There is only one. The one holy catholic and apostolic Church. But that part of the Church that confesses, along with the early creeds and councils, the Augsburg Confession, is the one to which I was referring. But then, you knew that.
Jon
- Status
Jon
P
philial
Guest
Oh, I see now, Jon - that part which rejects apostolic succession!!!
Let me know when you want to dialogue charitably.
Jon
PS: On AS, the Lutheran confessions say:
We do not reject AS.
Jon
P
philial
Guest
Hmmm, uncharitable, eh? Abrupt, perhaps. Blunt, certainly, but whatever lack of charity you perceive pales compared with the tirades of abuse the founder of your church vomited out against the successor of Peter (as well as peasants & jews, of course).
As for his theology - consubstantiation ring any bells?
As for his theology - consubstantiation ring any bells?
F
fbl9
Guest
If you have a problem with what Luther said against the church take it it up with him. As for JonNC i have yet to see anything resembling uncharitable from his postings.
Luther was certainly a product of his time, that’s for sure. Anti-judaism was rampant, even within the Church (see Johannes Eck). That’s not defending him, but it is recognizing that he was human with flaws.
But I’m not Luther. He died in 1546. I don’t speak to my Catholic brothers and sisters that way, and I won’t defend those who do. So, again, I will be happy to dialogue with you on a charitable level, much like our respective leaders do today.
Luther did not teach consubstantiation. That was a charge made against him by the Calvinists.
What he did teach was sacramental union, which lacks the philosphical/metaphysical construct of both Transubstantiation and consubstantiation. What Luther and Lutherans believe is the words of Christ - “Take and eat, this [bread] is my body”.
Jon
P
philial
Guest
What are you on about??? Who has suggested jon of being uncharitable? The reverse is true, but I’ll shed no tears over that.
get your facts straight!
However, good advice about Luther - wouldn’t happen to know his phone number, by any chance? Thought I might give him a bell, bit of a chat… whaddja think?
In the sense that we will again have our glorified bodies at the time of the second coming, yes.
Jon
J
johnnyjones
Guest
True Fundamentalism can be scary.
I wouldn’t consider true fundamentalists sola scriptura. solo scriputra, more likely.
Jon
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Scripture alone. A peculiar version of it sometimes but never the less only scripture for the Fundamentalist.
Well, the sola in sola scriptura refers ONLY to scripture being the final norm. The only final norm is scripture. That’s the “sola”. The correct phrase, then is not “scripture alone”, but “scripture alone as the final norm”. It doesn’t exclude in any way Tradition, creeds, councils, confessions, etc.
Jon
J
johnnyjones
Guest
The cathoic church refers to sola scriptura as the 'final norm" but a Protestant Fundamentalist uses sola scriptura (and they use that term) as their only norm because that’s all they use, scripture, for the basis of the faith. Widely subject to interpretation of course. Only the bible as they see it which deviates from catholicism’s original meaning.
B
bzkoss236
Guest
The term ‘sola scriptura’ means “by scripture alone” just as ‘sola fide’ means “by faith alone”. This means that they claim that scripture is their only source of revealed truth by God.
What you describe as scripture as the final norm is ‘prima scriptura’ or “scripture is the primary source for revealed truth”, meaning that everything is to be tested by scripture, even what the claims of the ECFs.
Prima scriptura isn’t quite what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are of equal authority and one should not contradict the other. So, Sacred Tradition is tested against Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Scripture is tested against Sacred Tradition. This accountability helps prevent corruption in interpretation (a gift of the Holy Spirit, IMO).
T
Trebor135
Guest
Great.
I went back and took another look at post #19, leading to the realization that I had misread your original post. The follow-up I was going to pose is now, well, moot.
My mistake.May the Lord bless you and the Theotokos pray for you.
PM me with what you were going to ask. The curousity is killing me.Great.
I went back and took another look at post #19, leading to the realization that I had misread your original post. The follow-up I was going to pose is now, well, moot.
May the Lord bless you and the Theotokos pray for you.
Jon
J
johnnyjones
Guest
This is Johnnyjones- yes I may have used some poor wording . My point was that Protestant Fundamentalists refer to sola scriptura as meaning only the bible, and the bible as they see it. Matching scripture to tradition with no conflict is a catholic viewpoint as you say.
B
bzkoss236
Guest
Just making sure you have your bases covered
I apologize if I stepped on your toes a bit in the process.
P
paul_c
Guest
Jon,
as we have discussed many times before, you can not claim that Scripture is the final norm when it is so clear that our Traditions define how we understand scripture. You look at scripture through Lutheran Tradition to come to conclusions on what scripture means, just as Catholic use our Traditions as the basis for our understanding of scripture. James 2 is a perfect example. Your tradition tells you that James means that faith that doesn’t result in works is dead faith, yet Faith is still the primary driver of salvation. Catholic tradition tells us that James meant what he said, that Faith is meaningless without works and that as Paul says in 1Corinthians 13: Love is the primary driver of salvation (since if you had Faith enough to move mountains, but did not have love, you are nothing). So you see, scripture is not the final norm. Tradition is. Otherwise, we would all understand scripture in the same way. (Besides, the New Testament didn’t even exist at the start of the Church, so how could it be the norm)
- Status