Sola Scriptura cannot answer the Liturgy question

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Tomyris!

I think this thread was just a hit-and-run by someone who will say ANYTHING to make Protestants look bad (if you look at what he has posted elsewhere, that is a recurrent theme). When confronted, he does not have the integrity or humility to admit he was wrong. His thesis is in shambles and he has fled the scene of his crime.

I think that you truly do not want to make him look bad, but you are making a request that he not post anything that may appear to disparage others. Here is what he wrote me about his OP:

Correct. Nothing I said was intended to insult. I’m simply pointing out a major issue with serious consequences. I’m asking: Is the Sunday worship that is being done actually something God commanded…or did some uninspired tradition of men tell you to worship God a certain way and we simply followed that uninspired guide?

The only acceptable answer is that we must obey God when it comes to worship, and this means we worship Him as He wants us to worship Him, namely the Sacrifice of the Mass. The majority of this information is not taught in Scripture and thus comes from inspired oral tradition. Any other approach to this question forces a person into liturgical relativism.

As you see, he is requesting that we all “worship Him as He wants us to worship Him”. He sees some problems with any approach that does not comply with what He sees and understands as “acceptable”.

On the surface we react and lash out, but underneath we want unity, wholeness, correct?

Have a great day!

 

[Tomyris]

Good Morning, Tomyris!

“Blessed are the peacemakers…” I think that is what you are about.

I think that you truly do not want to make him look bad, but you are making a request that he not post anything that may appear to disparage others. Here is what he wrote me about his OP:

That is a dig-the-hole-deeper apology. “I did not mean to insult those idolators.” His questions had been answered by then, if he bothered looking. I also dismissed my post with an unfair accusation of ranting.

I am not trying to make him look bad. I have observed his actions, which make him look bad.

As you see, he is requesting that we all “worship Him as He wants us to worship Him”. He sees some problems with any approach that does not comply with what He sees and understands as “acceptable”.

On the surface we react and lash out, but underneath we want unity, wholeness, correct?

Have a great day!

I am not lashing out. But I don’t think his sins should simply be smoothed over (he is attempting to confront Protestants with their sin, but he cannot take what he is dishing out). At this point I don’t think he is repentant. He has borne false witness against Protestants by accusing us of idolatry, and in doing so he is breaking one of the big 10. His whole approach also is un-Catholic or anti-Catholic. I gave him a link to read in my post. I doubt he read it. It links to a priest being appalled at some of the posting on CAF that is similar to his, as well as some papal statements on ecumenism he would do well to read. Not to some idolatrous Protestant site.

He will only dig his hole deeper. I am quitting this thread.

If he has further desires to “help” Protestants, I suggest he take his urges with a vow of silence in some remote hermitage for the rest of his life, cut off from communication with the outside world. He should wear a bucket over his head as well, and those who bring him stale bread and tepid water should also wear buckets, lest his fall off.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

There is a broad experience of praise and worship that remains within the boundaries of Spirit and Truth. Not all of it is liturgical. {Yes, but the issue here is Liturgy.}

You have been told repeatedly that the premise of Sola Scriptura you are using does not apply to liturgical Protestants, and you seem unwilling to accept this. {I don’t accept the inconsistency behind it. If a Protestant wants to say Liturgy does not have to come from Scripture, then they can say this, but then they have to admit their Liturgy is essentially man-made, which they don’t want to do.}

Protestants who have accepted Sacred Tradition and retain Liturgy (from Catholicism) do not espouse the idea that everything has to be found in Scripture. {Protestants don’t accept Sacred Tradition nor do they retain Liturgy. You cannot go through the Mass, remove the parts you don’t like, and call that “retaining” the Mass. I cannot take a cheeseburger, remove the beef, and say I retained a cheeseburger.}

You seem to want Protestants to accept the Catholic faith “all or nothing”, and since they do not, you are criticizing them for the Catholic parts they DO accept. {I’m not talking about all or nothing, but if a list of teachings was revealed by God, then that list of teachings is all-or-nothing. You can’t say you’re following God when one or more list of things He wants you to follow are being openly rejected. Furthermore, all I’m talking about is the Liturgy here, which isn’t everything, but it’s something big. }

This would be true except that Liturgical Protestants do** accept that there are other sources of divine guidance**. They believe that the Holy Spirit has guided the Church through the Councils and Creeds, as well as the Liturgy. No, these things are not held on the same level as Scripture, but that does not mean they are only “human invention”. **{How can there be “other sources of divine guidance” that are not on the same level as Scripture? **There’s no such thing as fallible divine guidance.If something is divinely guided, it most certainly is on part with Scripture. That’s the Sola Scriptura dilemma. Protestants do not accept the Creeds or Councils in any real/consistent manner, including the Council of Nicaea. The Council of Nicaea was led by bishops from Apostolic succession, and the Canons of Nicaea taught many things Protestants reject. So No, they don’t follow Nicea. The Third Ecumenical Council said the Mass was an Unbloody Sacrifice and that John 6 was the Eucharst, which Protestants don’t accept. The Fourth Ecumenical Council was led by Pope Leo the Great, but Protestants say the Papacy is heresy.}

On the contrary, all the original Protestant communities affirmed Church authority, and the roles of persons intended to serve the Church. {The example he gave was the Deacon-Priest-Bishop distinction, which neither Lutherans nor Reformed accepted, only Anglicans.}

Where I see the problem is where you are refusing to acknowledge that many elements of Catholic Truth are retained within the separated ecclesial communities. {The issue isn’t that elements of truth were retained by Protestants. I accept that. The issue is huge doctrines like the Mass are rejected.}

Seriously? I interacted. You did not like the interaction. So you call it a ‘rant’. {Then we simply misunderstood the tone of each other’s original message. I interpreted what you said as you saying you don’t have to answer my OP directly because you gave no actual justification for your Liturgy. I note that you didn’t even address my actual words after my first sentence of my reply. Simply saying that Protestants follow “tradition” when it comes to things like Liturgy is basically a dodge because it avoids addressing whether following a liturgy invented by men is an acceptable practice (which it’s not).}

Calling it a rant is a shallow, facile, immature way to say that you won’t face my post. Or its consequences.

Your credibility is zero and dropping.

The question you are dodging is: Why do you worship the way you do on Sunday? If the Bible didn’t tell you to worship that way, then who did (and why are you following their lead)? Your profile says you are Presbyterian, meaning your liturgy is further removed from the Catholic Mass than the Lutheran Liturgy. You do realize the Reformed “Regulative Principle of Worship” states that nothing liturgically shall be done unless it is positively commanded in Scripture? That means you of all Protestants shouldn’t be looking to tradition at all for your liturgy.

Even Catholic Liturgies have certain “man made traditions” that are not contrary to what we have received through Sacred Tradition. Relegating these pious practices to “some uninspired tradition of men” seems disrespectful to your own faith, as well as the practices of others. {The key words here are "not contrary to what we have received through Sacred Tradition. So I’m not relegating any Catholic practices to uninspired traditions of men - that description is only for Protestants who must see them as traditions of men.}

I think we do see a great deal of relativism when it comes to forms of Christian worship. I do agree that it is incumbent upon us to worship as He would have us do. {Agreed, and my point is simply that Scripture alone is insufficient to show us how we are supposed to worship as God wants us to. This forces us to go out of Scripture and look elsewhere. And once a Protestant “looks elsewhere” is when they start running into logical dilemmas.}

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Except that’s not what I’m saying. Sola scriptura doesn’t deny the deposit of faith; it suggests that the deposit of faith has a regulatory fucntion when it comes to discussing the legitimacy of any Christian teaching or practice which has not been directly divinely revealed. {The Liturgy has been divinely revealed, if you want to say the Liturgy has “not been directly divinely revealed” then you need to tell us where Liturgy comes from. The Anglicans have a clear history of folks like Cranmer basically going through the Catholic liturgy and ripping out everything he disagreed with.}

Sure. But that’s a non sequitur. The example is a good one because it shows how sola scriptura is applied in the Church of England. {But this just exposes the contradiction. You are saying “Sola Scriptura” applies however the Protestant wants it to apply. This is why the Church of England is a strange hybrid of Catholicism and Protestantism, while Lutherans and Reformed and others are distinctly Protestant. The 39 Articles are completely ad hoc and many of them outdated or ignored.}

The same sources you use: the living tradition of the Church, the witness of the Fathers. They are valid sources of Christian teaching and practice, provided that their authority is understood to be subject to that of Holy Scripture.

I think this thread was just a hit-and-run by someone who will say ANYTHING to make Protestants look bad (if you look at what he has posted elsewhere, that is a recurrent theme). When confronted, he does not have the integrity or humility to admit he was wrong. His thesis is in shambles and he has fled the scene of his crime.

I have not fled anything. I took a break as much as I could on the weekend from electronics. I will happily discuss any theological issue with you and I am confident that I can provide a superior apologetics argument than you can. Check out the blog in my signature for all kinds of apologetics arguments that you probably have never seen nor can you probably address head-on.

 

[Tomyris]

I have not fled anything. I took a break as much as I could on the weekend from electronics. I will happily discuss any theological issue with you and** I am confident that I can provide a superior apologetics argument than you can. Check out the blog in my signature for all kinds of apologetics arguments that you probably have never seen nor can you probably address head-on.**

I see you returned. I am not going to waste any more time talking to you - you are going on my Ignore list.

How conceited, arrogant, condenscending of you to say such things, and insulting to me. Things I have never seen? Can’t address? Pride goes before a fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction.

 

[mattp0625]

In fact, this has been happening since the Eucharist was instituted. This is why Ignatius wrote:

“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one appointed by him”.

There were schismatic groups purporting a valid Eucharist.

I dont’ think this is a fair accusation of Luther. On the contrary, Luther was trained in celebration of the Latin Liturgy in Catholic Seminary, and was given authority to celebrate it when ordained by the Catholic Bishop. He did not “steal” anything, it was given to him!

As far as I know, he did not make substantive changes to it, either, except that he stopped praying for the Pope, against whom he seemed to have quite a bit of resentment.

The Church of Norway has a Mass that looks more Catholic than many post Vat. 2 Masses.

I would not say silent, entirely.

The Church of Norway was taken over by forces loyal to Luther.

They arrested the Catholic Bishops and inserted their own orders. They did the same thing in Iceland.

Luther sent his surrogate, Johannes Bugenhagen (the “apostle of the north”), to institute these new “priestly orders”. Luther also oversaw Johannes’s promotion at the university.

Apperances are one thing, but I agree this looks more like a theft when you look at the history.

 

[mackbrislawn]

re: Sola Scriptura
"First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. …

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. …

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. …
And, finally, **sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church. **

vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html

As JonNC asked “Why do you think scripture has to lay out worship from invocation to benediction?”

The above are some interesting observations about sola scriptura.

First, it is good to hear it admitted that the “Bible does not contain all knowledge and that is not exhaustive in every detail”. Some knowledge and details are missing. Fortunately, however, for those in the ancient churches such as Orthodox and Catholic, Holy Tradition fills in a lot of those details. Therefore Orthodox and Catholic Christians have access to knowledge and Apostolic teaching that others do not have. These others have often thrown the baby out with the bath water, and are lacking the key knowledge and details that provide context for proper understanding of Holy Scripture.

Second, “SS is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.” It is good to hear this admission as well, since I’ve always figured that was exactly what SS was all about, in actual practice. A denial that there was an an authority on earth to interpret Scripture. But, some questions arise about this “authority” of the “Church.” Such as, what Church is it that has the authority to teach God’s truth? Which denomination? Also, what does it mean to have “authority”? The only source of authority is God, so does this Church teach with God’s authority? Which denomination is it that teaches with God’s authority? And what is “God’s truth”? Does “God’s truth” mean interpreting the Bible with authority?

Finally, “SS is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.” Good again. But, I’ve heard it said that SS was an affirmation that the only thing infallible was Scripture. Which seems to pose a contradiction, since the Holy Spirit is infallible, and the Holy Spirit guides the Church, then that means the Church is infallible.

As far as “why do you think scripture has to lay out worship from invocation to benediction?”, of course scripture does not have to lay out such details. But some denominations say they go by the Bible alone, so if they include details not found in the Bible, they are not living up to their own credo.
Some denominations retain a lot of Catholic traditions, such as the liturgy, baptizing babies, etc. Others go on to reject these Catholic traditions, while others, such as modern liberals, even go so far as to reject the Catholic tradition of the inspiration of Scripture.

 

[JonNC]

The above are some interesting observations about sola scriptura.

First, it is good to hear it admitted that the “Bible does not contain all knowledge and that is not exhaustive in every detail”. Some knowledge and details are missing. Fortunately, however, for those in the ancient churches such as Orthodox and Catholic, Holy Tradition fills in a lot of those details. Therefore Orthodox and Catholic Christians have access to knowledge and Apostolic teaching that others do not have. These others have often thrown the baby out with the bath water, and are lacking the key knowledge and details that provide context for proper understanding of Holy Scripture.

Second, “SS is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.” It is good to hear this admission as well, since I’ve always figured that was exactly what SS was all about, in actual practice. A denial that there was an an authority on earth to interpret Scripture. But, some questions arise about this “authority” of the “Church.” Such as, what Church is it that has the authority to teach God’s truth? Which denomination? Also, what does it mean to have “authority”? The only source of authority is God, so does this Church teach with God’s authority? Which denomination is it that teaches with God’s authority? And what is “God’s truth”? Does “God’s truth” mean interpreting the Bible with authority?

Finally, “SS is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.” Good again. But, I’ve heard it said that SS was an affirmation that the only thing infallible was Scripture. Which seems to pose a contradiction, since the Holy Spirit is infallible, and the Holy Spirit guides the Church, then that means the Church is infallible.

As far as “why do you think scripture has to lay out worship from invocation to benediction?”, of course scripture does not have to lay out such details. But some denominations say they go by the Bible alone, so if they include details not found in the Bible, they are not living up to their own credo.
Some denominations retain a lot of Catholic traditions, such as the liturgy, baptizing babies, etc. Others go on to reject these Catholic traditions, while others, such as modern liberals, even go so far as to reject the Catholic tradition of the inspiration of Scripture.

Admission is an interesting word. It implies that something else was proclaimed, and that later there was a change of position. SS. has never denied Tradition or the historical and scriptural teaching role of the Church. So, it is t an admission in the first place

Jon

 

[mackbrislawn]

Admission is an interesting word. It implies that something else was proclaimed, and that later there was a change of position. SS. has never denied Tradition or the historical and scriptural teaching role of the Church. So, it is t an admission in the first place

Jon

Yes, I admit, I deliberately used the word “admission.”

Of course, whether they are admissions or not depends upon what alwayswill believes about SS, since s/he is the one quoting the “admissions.”

In regards to “change of position,” in usage by subsequent reformers, as the centuries have worn on, there does seem to have been a change of position as to what SS means. They’ve taken the original idea and really ran with it, perhaps to its logical conclusion. The end conclusion which does deny the aforementioned “admissions.”

 

[alwayswill]

The above are some interesting observations about sola scriptura.

First, it is good to hear it admitted that the “Bible does not contain all knowledge and that is not exhaustive in every detail”. Some knowledge and details are missing. Fortunately, however, for those in the ancient churches such as Orthodox and Catholic, Holy Tradition fills in a lot of those details. Therefore Orthodox and Catholic Christians have access to knowledge and Apostolic teaching that others do not have. These others have often thrown the baby out with the bath water, and are lacking the key knowledge and details that provide context for proper understanding of Holy Scripture.

Second, “SS is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.” It is good to hear this admission as well, since I’ve always figured that was exactly what SS was all about, in actual practice. A denial that there was an an authority on earth to interpret Scripture. But, some questions arise about this “authority” of the “Church.” Such as, what Church is it that has the authority to teach God’s truth? Which denomination? Also, what does it mean to have “authority”? The only source of authority is God, so does this Church teach with God’s authority? Which denomination is it that teaches with God’s authority? And what is “God’s truth”? Does “God’s truth” mean interpreting the Bible with authority?

Finally, “SS is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.” Good again. But, I’ve heard it said that SS was an affirmation that the only thing infallible was Scripture. Which seems to pose a contradiction, since the Holy Spirit is infallible, and the Holy Spirit guides the Church, then that means the Church is infallible.

As far as “why do you think scripture has to lay out worship from invocation to benediction?”, of course scripture does not have to lay out such details. But some denominations say they go by the Bible alone, so if they include details not found in the Bible, they are not living up to their own credo.
Some denominations retain a lot of Catholic traditions, such as the liturgy, baptizing babies, etc. Others go on to reject these Catholic traditions, while others, such as modern liberals, even go so far as to reject the Catholic tradition of the inspiration of Scripture.

I only posted a few lines from the entire article here:
vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html
I’m sure many of you questions can be answered

 

[mackbrislawn]

I only posted a few lines from the entire article here:
vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html
I’m sure many of you questions can be answered/QUOTE

Not really.

Heck, it’s only tradition that the scriptures are inspired. Is it a man-made tradition?

 

[JonNC]

Yes, I admit, I deliberately used the word “admission.”

Of course, whether they are admissions or not depends upon what alwayswill believes about SS, since s/he is the one quoting the “admissions.”

In regards to “change of position,” in usage by subsequent reformers, as the centuries have worn on, there does seem to have been a change of position as to what SS means. They’ve taken the original idea and really ran with it, perhaps to its logical conclusion. The end conclusion which does deny the aforementioned “admissions.”

But this assumes that all reformers are of the same tradition or communion, and this is not the case. American evangelicals have almost as little in common with confessional Lutherans and the do Catholics.
I believe they’ve run contrary to the hermeneutical principles embodied in SS.

Jon

 

[mackbrislawn]

But this assumes that all reformers are of the same tradition or communion, and this is not the case. American evangelicals have almost as little in common with confessional Lutherans and the do Catholics.
I believe they’ve run contrary to the hermeneutical principles embodied in SS.

Jon

Hmm…that’s the point. Subsequent reformers took the initial ideas of the Reformation and developed them further, to conclusions not envisioned by the first reformers, and sometimes to their dismay. Whether these further developments were logical consequences of the initial Reformation I suppose is a matter of opinion. An example is the development of the idea of SS that you mention above.

 

[JonNC]

Hmm…that’s the point. Subsequent reformers took the initial ideas of the Reformation and developed them further, to conclusions not envisioned by the first reformers, and sometimes to their dismay. Whether these further developments were logical consequences of the initial Reformation I suppose is a matter of opinion. An example is the development of the idea of SS that you mention above.

I’m not convinced they took their cue from the initial reformers, a least not the Lutheran ones. Virtually all of the things Catholics typically list to illustrate "confusion " in Protestantism - I can’t baptism, real presence, etc.- are from the Reformed and Anabaptists.
Again, it is a faulty premise to speak of Protestants having a singular root

Jon

 

[mackbrislawn]

I’m not convinced they took their cue from the initial reformers, a least not the Lutheran ones. Virtually all of the things Catholics typically list to illustrate "confusion " in Protestantism - I can’t baptism, real presence, etc.- are from the Reformed and Anabaptists.
Again, it is a faulty premise to speak of Protestants having a singular root

Jon

Some non sequitors here.

But you’re right, definitely not from the inititial reformers. Pastor Russell and Joseph Smith were far removed from the initial reformation. So far removed they didn’t even remember what the reformation was all about. Once the notion of reform took hold, it went its own way, in many different directions, such as the Anabaptists. It sort of snow-balled. The Lutherans thought the reform was complete. But that was just their opinion.

Pastor Russell and Joseph Smith felt the need to go back to the notion of a divinely authorized Church, with divine guidance in interpreting scripture.

 

[alwayswill]

Heck, it’s only tradition that the scriptures are inspired. Is it a man-made tradition?

nope : All Scriptures are inspired ( I prefer the term God breathed; aka theopneustos) the moment the are penned; regardless of whether another set of human eyes ever see the writings or not.
No tradition or Tradition can cause a writing to be God breathed.

Do you agree with that?

 

[JonNC]

Some non sequitors here.

But you’re right, definitely not from the inititial reformers. Pastor Russell and Joseph Smith were far removed from the initial reformation. So far removed they didn’t even remember what the reformation was all about. Once the notion of reform took hold, it went its own way, in many different directions, such as the Anabaptists. It sort of snow-balled. The Lutherans thought the reform was complete. But that was just their opinion.

Pastor Russell and Joseph Smith felt the need to go back to the notion of a divinely authorized Church, with divine guidance in interpreting scripture.

They were not even connected to the Lutheran Reformation. The Anabaptists were contemporary to Lutheran, but again, in no way connected. For The Lutheran tradition, the big problem is drift within the tradition, not splits from it. Virtually all the splitting is on the Reformed and Anabaptist camps

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I’m not convinced they took their cue from the initial reformers, a least not the Lutheran ones. Virtually all of the things Catholics typically list to illustrate "confusion " in Protestantism - I can’t baptism, real presence, etc.- are from the Reformed and Anabaptists.
Again, it is a faulty premise to speak of Protestants having a singular root

Jon

That should have read infant baptism. Darn autocorrect

 

[twf]

Why does scripture have to answer that question?

Jon

Jon - you have to realize that this thread is likely more aimed at low church evangelicals who hold to a much more restrictive interpretation of sola scriptura than do Lutherans. Lutherans acknowledge the role of sacred tradition. There are those in evangelical circles who readily condemn the Lutheran liturgy as quickly as they condemn the Catholic mass as the false “traditions of men”.

 

[mackbrislawn]

nope : All Scriptures are inspired ( I prefer the term God breathed; aka theopneustos) the moment the are penned; regardless of whether another set of human eyes ever see the writings or not.
No tradition or Tradition can cause a writing to be God breathed.

Do you agree with that?

It is a teaching of the Catholic Church that scripture is God-breathed, or inspired. If it were not for that Catholic tradition, no one would know nor believe in scripture.

The only reason you, or anyone else, knows that the Christian scriptures are God-breathed is because of the tradition of the Catholic Church.

Yes, I suppose it is true that they are God-breathed the moment they are penned, but so what? Not all scripture was recognized to be inspired at the time. It may have taken centuries for that acknowledgement. Also, if no one else sees them, to what purpose are they?

Yes, I agree with that: Tradition does not cause writings to be inspired, Tradition only passes on the recognition that they are.