceeding from the Son. This idea was not extracted from the pages of Scripture, even if one can go back and see it there subsequent to hearing the teaching. It came from Sacred Tradition and though not explicitly stated in the written words, is certainly not contradicted by them. Scripture contains supporting documents to the deposit of faith. It does not contain, nor was it ever meant to contain the entire deposit of faith.

What Sacred Tradition is this? Is this the one shared with the Orthodox or is this the one that only Catholics have? I thought you guys shared the same Sacred Tradition?

I see more than enough evidence for the filoque in Scripture. The Scriptures cited show that both the Father and the Son are involved in the sending forth of the Spirit. Yes, the Father first and then the Son. Even so, he still proceeds from the Son.

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is not only called the Spirit of God and Spirit of the Father in Scripture. He is “the Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9) and “the Spirit of the Son” (Galatians 4:6). If it is the Spirit of Christ, then it must come from Christ.

Furthermore, John 16:14-15, states:

“He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”

All that the Father has is already Christ’s. And what the Spirit declares, he takes it directly from Christ.

 

[SteveVH]

What Sacred Tradition is this? Is this the one shared with the Orthodox or is this the one that only Catholics have? I thought you guys shared the same Sacred Tradition?

I see more than enough evidence for the filoque in Scripture. The Scriptures cited show that both the Father and the Son are involved in the sending forth of the Spirit. Yes, the Father first and then the Son. Even so, he still proceeds from the Son.

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is not only called the Spirit of God and Spirit of the Father in Scripture. He is “the Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9) and “the Spirit of the Son” (Galatians 4:6). If it is the Spirit of Christ, then it must come from Christ.

Furthermore, John 16:14-15, states:

“He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”

All that the Father has is already Christ’s. And what the Spirit declares, he takes it directly from Christ.

You would be making the Catholic argument and so you are preaching to the choir. My only point is that we cannot say that it is clearly demonstrated (supported yes) by the words of Scripture. Remember also, that the precursor to the Nicene Creed is the Apostle’s Creed which was part of the Church a long time (at least Didache period) before we had a Bible. The Nicene Creed expounded upon the Apostles Creed in order to clarify the nature of the Person of Jesus, primarily. This is when the language “proceeds from the Father and the Son was added” which said as much about the Son as it did about the Holy Spirit.

This is very much like the doctrine of the Trinity. So many people claim that they see the Trinity in Scripture just as plain as day. But that is only because they were first taught the doctrine. One cannot find the Catholic definition of the Trinity in the Bible. There are many verses that support the doctrine but it could not be extracted purely from Scripture.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You would be making the Catholic argument and so you are preaching to the choir. My only point is that we cannot say that it is clearly demonstrated (supported yes) by the words of Scripture. Remember also, that the precursor to the Nicene Creed is the Apostle’s Creed which was part of the Church a long time (at least Didache period) before we had a Bible. The Nicene Creed expounded upon the Apostles Creed in order to clarify the nature of the Person of Jesus, primarily. This is when the language “proceeds from the Father and the Son was added” which said as much about the Son as it did about the Holy Spirit.

This is very much like the doctrine of the Trinity. So many people claim that they see the Trinity in Scripture just as plain as day. But that is only because they were first taught the doctrine. One cannot find the Catholic definition of the Trinity in the Bible. There are many verses that support the doctrine but it could not be extracted purely from Scripture.

Yes, things are a lot easier to “find” once we already know the answer.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, things are a lot easier to “find” once we already know the answer.

Absolutely. That is why a lot of Catholics get confused when they are challenged on certain doctrines. Someone demonstrates to them that it cannot be found explicitly in Scripture, and they are right. But our faith is not from the Bible. The Bible is from our faith and is meant to support the one deposit of faith, not define it in its entirety.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks Jon.

From what you provided:

*9] In the pure churches and schools these public common writings have been always regarded as the sum and model of the doctrine which Dr. Luther, of blessed memory, has admirably deduced from God’s Word, and firmly established against the Papacy and other sects; and to his full explanations in his doctrinal and polemical writings we wish to appeal, in the manner and as far as Dr. Luther himself in the Latin preface to his published works has given necessary and Christian admonition concerning his writings, and has expressly drawn this distinction namely, *that the Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine, to which the writings of no man should be regarded as equal, but to which everything should be subjected.

What I deduce is it was not contained in one document, but from several documents?

And on this part…“and has expressly drawn this distinction namely”…was it Luther who drew this distinction himself?

Or someone deduced from his writings?

Honestly,
Someone with a little deeper knowledge of Luther and his interaction with the other Lutheran reformers would be better able to answer this. It is often true that layman,while having a knowledge of the importance of Luther, tend to be catechized more on Lutheran doctrine as in the confessions than on the Luther the man.
Maybe steido or Ben or Paster Gary can add more.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Absolutely. That is why a lot of Catholics get confused when they are challenged on certain doctrines. Someone demonstrates to them that it cannot be found explicitly in Scripture, and they are right. But our faith is not from the Bible. The Bible is from our faith and is meant to support the one deposit of faith, not define it in its entirety.

Steve,
I can’t locate the quote now, but I know that Pope Benedict reminded the faithful at one point that theChurch is the servant of scripture. How does that square with what you said here?

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,
I can’t locate the quote now, but I know that Pope Benedict reminded the faithful at one point that theChurch is the servant of scripture. How does that square with what you said here?

Jon

One important role of the Catholic Church is to defend and guard the deposit of faith we received from the Apostles. Part of that deposit of faith is found written in Sacred Scripture. The Church is, therefore, a servant of Scripture, but Scripture viewed through the lens of Sacred Tradition. The Church is a servant of Truth but that Truth doesn’t exist entirely in the written word.

 

[JonNC]

One important role of the Catholic Church is to defend and guard the deposit of faith we received from the Apostles. Part of that deposit of faith is found written in Sacred Scripture. The Church is, therefore, a servant of Scripture, but Scripture viewed through the lens of Sacred Tradition. The Church is a servant of Truth but that Truth doesn’t exist entirely in the written word.

Understood.
Thanks

Jon

 

[KEP1983]

"Isaiah45_9:

It seems you just can’t put that incredibly broad brush down… you go and immediately generalize…

This is similar to the claim of some Protestants who say that, regardless what Catholics say, they really do worship Mary.

No, Isaiah45_9, I’m not broadbrushing Protestantism. I’m stressing a definitional difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. This isn’t my opinion, this comes from the Council of Trent.

JonNC, The fact that Protestants don’t follow Sacred Tradition and the Councils is a definitional fact of Protestantism. Worshiping Mary is not a definitional fact of Catholicism.

I’m not trying to argue or be uncharitable. But I am trying to elucidate the truth. And that truth is this: when a Protestant uses the term “Council” or “Tradition,” he means something completely different than what Catholics mean.

Catholicism is a 3 legged stool, each leg being equal and infallible:

1. Sacred Scripture
2. Sacred Tradition
3. Magisterium

Protestants only accept the first leg, hence Sola Scriptura and the Council of Trent.

Councils are Councils because they are expressions of the 3rd leg, the Magisterium. Protestants, by definition, do not accept the Magisterium as equal to Scripture. They do not believe that Councils are infallible expressions of the infallible Magisterium of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit to infallibly define dogmas for the Church. Thus they do not truly accept Councils. Otherwise the Council of Trent would not have written, directed at Luther mind you, “a truth propounded to us by an ecclesiastical rule, from which the least departure is unwarrantable, confirmed by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures, and defined by the Councils of the Church.” A Protestant-- by definition-- does not accept the 3rd leg of Orthodoxy-- the Magisterium-- and thus does not actually hold to the Councils. If a Protestant truly accepts the Councils he would accept the 3rd leg of Orthodoxy and by definition would cease to be a Protestant.

Rather, when a Protestant says he accepts the Councils, he merely means that he accepts that a group of fallible believers gathered together and fallibly defined their fallible interpretation of the infallible Scriptures.

Likewise when a Protestant uses the word “Tradition”, he doesn’t mean oral teachings from the Apostles that are infallible dogmas not written in Scripture, which are preserved by the Holy Spirit. If he did he would be accepting the 2nd leg of Orthodoxy-- Sacred Tradition-- and would thus cease to be a Protestant. Otherwise the Council of Trent wouldn’t have stated “he will appeal to the tradition, uniform practice of Christians, as handed down by the Apostles and faithfully preserved in the Church of God.”

Rather, when a Protestant uses the word “tradition,” he generally means ideas or rituals that develop over time that aren’t in the Bible and thus are not infallible. Traditions can be liturgies, certain hymns, funny hats, or incense. They could also theoretically be ideas that are not in Scripture. But these ideas are generally thought to develop over time and are not from the Apostles (or if they are, they can’t be proved to be from Apostles) and thus they can’t be trusted to be infallible and cannot be held to the level of dogma. They can be accepted as long as they don’t conflict with Scripture (like purgatory), but they also cannot be dogma.

So I’m not “broadbrushing” Protestants, Isaiah25_9. Protestants, by definition, do not accept the 3 legs of Orthodoxy. They reject Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, and thus by definition do not truly accept Tradition or the Councils.

All I’m saying is that when a Catholic has a discussion with a Protestant, and the Protestant uses terms like “council” or “tradition,” be fully aware that they are using these terms with a completely different meaning than you.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

All I’m saying is that when a Catholic has a discussion with a Protestant, and the Protestant uses terms like “council” or “tradition,” be fully aware that they are using these terms with a completely different meaning than you.

Well, KEP. I appreciate you refreshing things that I am already aware of. However, , I have to ask if you are aware of Conciliarism and how it affects what the Councils say in contrast to what the Pope confirms?

As Catholics we need to be aware of Conciliarism. When we talk about Councils and them being infallible, we don’t mean that they are infallible by themselves but because some of their teachings have been confirmed as infallible by the Pope.

Before the Reformation, we (Catholics) had a problem known as the Papal Schism, and at one time there were 3 persons claiming to be Popes (Rome was even temporarily moved to Avignon). During this problem, there were some factions that wanted to establish that the Councils held more authority than the Pope and as such, by convening a Council -a Pope could be removed from Office. It wasn’t until the 1st Vatican Council that Conciliarism was officially condemned by declaring that it was the Pope who had full and supreme jurisdiction over the Universal Church. Further, it was in Vatican I that Papal Infallibility was also officially defined. (Denzinger, 3063).

As such we (Catholics) should not be going around saying that the Councils are infallible without first expressing how the Pope confirms their teaching by the charism of infallibility.

Also, just like Truth has one meaning, the Councils have one meaning. What some Protestants might do is to interpret them differently and apply them differently. The meaning is only one. Unless you claim to know how each Protestant defines what those councils mean in their minds…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Steve,
I can’t locate the quote now, but I know that Pope Benedict reminded the faithful at one point that theChurch is the servant of scripture. How does that square with what you said here?

Jon

It is from the Catechism brother Jon,

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 **“Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”**48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.