Where the Bible is silent....

[PRmerger]

Hi, Folks. OP here.

I guess I didn’t make it clear that the examples I provided for things Protestants object to because “it’s not in the Bible” are secondary to this discussion.

What is primary is the question: which paradigm do Protestants follow when the Bible is silent on an issue?

The discussion that ensues is whether this is applied consistently.

It does seem that what happens is that a Protestant will object to Catholic Practice [A] because “it’s not in the Bible”…(therefore Catholics shouldn’t do it)

but will also resort to, when questioned about Protestant Practice **, which is also not in the Bible, that it’s permitted because the Bible doesn’t say we mustn’t do this.

I think we Catholics should demand that Protestants be consistent in applying their paradigm.**

 

[PRmerger]

Good question. For the Lutheran, if the practice does not damage the Gospel, but instead supports and uplifts it. Chanting, for example, is not in the bible, but it supports and uplifts the Gospel.

Jon

Where does this teaching come from and where is it supported in Scripture?

 

[PRmerger]

Sola scriptura is the practice of the Church to hold doctrine accountable to the final norm.

Many Protestants have departed from this definition.

And I suppose that you (a rhetorical Lutheran “you”, here, not specifically JonNC “you”)
cannot object to a person departing from an (allegedly) established understanding of SS, and creating his own definition of SS, since that’s exactly what Luther did to the Catholic understanding of doctrines A, B and C.

Did he not reserve the right to depart from (or correct) the established understanding?

So, clearly, you cannot object to others departing (or correcting) your Lutheran definition of SS.

 

[PRmerger]

To say that the Mass only implicitly comes from the Bible is utter nonsense. The entire Mass - Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Orthodox - is entirely from the Bible. Liturgy of the Word, Liturgy of the Sacrament. These come from the bible. Invocation, collect, OT, epistle and Gospel readings, the Psalms. The words of Institution. The distribution and reception of the sacrament. Benediction.
It is absurd to suggest that these are only implicitly from the Bible.

Jon

No, Jon.

You have it exactly backwards.

The Bible reflects the Liturgy.

Not the Liturgy comes from the Bible.

For surely you are aware that the NT did not exist during the first decades of the Church, yes? (And we would agree that the first Christians did indeed celebrate the Liturgy in, say, 10AD, 25 AD, 40 AD, yes?)

Can you tell us how it could be that the early Christians based their liturgy on something that was not yet formulated?

That would be like saying that Donald Trump based his Trump Towers on the plans for the
One World Trade Center.

#anachronistic

Rather, the Liturgy came first, and then the NT reflected that which was proclaimed in the Liturgy.

#sacredtradition

 

[JonNC]

No, Jon.

You have it exactly backwards.

The Bible reflects the Liturgy.

Not the Liturgy comes from the Bible.

For surely you are aware that the NT did not exist during the first decades of the Church, yes? (And we would agree that the first Christians did indeed celebrate the Liturgy in, say, 10AD, 25 AD, 40 AD, yes?)

Can you tell us how it could be that the early Christians based their liturgy on something that was not yet formulated?

That would be like saying that Donald Trump based his Trump Towers on the plans for the
One World Trade Center.

#anachronistic

Rather, the Liturgy came first, and then the NT reflected that which was proclaimed in the Liturgy.

#sacredtradition

Of course it did. Are you saying that Paul did not write his letter, or that his letters were not available for the first few hundred years of the Church? Of course they were. PR, it’s a rhetorical strawman to argue the NT didn’t exist when the written Gospels and epistles that make it up did.
Does the liturgy quote the Gospel in the verba, or did the Gospel quote the liturgy?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Many Protestants have departed from this definition.

And I suppose that you (a rhetorical Lutheran “you”, here, not specifically JonNC “you”)
cannot object to a person departing from an (allegedly) established understanding of SS, and creating his own definition of SS, since that’s exactly what Luther did to the Catholic understanding of doctrines A, B and C.

Did he not reserve the right to depart from (or correct) the established understanding?

So, clearly, you cannot object to others departing (or correcting) your Lutheran definition of SS.

I can’t object anymore than you can object to the Orthodox view of primacy.
What other communions do is up to them. We can clearly state, as you have done, that they have departed from the definition, just as Orthodoxy can state that Rome has departed from the historic understanding of primacy.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t object anymore than you can object to the Orthodox view of primacy.

This presupposes a paradigm: it is permissible to depart from an authority.

Let me just clarify your position here–is the above what you (Lutherans) embrace?

I can assure you that this is NOT the Catholic view.

Now, I do hope you will answer the question, as it’s an important one. And it’s a rather easy one to answer.

However, I respectfully predict that there will be no direct answer forthcoming…because it is clear that one cannot embrace the above position without admitting, “Well, then the multiple definitions of SS are certainly permissible!”

Or, if one rejects the above, that is one states, “No, there is an authority and one must conform one’s views to that authority”, then one must admit that what Luther did was objectionable.

You see, you cannot have it both ways: “This is what SS means!” and “Luther had the absolute right to depart from the authority of the CC!”

Either you stick to authority, or you have a free-for-all and everyone gets to make their own definitions of things.

 

[TimothyH]

Still waiting for the bible verse which states we should do this before and after we pray.

I’ve read the Bible cover to cover six times my friend and have been in Bible study for over a decade.

All I am trying to say is that many Catholic things which non-Catholics say isn’t in the Bible actually are in the Bible if it is understood correctly.

The Bible has to be understood in the context which it was written - the culture, time and place - ancient Palestine in the first century and prior. When it is understood in this context then Catholic practices become clear.

PAX

 

[JonNC]

This presupposes a paradigm: it is permissible to depart from an authority.

Let me just clarify your position here–is the above what you (Lutherans) embrace?

I can assure you that this is NOT the Catholic view.

Now, I do hope you will answer the question, as it’s an important one. And it’s a rather easy one to answer.

However, I respectfully predict that there will be no direct answer forthcoming…because it is clear that one cannot embrace the above position without admitting, “Well, then the multiple definitions of SS are certainly permissible!”

Or, if one rejects the above, that is one states, “No, there is an authority and one must conform one’s views to that authority”, then one must admit that what Luther did was objectionable.

You see, you cannot have it both ways: “This is what SS means!” and “Luther had the absolute right to depart from the authority of the CC!”

Either you stick to authority, or you have a free-for-all and everyone gets to make their own definitions of things.

Actually no, PR. I’m not speaking to the paradigm at all, because I’m not giving any permission to anyone. I don’t have the power to give or retain permission. I am only responding to the reality that my objection means nothing.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve read the Bible cover to cover six times my friend and have been in Bible study for over a decade.

All I am trying to say is that many Catholic things which non-Catholics say isn’t in the Bible actually are in the Bible if it is understood correctly.

Understood.

And this is not the point of the OP.

Think of some Catholic practice/belief that is NOT found in the Bible (such as making the sign of the cross before/after prayer), and apply it to my OP.

The Bible has to be understood in the context which it was written - the culture, time and place - ancient Palestine in the first century and prior. When it is understood in this context then Catholic practices become clear.

PAX

You are correct.

This is a nonsequitur, but still correct.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually no, PR. I’m not speaking to the paradigm at all, because I’m not giving any permission to anyone. I don’t have the power to give or retain permission. I am only responding to the reality that my objection means nothing.

Jon

Friend, you are being inconsistent.

You are saying: “This is the correct way to define SS”.

And you are also saying: "Folks who define it differently than the definition I’ve provided are wrong’.

 

[JonNC]

Friend, you are being inconsistent.

You are saying: “This is the correct way to define SS”.

And you are also saying: "Folks who define it differently than the definition I’ve provided are wrong’.

Of course they are. But I can’t stop them from thinking they are right. There’s no inconsistency in that. It’s facing the reality of free will

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Of course they are. But I can’t stop them from thinking they are right. There’s no inconsistency in that. It’s facing the reality of free will

Jon

So there’s your answer to the question of the Orthodox’s claim on papal supremacy.

They are wrong. But the CC can’t stop them from thinking they are right.

It’s facing the reality of free will.

So we are still left with the question: why shouldn’t I believe in some other Protestant’s definition of Sola Scriptura, even if it conflicts with the Lutheran def of it?

Who speaks authoritatively on the definition of SS?

(Certainly not the Bible, I say with not a little irony).

 

[JonNC]

So there’s your answer to the question of the Orthodox’s claim on papal supremacy.

They are wrong. But the CC can’t stop them from thinking they are right.

It’s facing the reality of free will.

So we are still left with the question: why shouldn’t I believe in some other Protestant’s definition of Sola Scriptura, even if it conflicts with the Lutheran def of it?

Who speaks authoritatively on the definition of SS?

(Certainly not the Bible, I say with not a little irony).

I didn’t think you had any intention to believe in any definition of SS.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t think you had any intention to believe in any definition of SS.

Jon

I believe the definitions.

I just don’t believe the doctrine.

But, again, there is no one to speak authoritatively for non-Catholic Christians so I am never quite sure what definition of SS to embrace.

 

[JonNC]

I believe the definitions.

I just don’t believe the doctrine.

But, again, there is no one to speak authoritatively for non-Catholic Christians so I am never quite sure what definition of SS to embrace.

Okay, then determine which communion you are conversing with, and what their definition is.

There is no one who speaks authoritatively for non-Lutheran Christians, either.
Embrace, for the purpose of dialogue, the definition of the dialogue partner. Certainly don’t expect me as a lifelong Lutheran to defend the Baptist’s case, or the Calvinist’s case. And don’t expect them to defend my view.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Okay, then determine which communion you are conversing with, and what their definition is.

But why should I do that?

Their definition may not be the correct one.

There is no one who speaks authoritatively for non-Lutheran Christians, either.

Oh, but isn’t that exactly what Luther wanted?

No one should have that authority, save for the Bible, yeah?

 

[Michael_Francis]

Moderator Note:
Okay, we need to agree that since various communions do not have a single authority or voice that the best one can do is to deal with whatever the individual member offers.

This will of course mean a virtually endless variety of possible positions to discuss.

Let’s not seek to impose a standard that does not exist upon members who dialog in good faith.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[PRmerger]

Moderator Note:
Okay, we need to agree that since various communions do not have a single authority or voice that the best one can do is to deal with whatever the individual member offers.

This will of course mean a virtually endless variety of possible positions to discuss.

Let’s not seek to impose a standard that does not exist upon members who dialog in good faith.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/debate_on_logo.gif

I understand what you’re saying, but I also think it’s important to note that one cannot, with one hand, declare that they do not need to conform to authority, while on the other hand, announce that there is an authority to which they are appealing.

 

[JonNC]

But why should I do that?

Their definition may not be the correct one.

Oh, but isn’t that exactly what Luther wanted?

No one should have that authority, save for the Bible, yeah?

You should do that if you want to have a dialogue, assuming it’s the topic or related to it.

I’ve never read that he didn’t want authority. I’m perfectly willing to reject Obama’s claim of authority with his pen and phone. Are you?

What kind of authority are we speaking of? The councils? You see, Lutherans don’t deny the authority of the Church. But the authority of men, or one man is not supreme. The authority of scripture is that it is the final the Church uses to hold doctrine and teachers accountable

Jon