P
PRmerger
Guest
Don’t you think 1 Colossians 24 contradicts John’s gospel? Paul says that he makes up what is lacking. John says Christ did everything.
Using your paradigm we would have to exclude Colossians from the kerygma.
- Status
Using your paradigm we would have to exclude Colossians from the kerygma.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It is that which was handed down ORALLY, from the Apostles, to their successors, the bishops, to their successors, the bishops…
Eminently so, Jon.
It’s not true 1800 years after the Apostles. It’s always been the teaching of the Church. And was true in the 1st century.
Why the Holy Spirit decided to formalize the teaching in the 19th century is a mystery.
But, again, it’s incorrect to assert that it only became true in 1870.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I often use this analogy from my own family:
It has been the “constant teaching” in our house that when the kids come home from school they are to do certain things: hang up their backpacks, put their shoes away, wash their hands, take off their uniforms, eat their snack, finish their chores, practice their piano, etc etc etc.
Despite the fact that they have been doing this every school day for 5-15 years every once in a while we need to have a “family meeting” to pronounce, declare and define exactly who should be doing which job and how it is to be done. (Note: I try to ignore their incredulous looks that say, “What? We’re supposed to hang up our backpacks again this year?” or “What? You’ve never said that we had to take off our uniforms and hang them up!” )
At this council we recall what’s been done in the past, review the current norms and define again exactly what’s the expectation. Sometimes the kids complain that we are “making up new rules”, claiming we’ve “never done it this way before” when **in actuality we are just pronouncing, declaring and defining a standard norm of our family. **
Thus, the solemn declaration of the dogma of infallibility was not newly formed in 1870. It was a constant belief held and spoken of for many years, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. Perhaps in order to alleviate any doubt and to correct any wrong information, God chose 1870 as the time to pronounce, declare and define this belief and practice.
However, this dogma was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves.
T
Topper17
Guest
A few quick questions Jon:
Do you think that Arius ‘inherited’ the keys from the Church, meaning an authority to teach? Do you think that the sect that he founded was (and still is) a part of ‘The Church’? What about Montanus? Pelagius? Nestorius?
Do you think that the ‘power of the keys’ is validly held equally to all who lay claim to them? Or do you think there are communions who claim to hold the keys, but that in reality, they don’t? I guess the bigger question is whether there are any circumstances under which a Christian group can falsely lay claim to the authority of the keys?
Who determines which groups claims are valid and which are not?
Does the actual content of the “word” and the number of keys matter?
Can any group break away from ‘the Church’, and then teach their particular interpretation of Scriptures and still be considered to be part of ‘the Church’? Can they determine the number of sacraments for themselves, and practice them in any way they see fit?
As you know Jon, the official position of Catholic Answers, and for that matter, the Catholic Church, is that Protestantism, including Lutheranism, is a heresy. As such, my position on the matter, while certainly not popular with a segment of CA posters, is **not ** exactly radical or unusual.
It seems that you consider Lutheranism to be a valid continuation of Apostolic Christianity, equally “Church” to the Catholic Church. If you disagree please correct me.
You claim to have such respect for the Catholic Church. Doesn’t the position of the Church on Lutheranism and greater Protestantism give you pause? Isn’t it a matter of some concern? By all outward appearances, you are **100% sure **that Lutheranism is a ‘valid continuation’. Is that really true or is there a hint of doubt in there anywhere? 1% maybe, or even a tenth of 1%?
I’ve heard some non-Catholics claim that Catholics do not trust the Holy Spirit, but I stew put their trust in a man. I think we make a mistake when we when question each other’s trust in God.
Jon
Not at all. In context:
Paul does not deny Christ’s complete work of salvation. He is speaking of his work in the Church, that he is filling the role of minister for Christ in His Church.
Jon
The only context within which your questions can be answered is an assumption that Lutheranism is a break-away from the One Holy Church. I reject that assumption on its face.
I am aware of the Catholic Church’s position on Lutheranism. To say that your presentation of the Catholic view of Luther and Lutheranism conforms to the modern presentation is quite a stretch.
Equal in what way? In historic longevity, the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome is far older, as is the Eastern Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox. In terms of God’s grace made available to sinners there, yes.
Why do you state it as a claim? I suggest you go back through the history of my postings here to see if my claim is backed up by my words. Yes, words are anecdotal, as well, but since you do not know me, I can tell you that, in fact, I have great respect and admiration for the Catholic Church.
No more than the Lutheran position on the papacy should give you pause.
Mark 9 And Jesus said to him, “‘If you can’! All things are possible for one who believes.” 24Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!”
Yes, I believe that when the pastor says: “As a called and ordained servant of Christ, and by His authority, I therefore forgive you all of your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen”, my sins are absolved.
I believe when the pastor speaks the verba, it is the true body and blood of Christ.
Jon
iPhones and auto-correct. This should have said, “but instead put their trust in a man.”
Sorry
T
Topper17
Guest
Actually Jon, you do spend time defending Luther, and you do it by repeatedly introducing Eck into the conversation. First of all, you misrepresent my position by your claim that I think that Eck ‘deserves a pass”, and I have to point out that I do see the irony in that statement. Furthermore, if there is a ‘contest angle’ regarding Luther vs Eck as to which was ‘worse’ towards the Jews, then it is as a result of your bringing Eck into the discussion. In addition, this actually IS an apologetics forum, and a Catholic one at that.
This is not the first time that you have brought Eck into the ‘vs. Jews’ topic. The last time you did you were then also completely unable to offer ANY specifics about why Eck should be compared to Luther on the matter.
I am quite aware that you are not defending Luther’s ‘anti-Jewish rants’. For that matter I don’t defend Eck’s. The point though is that Eck’s actually were ‘anti-Jewish rants’, whereas Luther’s were very specific recommendations as to what he clearly wanted to see happen to the Jews. **** There is a HUGE difference between the two. As for bringing in the issue of the 20th century madman – you know that you as a Lutheran, do not want to go there.
It is important to note that John Eck did not start his own Church. He did not found a new Christian ‘tradition’. There are no modern day Christians who refer to themselves as ‘Eckites’ and there has never been a Church which has the name “Eck” on the sign out front. John Eck did not launch off into radical new directions of Christian doctrine and as such, whether he was anti-Jewish, or worse, is of very little consequence. As such Martin Luther deserves a level of scrutiny that Eck does not.
I will tell you this though. There is a very important reason why understanding Luther’s teachings on the Jews are significant. His teachings on the Jews reveal his abilities as a Scriptural Exegete. They also demonstrate his ‘understanding’ of the Christian Gospel, or actually, the complete lack thereof. Furthermore, it was not only the issue of the Jews on which Luther demonstrated a poor ‘understanding’ of the Christian Gospel and also Christian Scripture. As you know, he also recommended that the Peasants be slaughtered ‘without mercy’, and that 100,000 were. He recommended that Anabaptists be executed, not just for sedition, but for the simple offense of ‘incorrect belief’. He recommended that wives who would not have intercourse with their husbands be executed by the state. He taught these and many other completely ridiculous things, including blasphemy about various books of the Bible, always while quoting Scripture (furiously of course).
These are all things which Protestantism and especially Lutheranism has been ‘reluctant’ to reveal. (I do love a good understatement
). On the other hand a great deal is made of his teaching on Salvation by Faith Alone (pick a version), and Sola Scriptura (pick a version). With Luther’s track record on the Jews, Anabaptists, the Pope, reluctant wives, the Peasants, the Bible, etc,what sense would it make to blindly follow him on Sola Scriptura and Salvatiuon by Faith Alone, neither of which had ever been noticed previously in Scripture.The big question is why anyone would have ANY confidence that Luther was able to correctly discern the Christian Gospel and correctly understand Christian Scripture on the issue of Scripture and Salvation, when he has such a TERRIBLE track record on all of those less than well-known (more hidden) issues.
Actually Jon, I am perfectly happy to have you criticize me personally because it is very revealing in regards to your motives. As for your comments about my ‘style’ - you are not the only one with frustrations here.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
My post didn’t come across the way I intended. I didn’t mean to imply that Lutherans don’t trust the Holy Spirit.
Expressed another way…
Catholics rely on the Holy Spirit through it’s teaching authority which can be found in the Magisterium.
It at least appears to me that Lutherans find that reliance through written documents only with their sole source (Bible) and ancient writings (early Church Fathers) that support that sole source. Is that an accurate view of how Lutherans rely on the Holy Spirit to guide them?
P
pablope
Guest
Because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit…and what is true before is true now.
That is unless you think that the HS has stopped guiding the Church?
Or this guidance has been withdrawn and given to the Lutherans?
Thank you for your clarification. The way it read (to me) didn’t sound like you.
Yes. What I tried to convey with my use of the Blessed Virgin was that we can indeed receive a teaching such as that, but to hold the conscience of the believer to it needs a level of scriptural confirmation. Hence, the way we practice sola scriptura to hold all teachings and doctrines accountable to scripture.
Jon
Of course the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. All believers are guided by the Holy Spirit. We as Lutherans and Catholics, agree with the words of the Council of Orange, when it says:
Indeed, no one can even come to faith without the guidance of the Spirit.
That would mean the end of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which we both confess. Every time there is a Baptism is proof that the Spirit continues to guide the Church.
This would be contrary to Lutheran teaching, and contrary to what I see every day. I see the guidance of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and many others. As I said, every time one see a Baptism, one sees the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
His guidance does not always mean our complete understanding, in any communion. But His grace is sufficient to overcome our human failings.
Jon
Which bishops, PR? Only those in communion with the bishop of Rome?
Good, because I wanted to use a topic that would not become heated.
Why is it, then, that the other patriarchs of the Church either did not recognize it, or did not accept it?
Yes, I’ve recently offered that type question in my parish.
Would it be wrong to assert that, among the patriarchs of the early church, the teaching is not universally accepted? If so, then the first questions comes back to us; which bishops?
Note that I am not questioning the faith of Catholics, but I bring this up in the context of why did the Lutheran reformers turn more narrowly to scripture.
Jon
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
The Catholic Church needs a level of scriptural confirmation as well. We don’t have any teachings that are 100% outside the Bible. We consider both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as forming from the same “one thing” (see bolded by me below):
Source:
CCC 80-83:
Source:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PL.HTM
Would you say, then, that it is a matter of the level of explicit testimony from scripture our communions require?
Jon
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
I would characterize it as viewing the testimony differently.
A
awsiukiewicz
Guest
I got sort of excited when I say your post…I guess I have a different take on the whole ‘sola scriptura’ matter…as it relates to ‘sola fide’…scripture alone…for me questions from the Protestant side that Tradition and ‘works’…it’s my understanding, and I listen to Bot Radio sometimes jus to get a ‘feel’ for the Protestant ‘take’ on things…I believe that there are very well meaning loving solid Evangelical Christians who love Christ…that are in that Protestant camp that believes that we ‘buy’ our way into Heaven…the Devotions, Litanies, Rosary…etc…as I understand it we believe that it’s faith with good works…I have had this loving discussion with Protestant friends who are almost vehement about the fact that once saved always saved…scripture alone…I often wonder if they realize who put the Bible together…seriously no insult intended here…if some one more eloquent could elaborate I would indeed be happy…Pax
P
PRmerger
Guest
No. Any bishop that has been validly ordained and can trace his anointing to the Apostles.
Then you understand our concern about the differing views of Tradition, such as the one we used as an example. Who does one believe?
Jon
- Status