What are "The Essentials"?

[Contarini]

Man made is the only kind of tradition there is.

That seems neither more nor less true than the statement “man made is the only kind of book there is.”

The idea that a book can be divine but a tradition can’t seems to owe more to early modern infatuation with the printed book (and perhaps, before that, scholastic notions about authoritative texts) than to anything in the sources of the Christian faith themselves.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 gets overused by Catholics, often in ways that beg the question of just what these traditions were and how, if at all, they’ve been passed on to us.

But it surely does establish the principle that oral tradition and written communication are two equally legitimate ways of passing on apostolic teaching–one is no more intrinsically “man-made” than the other. (If anything, oral tradition would be primary, but I won’t push that point!)

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

That seems neither more nor less true than the statement “man made is the only kind of book there is.”

The idea that a book can be divine but a tradition can’t seems to owe more to early modern infatuation with the printed book (and perhaps, before that, scholastic notions about authoritative texts) than to anything in the sources of the Christian faith themselves.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 gets overused by Catholics, often in ways that beg the question of just what these traditions were and how, if at all, they’ve been passed on to us.

But it surely does establish the principle that oral tradition and written communication are two equally legitimate ways of passing on apostolic teaching–one is no more intrinsically “man-made” than the other. (If anything, oral tradition would be primary, but I won’t push that point!)

Edwin

Yeah, Sixpence. What he ^ said.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think I am - If I’m not mistaken I’m going by the definition of what the Catholic church magisterium teaches. While there’s a broad range of individual Catholic viewpoints that I could choose from, I don’t think that a Catholic gets to do that - one has to stick to church teaching from it’s highest and most rigorous authority.

I’m not sure what you mean by “highest and most rigorous.”

As Protestant apologists are fond of pointing out, magisterial statements have to be interpreted, themselves. You seem to be suggesting that one should always go for the most rigorous possible interpretation of a magisterial statement–always siding with the School of Shammai over the School of Hillel, as it were. That’s a pretty draconian principle and I’m baffled as to where you get it.

Now if I were suggesting that one can disregard the guidelines laid down by the CDF’s notification to “Ad Tuendam Fidem,” for instance, you’d have a case. I myself struggle with this–I find the principles found in that document (particularly the “second level” of infallible teaching) very troubling, but I have some scruples about converting while dissenting from them (even though many Catholics do dissent from them).

But we’re not talking about an issue on which the Magisterium has spoken. Cardinal Dulles’ “moderate infallibilism” has been out there for years, years during which he was raised to high honor within the Catholic Church (while, as he told me, continuing to hold to the validity of “moderate infallibilism”), and as far as I know he has never been censured for this view.

Furthermore, JPII and Pope Benedict themselves, in their overtures toward the Orthodox, have sent some pretty strong signals about their willingness to interpret Vatican I in a very moderate way.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Raher that say that Catholics may be too intellectual, perhaps I should say that us Lutherans are a simple folk. Maybe we drink too much beer

I don’t find the developed Lutheran doctrine of justification (as found in the Formula of Concord, for instance, with its careful anathemas of various errors) to be simple at all.

But Lutherans do have a great appetite for paradox and an unwillingness to make things too neat. This is very similar to Orthodoxy, and I find it very congenial. I find Lutheranism a lot more appealing than Reformed theology for basically the same reasons that I find Eastern theology more appealing than Western.

But that being said, I think that having a systematic, logical approach also has its advantages. As I said in a recent thread in the “Eastern Catholicism” forum, I find Orthodox resistance to a “juridical” approach less than appealing when it comes to ecclesiology, because it paradoxically results in a much harsher attitude than that of Catholicism.

And I think that’s somewhat evident in our present conversation in your case, also. You find the careful distinctions and interpretations RC theologians engage in (with regard to their own tradition) to be overly sophisticated. But this careful, nuanced (perhaps to some tastes overly clever) approach to the faith allows for a breadth and flexibility that you don’t find in either confessional Lutheranism or (for the most part) in Orthodoxy.

Of course, you may see breadth and flexibility as bad things in theology!

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

Yes! I undertand the Transubstantiation is doctrine for the dogma.

Let me also add that I’m not at all suggesting that Lutheran simplicity is superior - on some issues I find it helpful, but in others issues the depth of Catholic teaching is very helpful indeed.

I would say that in certain issues, the lack of Lutheran rigor has lead some too-flexable Lutherans to their own ideas that are contrary to the truth. For example, we Lutherans generally ignored the problem of contraceptives until it was too late. While we were busy ignoring the problem, our Catholic friends created Humana Vita as a bulwark for the truth.

May I also add as an example of too-flexible the fact that some Lutherans are willing to describe the real presence as consubstantiation.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

May I also add as an example of too-flexible the fact that some Lutherans are willing to describe the real presence as consubstantiation.

Jon

I don’t get the Lutheran aversion to this phrase. I can see why you don’t want to use it because it’s too technical, but it seems to describe accurately what you believe. (Essentially, you believe in consubstantiation the same way the Orthodox and some Anglo-Catholics believe in transubstantiation!)

Edwin

 

[benjohnson]

You seem to be suggesting that one should always go for the most rigorous possible interpretation of a magisterial statement–always siding with the School of Shammai over the School of Hillel, as it were. That’s a pretty draconian principle and I’m baffled as to where you get it.

Perhaps I should say more ‘more authoritative’ - the work output of V I was concise, plainly spoken, and authoritative. So I don’t quite see how we get to pick a personal viewpoint of one particular individual person. Sort of like how the Catholic church is pro-life, even though a lot of it’s members use contraceptives - the higher authority wins on church teaching.

As far as why one should pick higher and clearer level, perhaps it’s my mostly American upbringing where Natural Law > Constitution > Federal Law > State Law > Local Law.

I’m also think it’s a wise principal when dealing in our own governance at my Church - oftentimes someone really wants to break a significant rule (and even has a plausible reason for it), but the healthy of the synod needs a happy compliance with the highest ideal.

Furthermore, JPII and Pope Benedict themselves, in their overtures toward the Orthodox, have sent some pretty strong signals about their willingness to interpret Vatican I in a very moderate way.

Edwin

I’m glad that’s happening, as it may allow some some room for us Lutherans. But you have to admit that it’s sort of a pattern - without overturning previous doctrine (or dogma) the Church is quite good at taking the thorns out over the years and doing it without the embarrassment of having to reverse the original concept.

This flexibility is good on one level, but… and this is strictly my own personal opinion… it doesn’t provide good evidence that the Catholic church is guided quantitatively better than my own church.

So one part of my mind, I’m glad for this easing, but the part of my mind that still desires Platonic ideals wishes there was an obvious “one true church” free of change.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t get the Lutheran aversion to this phrase. I can see why you don’t want to use it because it’s too technical, but it seems to describe accurately what you believe.

Edwin

Hi Edwin,
It does if one looks at it from the perspective of philosophical. Christ’s words, however, are what we look at, that being “this [bread] is my body.” We aren’t talking about a mixing or mingling. I honestly think Melanchthon’s description in the Apology does the best description, regardless of what he thought later.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

Of course, you may see breadth and flexibility as bad things in theology!

Edwin

I’m rather happy that my church provide me with a rather strict set of rules - it gives me great freedom to explore my faith, knowing that i’ll be quickly and happily corrected. So on that point I, agree.

But (this is my viewpoint alone) - I’m quite content that there’s all sorts of other Christian churches that allow others to experience God in a fashion that works for them. I have no desire to remake all churches Lutheran at all, though I do feel that we do have some ideas worth sharing. I also think we Lutherans can learn from others, but that’s certainly above my ability to decerne.

 

[benjohnson]

I don’t get the Lutheran aversion to this phrase. I can see why you don’t want to use it because it’s too technical, but it seems to describe accurately what you believe. (Essentially, you believe in consubstantiation the same way the Orthodox and some Anglo-Catholics believe in transubstantiation!)

Edwin

My view:

Some definitions are more error-prone that others, but even the most verbose of definitions will never approach the truth as the vocabulary we humans use are insufficient to fully describe the mystery.

Just as a “very-very-very-large” number is never Infinity, no definition can fully describe the Mystery.

 

[Contarini]

Perhaps I should say more ‘more authoritative’ - the work output of V I was concise, plainly spoken, and authoritative. So I don’t quite see how we get to pick a personal viewpoint of one particular individual person. Sort of like how the Catholic church is pro-life, even though a lot of it’s members use contraceptives - the higher authority wins on church teaching.

But it seems to me that you’re confusing two things. The prolife position is something that the Catholic Church obviously enforces and insists on. There’s no ambiguity about the fact that the Church condemns abortion from conception on (though there’s some room for debate about “double effect” issues and about whether ensoulment occurs at conception).

But what I’m suggesting is an interpretation of Vatican I–a static text that exists in the past and needs to be interpreted and applied in the present. There have been no condemnations of this position.

As far as why one should pick higher and clearer level, perhaps it’s my mostly American upbringing where Natural Law > Constitution > Federal Law > State Law > Local Law.

I don’t see why you identify “higher” with “clearer.”

We aren’t talking about a conflict between “levels.” We’re talking about interpretation.

The Constitution needs to be interpreted.

The parallel here would be with an interpretation of the Constitution on which the Supreme Court has not yet ruled, but which has been put forward by a well-respected scholar of Constitutional law.

You’re setting up your personal interpretation of Vatican I as authoritative. This has some problems even when done with regard to authorities you accept (like Scripture; or Vatican I for a Catholic). But it makes no sense at all to do this with regard to an authority you don’t accept, and use your interpretation as a reason for not accepting it.

I’m glad that’s happening, as it may allow some some room for us Lutherans. But you have to admit that it’s sort of a pattern - without overturning previous doctrine (or dogma) the Church is quite good at taking the thorns out over the years and doing it without the embarrassment of having to reverse the original concept.

Well, I think this is a problem for all Christians, because we do it with Scripture. Fundamentalists claim not to, but even they can’t really avoid it, because it’s built into the way the NT interprets the OT and even the way parts of the OT interpret other parts.

So either we accept this method, it seems to me, or we abandon Christianity (and probably any form of revealed religion) entirely.

This flexibility is good on one level, but… and this is strictly my own personal opinion… it doesn’t provide good evidence that the Catholic church is guided quantitatively better than my own church.

So one part of my mind, I’m glad for this easing, but the part of my mind that still desires Platonic ideals wishes there was an obvious “one true church” free of change.

Well, I suggest that you give some serious consideration to Orthodoxy.

I think there’s a very good reason why confessional Lutherans tend to become Orthodox, as someone has pointed out recently.

Lutheranism and Orthodoxy have a similar approach to revealed truth; Calvinism and Catholicism have more in common, methodologically.

Now I think there are good reasons to accept the Catholic approach, even though on matters of specific doctrine as well as liturgy (of course) I prefer Orthodoxy. But it appears that you, for some strange reason, don’t think exactly like me. . . . .

God bless,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

My view:

Some definitions are more error-prone that others, but even the most verbose of definitions will never approach the truth as the vocabulary we humans use are insufficient to fully describe the mystery.

Just as a “very-very-very-large” number is never Infinity, no definition can fully describe the Mystery.

Absolutely. I get why Lutherans don’t want to use the term. What I don’t get is why you are so adamant about it instead of saying, “Well, that sort of describes what we believe, but we don’t like to use that kind of technical language about such a mystery.”

Edwin

 

[benjohnson]

Absolutely. I get why Lutherans don’t want to use the term. What I don’t get is why you are so adamant about it instead of saying, “Well, that sort of describes what we believe, but we don’t like to use that kind of technical language about such a mystery.”

Edwin

Oh let me add a personal reason, it’s also because I’m intellectually sneaky!

If I don’t define it, I can’t be proven wrong.

 

[JonNC]

Absolutely. I get why Lutherans don’t want to use the term. What I don’t get is why you are so adamant about it instead of saying, “Well, that sort of describes what we believe, but we don’t like to use that kind of technical language about such a mystery.”

Edwin

Its the “sort of” part that bother me. The “sort of” part becomes the focus for some. The focus ends up being on what happens, instead of what is. I contend in my rather ecumenical mind that the “sort ofs” tend to lead to greater tension between those of us who otherwise agree that Christ meant what He said - this is my body.
Frankly, beyond the philosophical, it seems to me a distinction without a difference, between Transubstantiation and Sacramental Union.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

We aren’t talking about a conflict between “levels.” We’re talking about interpretation.

I think the crux is that I just don’t see much room for interpretation in this. I’ll admit, that I’m a grumpy old man trapped a younger man’s body.

Well, I suggest that you give some serious consideration to Orthodoxy.

I’d love to be in communion with an Orthodox church! There is much gospel to be found there. I have family and friends that compel me - they are the proximate reason I have found God so I own them more than a lifetime of service.

God bless,

Edwin

Thank you Edwin. And thank you for your charity in dealing with me.

God bless you too!

 

[Sixpence]

You are absolutely right about that, Sixpence.

Sacred Tradition, however, is the Word of God and therefore decidedly *not *man-made.

The Word of God has not been transmitted orally from generation to generation (meaning words are memorized and passed on) for about three thousand years. Absent that, some drift is inevitable, and some particular theological identity (whether east or west or African or American or Syrian) is inevitable. Some of that happens even with that anchor of memorization and reliable transmission, but at least it leaves you with some type of material that is divinely inspired.

Without a legit oral tradition. Without sets of memorized passages that are reliably transmitted orally. All you are left with is a variety of man made traditions, and what you call sacred tradition is one of them. The only real distinction is that the men who made your tradition wound up having an enhanced sense of their own infallibility.

Do you plan on answering any of my questions, and have you looked into your potential lurker problem. I don’t want to have any more issues with you.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you plan on answering any of my questions

Oh! I didn’t know you wanted a specific answer to your question (the only one I found that I hadn’t answered. If there’s more, please direct me and I will respond. )

Ok, If you really want an answer this question you posed below

When was it that you realized Protestants have tradition?

here it is: I guess it was about 3 months after I joined the CAFs? Give or take. So the date would be, approximately, 6/17/03.

and have you looked into your potential lurker problem.

Not sure what this means? Could you please 'splain?

I don’t want to have any more issues with you.

Issues? I’ve had less than a handful of conversations wtih you in my 9 or so years of being here on the CAFs, and as far as I know there haven’t been any issues. Things have been just peachy on my end.

But I would like to know if this was you, as I posted earlier on a different thread. Fun to put a voice to a screenname.

I heard you on Catholic Answers Live, Sixpence! “Mike in Chicago, IL” at about 7:03.

Fun to put a voice to a screenname.

Tim Staples addressed your question quite eloquently and incisively.

Loved the analogy with Tiger Woods.

Trying to talk about the Eucharist without mentioning accidents or substance is like talking about Tiger Woods without mentioning golf.

 

[Sixpence]

here it is: I guess it was about 3 months after I joined the CAFs? Give or take. So the date would be, approximately, 6/17/03.

Nine years ago. That is an awfully long time for you to have a basic understanding of SS while continuing with your “tell me what verse says exactly what you’re saying” schtick. Why continue to act a fool this many years later? Why not exhibit your true level of familiarity right up front?

Not sure what this means? Could you please 'splain?

I don’t want any more infractions. In order to get make this happen, I may have to avoid you.

Issues? I’ve had less than a handful of conversations wtih you in my 9 or so years of being here on the CAFs, and as far as I know there haven’t been any issues. Things have been just peachy on my end.

Well, you know what the problem was on my end, and I was also warned that these kinds of things happen around you quite a bit. I would guess that it has more to do lurkers than it does with you, but even if you aren’t intending to make bad things happen around you (not to you, but around you), it’s still happening and it makes it an unsafe space for people like me.

But I would like to know if this was you, as I posted earlier on a different thread. Fun to put a voice to a screenname.

Yea. You actually can talk about Tiger Woods without talking about golf, though. He’s a philandering husband, you could talk about his public image or his friendship with Kobe, the 15-month calendar that was made featuring a different mistress of his for every month, you could talk about how he interacts with the media or the religion that he chooses to claim as his own. You could easily get from one of those topics to his golf game, but you certainly don’t have to. And by way of analogy, my experience has been one where Catholic apologists will talk about nothing but golf and refuse to touch any other issue. What if I want to talk about Tiger’s religion? His religion is not golf. But when I try to talk about that, my questions don’t get answered and we only talk about golf. So I try to prevent that by asking the Catholic apologist to exclude golf and just talk about Tiger’s religion. But that still doesn’t happen, and the questions continue to be evaded.

Golf, of course, is Aristotelian substance theory, and Tiger’s religion is some kind of particle. It’s one of those things where I’m not asking what happens to the appearance of the particle- I want to know what happens to the particle. But this distinction has so far proven to be an absurd sort of chasm that Catholic apologists are uninterested in helping me bridge.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes! I undertand the is doctrine for the dogma.

No, it’s not “doctrine.” It’s a theological hypothesis. No Catholic is required to comprehend
Transubstantiation. The “how” of the Real Presence is not, and I think cannot be, fully understood.

Let me also add that I’m not at all suggesting that Lutheran simplicity is superior - on some issues I find it helpful, but in others issues the depth of Catholic teaching is very helpful indeed.

That was actually one of my tipping points - Catholicism is easier to teach and easier to understand, because there are explanations readily available.

 

[jmcrae]

It’s one of those things where I’m not asking what happens to the appearance of the particle- I want to know what happens to the particle.

The particle goes to Heaven and becomes food for the angels. This is made clear in Eucharistic Prayer I (which is the one that comes to us from the original Apostolic liturgy).

I hope that helps you.