protestants, please help

[KEP1983]

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…

Yes, Isaiah, that’s all very well and true.

In my original response to the OP, I was giving the perspective of an average Evangelical Protestant. Most do not talk much about Councils or the Church Fathers. I heard plenty of sermons about Luther, Calvin, and the Reformation, but never heard much about the Councils or Fathers. Yet I’ve been to all sorts of Protestant denominations, though all of them would be considered Evangelical. I think that’s generally true of most Evangelical Protestants in America. I learned more about the councils and fathers as I started listening to discussions between Catholics and Protestants, but even then I had a completely different understanding of “council” and “tradition” than what I now understand as a Catholic.

Later on, a few LCMS came here and stated that they accept the first 7 councils and tradition.

I’m simply following Trent and the Magisterium of the Church and stating that Protestantism-- including Lutheranism-- doesn’t truly accept the Councils and Tradition, as they reject 2 of the 3 legs of Orthodoxy.

The Lutherans can continue going on discussing their views. That’s all fine and good. But I’m just saying that Catholics who read this should be aware that the LCMS (and other Protestants) are using a completely different meaning to these terms than what we’re understanding.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

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

I’m sorry, but for the statement I highlighted in the above quote to be coming from Martin Luther, to me, is the very definition of irony.

 

[MartinJordan]

The Church is a servant of Truth but that Truth doesn’t exist entirely in the written word.

This reminds me of what Pope Francis mentioned on April 12, 2013-

Sacred Scripture is the written testimony of the divine Word, the canonical memory that attests to the event of Revelation. However, the **Word of God precedes the Bible and surpasses it.** That is why the centre of our faith isn't just a book, **but a salvation history and above all a person, Jesus Christ, the Word of God **made flesh.

The relationship between Christ, the Word Made Flesh, and the Scriptures, the written Word of God, lies at the heart of what the Church calls Sacred Tradition:

It is precisely because the **Word of God embraces and extends beyond Scripture **that, in order to properly understand it, the Holy Spirit's constant presence, who guides us "to all truth," is necessary. **It is necessary to place ourselves within the great Tradition that has, with the Holy Spirit's assistance and the Magisterium's guidance, recognized the canonical writings as the Word that God addresses to his people, who have never ceased meditating upon it and discovering inexhaustible riches from it.**

I wonder how many Protestants would gasp at the “supercedes the Bible” bit

MJ

 

[sirach2v4]

First understand that there is not a “Protestant faith”. That would imply a singular communion with a singular origin. Neither is the case.

Only speaking as a Lutheran, we see scripture as the sole final norm used by the Church to hold teachers, doctrines, etc accountable. We further rely on the ECFs and early councils as witnesses to the truth of the faith. It is typical in the confessions to support our teaching using scripture, the Fathers, and the early Church. That is the practice of sola scriptura.

With all respect, this is simply a false understanding of sola scriptura in that it attempts to set up the practice against the role of the Church, when in fact SS is a tool of the Church. We do not see the practice of SS as an authority in opposition to the authority of theChurch.
It was not the position of the Lutheran reformers that if it isn’t in the Bible it isn’t important. A quick read through the confessions disproves the notion that nothing but the Bible matters.
What we do believe is that those councils and Fathers and their teachings are held accountable to scripture. We accept the 7 councils and the 3 creeds, and our confessions reference numerous Fathers on a variety of teachings.

This is not an issue for Lutherans. While not commonplace in America, it is not unheard of for Lutherans to call a pastor “Father”. In fact, you will frequently see knowledgeable Lutherans refer to Luther as Father Martin. And, I often called my dad Father.

Jon

I appreciate all the replies to my question. The assertions in my questions are based on the variety of things Pelikan has written about. So, when I talk about “if it’s not in the Bible, it’s not important” I’m referring to something that Pelikan has stated in his book. He is not without bias, for sure. But, he demonstrates and illustrates what such and such doctrine (teaching) means and so he is quoting somebody, for sure.

When I ask about the “Protestant faith” I am referring to any of the “protestant faiths.” Take your pick.

Given limited space, I did not acknowledge that the Reformers and their followers seem sincere and they did ask or state very troubling issues.They really poke a pin in the hot air balloon of Catholic teaching.

But, it’s interesting to see how theology works and what it’s influence is on organized religion. Some guy thinks up something, publishes it, then 500 years later the Catholic Church calls his theological speculation a dogma. Pelikan points out the frustration of those who are wishful that there were not such coercive rhetoric (like “dogma” and “anathema” ). He mentions, in his academic way, that the controversies over the centuries are like “theology on steroids” where there is much rage expressed in theological discussions, all over the place. The wishful thinking continues, that theological speculations should be labeled as such, and published, if at all, under that banner of pious (perhaps) but speculative theological rambling.

Elsewhere, for example, in Luigi Gambero’s book on Mary in the MIddle Ages, he quotes one theologian as speculating that one of the graces bestowed by God on Mary was that she never needed any sleep. Why do we need this explosively and outrageous theology?

Certainly, it does not pass the test of whether it is necessary for salvation. For heaven’s sake.

 

[LegoGE1947]

I appreciate all the replies to my question. The assertions in my questions are based on the variety of things Pelikan has written about. So, when I talk about “if it’s not in the Bible, it’s not important” I’m referring to something that Pelikan has stated in his book. He is not without bias, for sure. But, he demonstrates and illustrates what such and such doctrine (teaching) means and so he is quoting somebody, for sure.

When I ask about the “Protestant faith” I am referring to any of the “protestant faiths.” Take your pick.

Given limited space, I did not acknowledge that the Reformers and their followers seem sincere and they did ask or state very troubling issues.They really poke a pin in the hot air balloon of Catholic teaching.

But, it’s interesting to see how theology works and what it’s influence is on organized religion. Some guy thinks up something, publishes it, then 500 years later the Catholic Church calls his theological speculation a dogma. Pelikan points out the frustration of those who are wishful that there were not such coercive rhetoric (like “dogma” and “anathema” ). He mentions, in his academic way, that the controversies over the centuries are like “theology on steroids” where there is much rage expressed in theological discussions, all over the place. The wishful thinking continues, that theological speculations should be labeled as such, and published, if at all, under that banner of pious (perhaps) but speculative theological rambling.

Elsewhere, for example, in Luigi Gambero’s book on Mary in the MIddle Ages, he quotes one theologian as speculating that one of the graces bestowed by God on Mary was that she never needed any sleep. Why do we need this explosively and outrageous theology?

Certainly, it does not pass the test of whether it is necessary for salvation. For heaven’s sake.

There seems to be much speculation on both sides of the fence from centuries gone by about Mary, Jesus, or whatever Bible character that don’t seem necessary for salvation. I would include legends about saints that may have lived and purportedly did or said this or that. In the US there are stories about the early “fathers” of our nation that also seem outrageous such as George Washington cutting down a cherry tree, or throwing a coin across the river. David Crockett killing a bear at age 3, or the existence of some lumberjack named “Paul Bunyan” Do we have to believe these things in order to be a" loyal American?" I don’t see not needing sleep a grace. If I didn’t need sleep I’d be going to a doctor to get help! Also these people who had this"stigmata" where they would have these areas of their bodies that would bleed for no apparent reason. To me that’s just plain GROSS! I guess I’ve ranted enough.

 

[PaulinePresbytr]

LCMS is different not just from mainstream Evangelical Protestantism, but even from other Lutheran bodies. Look at the LCMS poster here. His religion describes himself as “Evangelical Catholic.” The average Protestant in America would never refer to themselves as an “Evangelical Catholic.”

Within some circles of the Reformed church (the circles which would call themselves puritan/orthodox Presbyterian) it is common for people to call themselves reformed Catholics. The more traditional styles of Protestantism put emphasis on liturgy and tradition.

 

[SteveVH]

This reminds me of what Pope Francis mentioned on April 12, 2013-

Sacred Scripture is the written testimony of the divine Word, the canonical memory that attests to the event of Revelation. However, the **Word of God precedes the Bible and surpasses it.** That is why the centre of our faith isn't just a book, **but a salvation history and above all a person, Jesus Christ, the Word of God **made flesh.

The relationship between Christ, the Word Made Flesh, and the Scriptures, the written Word of God, lies at the heart of what the Church calls Sacred Tradition:

It is precisely because the **Word of God embraces and extends beyond Scripture **that, in order to properly understand it, the Holy Spirit's constant presence, who guides us "to all truth," is necessary. **It is necessary to place ourselves within the great Tradition that has, with the Holy Spirit's assistance and the Magisterium's guidance, recognized the canonical writings as the Word that God addresses to his people, who have never ceased meditating upon it and discovering inexhaustible riches from it.**

I wonder how many Protestants would gasp at the “supercedes the Bible” bit

MJ

 

[JonNC]

=KEP1983;10959427]Yes, Isaiah, that’s all very well and true.

In my original response to the OP, I was giving the perspective of an average Evangelical Protestant. Most do not talk much about Councils or the Church Fathers. I heard plenty of sermons about Luther, Calvin, and the Reformation, but never heard much about the Councils or Fathers. Yet I’ve been to all sorts of Protestant denominations, though all of them would be considered Evangelical. I think that’s generally true of most Evangelical Protestants in America. I learned more about the councils and fathers as I started listening to discussions between Catholics and Protestants, but even then I had a completely different understanding of “council” and “tradition” than what I now understand as a Catholic.

Later on, a few LCMS came here and stated that they accept the first 7 councils and tradition.

That’s fine Kep, except your original post did not reference Evangelical Protestants specifically, but Protestants in general, which is why I responded. Had you said Evangelical Protestant, I would not have responded at all.

I’m simply following Trent and the Magisterium of the Church and stating that Protestantism-- including Lutheranism-- doesn’t truly accept the Councils and Tradition, as they reject 2 of the 3 legs of Orthodoxy.

Well, you see, not Trent nor the Magisterium, and certainly not you get to say what Lutherans believe or don’t believe, just like non-Catholics don’t get to say what Catholicism teaches. The best practice is to listen to each other in respect and accept what the other says they believe

The Lutherans can continue going on discussing their views. That’s all fine and good. But I’m just saying that Catholics who read this should be aware that the LCMS (and other Protestants) are using a completely different meaning to these terms than what we’re understanding.

Well goodness, thanks for your permission.
Catholics who read this site ought to understand that Kep doesn’t have the authority to claim this. If one wants to know what Lutherans believe, seek out knowledgeable Lutherans or official Lutheran documents. In the meantime, Lutherans and other non-Catholics should practice the same, and never claim an authority to say what Catholicism teaches.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The Lutherans can continue going on discussing their views. That’s all fine and good. But I’m just saying that Catholics who read this should be aware that the LCMS (and other Protestants) are using a completely different meaning to these terms than what we’re understanding.

Which only they know the meaning, not you and me and those outside their communion.

 

[SteveVH]

Catholics who read this site ought to understand that Kep doesn’t have the authority to claim this. If one wants to know what Lutherans believe, seek out knowledgeable Lutherans or official Lutheran documents. In the meantime, Lutherans and other non-Catholics should practice the same, and never claim an authority to say what Catholicism teaches.

I couldn’t agree more. And I would like to add that we have some very knowledgeable Lutherans on this forum so there is no excuse in misrepresenting Lutheran beliefs.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Catholics who read this site ought to understand that Kep doesn’t have the authority to claim this. If one wants to know what Lutherans believe, seek out knowledgeable Lutherans or official Lutheran documents. In the meantime, Lutherans and other non-Catholics should practice the same, and never claim an authority to say what Catholicism teaches.

I couldn’t agree more. And I would like to add that we have some very knowledgeable Lutherans on this forum so there is no excuse in misrepresenting Lutheran beliefs.