Hi Abu
I believe this pastor is pandering to stubborn Catholics. I would ask him what he meant by this statement. Really, we are free to believe whatever we want, that doesnt mean it comes from faith. If he explains that it is not a revealed (and Apostolic Tradition), therfore can be disbelieved with God’s approval, then I would tell him that I will be seeking the confirmation from a Bishop. I have a feeling he would change his tune. If not, then id seek out the Bishops answer and decision.
I hear ya. But consider the difference of rejecting something as opposed to praying about it and learning more about its goodness, or falseness, and considering its source. We know our foundation of our faith. This we always rely on. Then, we can grow in understanding from that. We were not given all understanding and knowledge at once.
I missed the bolded part initially. I see you acknowledged the point I tried making.
[SIGN]AMEN![/SIGN]
Or as Saint Anselm puts it:
, 1950].
IMHO no, Catholics were NOT required to believe it in this sense:
Well, the Lutheran Reformation never claimed that Sola Scriptura meant that Scripture is the be-all and end-all of faith and theology. If you actually study the confessions – Confessio Augustana and Luther’s Small Catechism (and perhaps the Apology of Confessio Augustana), you will see that the original meaning of Sola Scriptura is that it is the most central source of Revelation, but that it should be read in the context of Tradition (especially the Creeds, Dogmas, and the teachings of the Church Fathers). The classical way of putting this is that Scripture is norma normans non normata (the norm or rule that regulates all other norms but is not itself regulated by them), and that Tradition is norma normata (the norm or rule that regulates us, but does not regulate Scripture). Scripture and Tradition is to be interpreted by those who are properly called – and ordained – to do so (cf. XIVConfessio Augustana).
In the Church of Norway, after the final blessing in Mass, there is nine bell chimes (3x3). This derives historically from the Angelus.
Well, I guess it is easier to win debates when you are debating a straw man.
No, we don’t. At least not the historical European Lutherans.
I am becoming increasingly more interested in Lutheranism. My limited exposure was the series, “David and Goliath” as a kid, which I found quite admirable.
“Confessio Augustana” is Latin for “Augsburg Confession” and Augustana is the Latin form for the name of the town of Augsburg in the south-west of Bavaria, Germany. It does not have anything to do (as far as I know) with Saint Augustine. According to Wikipedia, “The Augsburg Confession was written in both German and Latin and was presented by a number of German rulers and free-cities at the Diet of Augsburg on 25 June 1530.”
Yes, and there is good reason for that. It refers to the same Tradition; the faith once delivered unto the saints.
Yes, but so? A fundamentalist is as Lutheran as a sedevacantist is Roman Catholic.
I cannot speak for anyone, but I have encountered people who (at least think they do) reject Tradition.
Their position is essentially the same as the position of my Church, the Church of Norway.
Augustana refers to the city of Augsburg (Augustana in Latin) where the imperial Diet of 1530 was held, and were the Lutherans presented their confession.
Read the confessions. ‘Catholic’ refers to the faith once delivered unto the saints, that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all Christians. It does not refer to any specific denomination.
Wow! Of everything you have given to me for consideration, this has hit hardest! I am leaning strongly to sedevacantism precisely because I fundamentally accept Catholicism and the Papacy. I have started participating in the Catholic Answers forums primarily to see if good-willed Catholics can rationally talk me out of this inclination.
I find it hard to rationalize that the See of Rome has been vacant since 1958.