The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism

[Bob_Crowley]

I see Sola Scriptura as a means to greater unity among Christians. That could mean that the Catholic Church unites with us Pentecostals.

We couldn’t get the Pope to cross over you mean?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Interesting. I can’t think of anything that has been more divisive in the Body of Christ than the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

This might be beyond the scope of the thread, but what was it that prevented this from happening?

Hi Guanophore–Itwin gave a good answer, but I do have something else in mind regarding your question to me. IMO, my reply relates to your response to Itwin above about SS, so I spent some time writing an answer…and lost my reply yet again to my tablet’s “trick” battery. :banghead: Now I have to get to work. I hope to have time to reply again tonight.

 

[guanophore]

Hi Guanophore–Itwin gave a good answer, but I do have something else in mind regarding your question to me. IMO, my reply relates to your response to Itwin above about SS, so I spent some time writing an answer…and lost my reply yet again to my tablet’s “trick” battery. :banghead: Now I have to get to work. I hope to have time to reply again tonight.

I hate it when that happens! Sometimes I wonder if God doesn’t want me to post whatever I wrote. Is it a divine intervention?

Yes Itwin’s post was very hellpful. Although I was deeply involved in a United Methodis Church for about 6 years, I never studied the history of the denomination. It was some of the best faith formation I have ever known, and I am grateful for the devotion of those in the congregation that showed me what it meant to be a disciple.

 

[PRmerger]

Interesting. I can’t think of anything that has been more divisive in the Body of Christ than the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Indeed.

And, curiously enough, since being on the CAFs I have learned, to my great astonishment, that even the very definition of SS is divisive.

Without a magisterial authority, there can be no one to speak definitively to say, “This is what the church means when we say Sola Scriptura!”

And, even if there were, it would appear that the Protestant paradigm would permit Christians to disobey this hypothetical magisterium, if they felt it contradicted their own personal interpretation of the definition of SS.

 

[JRKH]

Indeed.

And, curiously enough, since being on the CAFs I have learned, to my great astonishment, that even the very definition of SS is divisive.

Without a magisterial authority, there can be no one to speak definitively to say, “This is what the church means when we say Sola Scriptura!”

And, even if there were, it would appear that the Protestant paradigm would permit Christians to disobey this hypothetical magisterium, if they felt it contradicted their own personal interpretation of the definition of SS.

I like your reference to the protestant paradigm. This is where we can start to get passed the protestant “sound bites” and start to really learn what drives and supports Protestantism.

 

[onenow1]

Indeed.

And, curiously enough, since being on the CAFs I have learned, to my great astonishment, that even the very definition of SS is divisive.

.

With so many protestant brethren out there with different understandings, I find it hard to believe even they do not understand Jesus words, the road is narrow that leads to life, and wide that leads to destruction.

god Bless
onenow1

 

[JonNC]

Indeed.

And, curiously enough, since being on the CAFs I have learned, to my great astonishment, that even the very definition of SS is divisive.

Without a magisterial authority, there can be no one to speak definitively to say, "This is what the church means when we say Sola Scriptura!"

And, even if there were, it would appear that the Protestant paradigm would permit Christians to disobey this hypothetical magisterium, if they felt it contradicted their own personal interpretation of the definition of SS.

Hi PR,
A couple of thoughts.

1. Do you think that a lack of magisterial authority also hurts Orthodoxy?
2. Considering that the EO and CC have differing views of Sacred Tradition, is that the same, or different, than different communions having differing practices regarding SS?

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR,
A couple of thoughts.

1. Do you think that a lack of magisterial authority also hurts Orthodoxy?

Absolutely.

1. Considering that the EO and CC have differing views of Sacred Tradition, is that the same, or different, than different communions having differing practices regarding SS?

Jon

Can you articulate the EO’s view on ST and how it differs from the CC’s? I am not aware of what their view on ST actually is.

 

[guanophore]

Absolutely.

Can you articulate the EO’s view on ST and how it differs from the CC’s? I am not aware of what their view on ST actually is.

There are some examples running on different threads. One example is that of the role of the successor of Peter, which they understand to be one of primacy of honor, not supremacy of jurisdiction.

Another is about the form that ecclesial authority is exercised. The EO receieved from their apostles a conciliar model of unity, such as that described in the book of Acts the first council of Jerusalem. Here in the West, the Patriarch has assumed authority greater than the councils, so that they are not valid unless he validates them. There is no Bishop in the EO that would take this stance.

 

[Darryl_B]

Mark Brumley wrote a fascinating article, Why Catholicism Makes Protestantism Tick: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation. The article is an overview of Louis Bouyer’s book,** The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism**.

I think it will interesting to discuss some of the ideas drawn from that article and book.

Start here: ignatiusinsight.com/features/mbrumley_bouyer1_nov04.asp

Printer friendly: ignatiusinsight.com/features/print/mbrumley_bouyer.html

Personally I think the definition of History is inaccurately portrayed by using the term “Reformation” to describe that age. I take exception to that terminology as much as I take exception to those who describe the “Age of Enlightenment” and compare it to the “Dark Ages”.

“Age of Enlightenment” for instance is merely putting a positive spin on what really happened which was the “Age of Disenlightenment”, an age where “Light” was being abandoned. The “Dark Ages” were not “Dark” at all, so things have been turned upside down. Light is now Dark, and Dark is now Light.

Nestled in between is the “Reformation” which is also merely putting a positive spin on what really happened. If the Catholic Church reformed itself the term “Reformation” would be appropriate. But as it stands, it was really a “Revolution” that aided in future centuries, the abandonment of God, the rise of humanity, where God became “Dark” and Man became “Light”.

 

[ltwin]

Personally I think the definition of History is inaccurately portrayed by using the term “Reformation” to describe that age. I take exception to that terminology as much as I take exception to those who describe the “Age of Enlightenment” and compare it to the “Dark Ages”.

“Age of Enlightenment” for instance is merely putting a positive spin on what really happened which was the “Age of Disenlightenment”, an age where “Light” was being abandoned. The “Dark Ages” were not “Dark” at all, so things have been turned upside down. Light is now Dark, and Dark is now Light.

Nestled in between is the “Reformation” which is also merely putting a positive spin on what really happened. If the Catholic Church reformed itself the term “Reformation” would be appropriate. But as it stands, it was really a “Revolution” that aided in future centuries, the abandonment of God, the rise of humanity, where God became “Dark” and Man became “Light”.

But the Catholic Church did reform itself. It’s called the Counter Reformation, and it began with the Council of Trent (1545-1563). So, the term “Reformation” is a perfect description of the entire era, whether we’re talking about Protestants or Catholics.

 

[JonNC]

Absolutely.

Can you articulate the EO’s view on ST and how it differs from the CC’s? I am not aware of what their view on ST actually is.

What Guanophore said.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

What Guanophore said.

Jon

Post number?

 

[JonNC]

Post number?

Sorry, #29

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

There are some examples running on different threads. One example is that of the role of the successor of Peter, which they understand to be one of primacy of honor, not supremacy of jurisdiction.

Another is about the form that ecclesial authority is exercised. The EO receieved from their apostles a conciliar model of unity, such as that described in the book of Acts the first council of Jerusalem. Here in the West, the Patriarch has assumed authority greater than the councils, so that they are not valid unless he validates them. There is no Bishop in the EO that would take this stance.

Ah, just saw this.

I view those differences in “Tradition” (although I have not fully subscribed to the idea that these are inspired Truths communicated to the EO–in fact, I am almost willing to say that I reject that view that this has been communicated to them via ST) as very, very minor.

 

[guanophore]

Ah, just saw this.

I view those differences in “Tradition” (although I have not fully subscribed to the idea that these are inspired Truths communicated to the EO–in fact, I am almost willing to say that I reject that view that this has been communicated to them via ST) as very, very minor.

These are what was handed down to them by their aposltes, through the paradosis. Two other examples would be the date of celebration of the Pasca (Easter) and the nature of the Bread to be consecrated. All of these issues have continued to be barriers to unity.

Oh and let’s not forget about married priests. The West considers this a discipline (as opposed to a doctrine) but it has presented some obstacles with unification.

 

[PRmerger]

These are what was handed down to them by their aposltes, through the paradosis. Two other examples would be the date of celebration of the Pasca (Easter) and the nature of the Bread to be consecrated. All of these issues have continued to be barriers to unity.

Oh and let’s not forget about married priests. The West considers this a discipline (as opposed to a doctrine) but it has presented some obstacles with unification.

All of the above sounds like differences in discipline, not doctrine/dogma.

 

[guanophore]

All of the above sounds like differences in discipline, not doctrine/dogma.

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

Still, the sacred traditions that were handed down to them are as valuable as ours, and they naturally are unwilling to abandon them for the purpose of conformity.

 

[PRmerger]

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

Amen!

Still, the sacred traditions that were handed down to them are as valuable as ours, and they naturally are unwilling to abandon them for the purpose of conformity.

Again, I am not certain (rather, I tend to reject) the idea that the date of Easter is a product of Sacred Tradition.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mark Brumley wrote a fascinating article, Why Catholicism Makes Protestantism Tick: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation.

What a breath of fresh air here on the CA forums to find someone recommending one of the authors typically viewed as part of the Catholic reassessment movement (Louis Bouyer). Catholic scholarship previous to say, 1917 or so, held Luther in very low regard and typically (but not entirely) primarily attacked Luther the person rather than Luther the honest theologian. Louis Bouyer belong to a generation of Catholic scholarship that attempted to go beyond entirely negative polemics. I like how Mr. Brumley described Bouyer’s book: "it avoids the bitter anti-Protestantism that sometimes afflicted pre-conciliar Catholic works on Protestantism." Indeed. Probably half of the squabbles I’ve had with Catholics come from them utilizing Catholic studies from the period before the Catholic reassessment movement (Grisar, Denifle, O’Hare, etc). Had they moved beyond these outdated works into more current Catholic Luther scholarship (Lortz, Wicks, McSorley, etc.), I think the conversations would have been less hostile and more fruitful.

I thought the article by Mark Brumley was a good Catholic overview of Bouyer, in fact I saved a copy for my files, so thank you. Frankly, I’m surprised there hasn’t been more responses to the actual article considering the recent strong current of anti-Luther polemic here in the forum. I would speculate it’s because the article was long and a bit complicated, and also framed the theological issues in way most folks visiting here aren’t used to. Consider that Brumley explains that Bouyer believed that sola gratia, sola fide, and sola scriptura were on a certain level, correct doctrines. He quotes Bouyer saying,

Luther’s basic intuition, on which Protestantism continuously draws for its abiding vitality, so far from being hard to reconcile with Catholic tradition, or inconsistent with the teaching of the Apostles, was a return to the clearest elements of their teaching, and in the most direct line of that tradition.

Now this sort of statement being made here at Catholic Answers is sort of like* giving the store away*. Think of all the discussions and debate over sola fide and sola scriptura that have occurred here… and now a Catholic theologian is saying these things were a return to the clearest elements of the teachings of the apostles?

Of course, how Bouyer explains sola fide and sola scriptura is not exactly what I as committed Protestant mean, so there’s certainly room for a healthy debate. I can appreciate that Bouyer is taking distinctly Protestant slogans and attempting to synthesize them into Catholicism. On the other hand, I’m leery of attempts of taking historic terms and redefining them so as to fit into another system of thought.

For instance, even with his appeal to sola gratia, I’ve always understood that the Catholic church teaches that God’s grace is necessary. Where I differ as a Reformed Protestant is that God’s grace is not only necessary, but completely sufficient. Brumley explains Bouyer: "Man freely cooperates in salvation, but his free cooperation is itself the result of grace." That “free cooperation part” even if its origin is God’s grace, is, in my opinion, a denial of the sufficiency of grace, and hence a denial of* sola gratia*.

Before anyone thinks Bouyer is presenting a kumbaya theology, he is critical or Protestantism and sees Luther as distorting the Catholic faith. One fairly famous quote from the book is that “….it was Luther himself, and not only the stupidity of his followers, who provided all the elements of the system which was to imprison, rather than protect, the original doctrine” (p. 166 1956 edition).