Where were the Protestants before the 1500's?

[guanophore]

And if Sola Scriptura is "Luther's invention," as it is so often characterized, then shouldn't we use his definition?

Absolutely. At least, when in conversation with Lutherans.

Possibly. Though certain few Catholics might grant the pope a higher position than even Scripture.

No, Luther’s view of SS is inconsistent with the Apostolic faith for several reasons.

But the Pope is not granted a “higher position”. He is, as we all are, servants of the Word, and obligated to uphold the pillar and ground of the Truth. Catholics understand Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as coming from the same Source. As such, they cannot contradict one another, nor is there any competition between them (complimentarity, rather).

Luther perceived that there was a gross conflict between what he read in the Scriptures, and what he observed in the Church.

Not sure about Rome, but the Orthodox who were present for talks with Lutherans in Helsinki didn’t seem to think so, either. blogs.helsinki.fi/ristosaarinen/lutheran-orthodox-dialogue/

Catholics uphold the authorative nature of the Scriptures, but cannot assign to them qualities they do not possess, such as the ability to make decisions (rule) and discern. The Scriptures, as holy as they are, do not use discernment, and cannot take responsibility for their actions. This is why they cannot function in the manner desired by Luther. Forcing them into a role they were never meant to carry has resulted in every person who reads them becoming their own “pope”.

 

[guanophore]

Catholics accept Tradition as an equal source of revelation, equal to scripture, if I’m not mistaken, where Lutherans see Tradition as a witness to scripture.

Jon

I think that both things are true for Catholics.

86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

The deposit of faith is one, but has two strands that intertwine (Scripture and Sacred Tradition). The teaching authority appointed by Christ is responsible to serve and protect that divine deposit.

Whenever the faithful have perceived that the Truth is not being protected, reform has become necessary.

 

[phil19034]

Again, that’s very generous of the RCC.

Were the protestant denominations “means of salvation” back in the 1500s as well?

yes, they were a means of salvations for the people born into them. If people are becoming evangelized outside the Church, then that’s good. Protestant communities have some Truth in them and the Holy Spirit is at work in them. They just are not the complete Deposit of Faith.

The Church’s position has always been that God does not punish the children for the sins of their parents. For example, if child is raised to be an atheist by his/her parents, God will not hold that against him/her if that child would have made the right choices if he/her had been shown the Truth. If it’s not fault of their own, God will not hold it against them.

I am a convert to and from the RCC. Does that make me a heretic?

Yes, you are a heretic. But, you are in good company, my dad and sister are heretics too

But truly, there are two kinds of heretics… a “formal heretic” and “material heretic.” Today, most Protestants are “material heretics” which means that they practice what Catholics view a heretical material, but they themselves are not guilty of the mortal sin of “formal heresy.”

A formal heretic receives the Deposit of Faith and chooses to reject it. Formal heresy is a mortal sin because the three conditions for mortal sins are met. (1) They truly received the Deposit of Faith and still rejected it, (2) they knew they are sinning and (3) still did it willfully without being forced.

While it’s not impossible for a lay person to be a formal heretic, I think that most formal heretics are former priests (like Martin Luther).

Before my sister got married to her Baptist husband, she went ahead and got re-baptized. My dad then joined them and was re-baptized too. My sister and dad committed heresy. He preaches material heresy, he isn’t a formal heretic because he was never catechized by the Church.

Even though my sister was an altar girl when she was young, I don’t believe that both she or my dad ever received the Deposit of Faith. There are so many things which they have said which are simply not true or not even close to what the Catholic Church teaches, which lead me, my mother, grandmother, etc to believe that they were never properly catechized and not properly evangelized when they were Catholic. So I think they are most likely material heretics.

There are Catholics who come to mass every day who are also material heretics. Catholics who don’t believe masturbation is a mortal sin or don’t believe they need to go to confession are heretics too.

Heck, I used to be a material heretic for a number of different reasons.

Not all heretics are schematics. And not all schematics are heretics.

Heretic is not meant to be used a derogatory term (of course it was been used that way and is interpreted that way), but it simply means someone who has learned the faith and disagrees with it and believes something different from the religious authority (in this case the Catholic Church).

So, in the spirit of ecumenism, we call schematics and Protestants “separated brethren.” And unofficially we call heretical Catholics “Dissent Catholics” and/or “Cafeteria Catholics.”

 

[guanophore]

Again, that’s very generous of the RCC.

Were the protestant denominations “means of salvation” back in the 1500s as well?

Since the same conditions existed then which describes them as such now, I would say so by default.

However, at the time, the Church was much more focused on the rampant heresies than the elements of grace present.

I am a convert to and from the RCC. Does that make me a heretic?

I suppose it is possible. I don’t know much about your story, except what you have shared here, and am still mystified about your spiritual journey. Clearly you seemed to have some personal despair that was relieved by becoming Lutheran, and at one point, I think I read that a Lutheran told you the “gospel”. I remember wondering when I read that what you meant by it, and why you thought you never “heard” it in the CC.

Heresy is an obstinate denial of the the Truth, which requires that one must first know and accept the Truth.

Most people that leave the faith do so without accurate understanding of what is taught, and why. You are probably in the best position to determine whether you meet those criteria.

 

[jmcrae]

Again, that’s very generous of the RCC.

Were the protestant denominations “means of salvation” back in the 1500s as well?

It would be a singular species of mental confusion, to be able to smash the heads off of the Apostles as a sign of rejection of the authority given to the Catholic Church through the Tradition of the Apostles, while at the same time being unconsciously joined to that same Tradition by desire and sincerity of faith.

Modern Protestants for the most part do not consciously reject the Church, and many of them are under the impression that the form of Christianity that they practice is related to that which was practiced by the Apostles, so in their own way, they have a desire to be joined to the Tradition, even though they don’t really grasp what that means.

The original Protestants had no such desire - they wanted to be rid of all of the teaching and tradition of the Apostles, in order to create a religion in the image of their own vision of the future.

 

[Protestor]

Why is it that your sets of belief didn’t even exist before ‘Reformers’ like Martin Luther were born?

You are assuming a few things here that you probably should not.

Probably off the top of my head John Hus and John Wycliffe and Jerome of somewhere. It would be hard to hold the views of current Protestants because the “government”, which was in no way influenced by the church, would execute you or exhume your dead body and desecrate it.

We are not going to protest!

 

[pablope]

In the literal sense, sure.

And if Sola Scriptura is “Luther’s invention,” as it is so often characterized, then shouldn’t we use his definition? That the “sola” trademark was co-opted by non-Lutheran groups shouldn’t mean that Lutherans ought to abandon their historic terms. It means only that the masses need to be better educated.

ue/

Okay…so what is Luther’s, in his own words…definition of SS?

 

[JonNC]

Okay…so what is Luther’s, in his own words…definition of SS?

Why would one require such a definition? Remember, it isn’t the Lutherans who necessarily began the practice of scripture as norm, as the number of Father’s quoteshave provided.
But certainly no other western non-Catholic communion, even Calvin was 25 years younger than Luther, provides an earlier understanding of sola scriptura than the Lutheran Confessions do. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the practice of* sola scriptura*, aside from the Fathers’ alluding to scripture in that way, has its basic roots in the Lutheran Reformation. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Either way, Lutherans here will continue to portray SS in the manner in which our communion has always used it, as described in the Confessions, a Luther definition being essentially irrelevant.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I think that both things are true for Catholics.

86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

The deposit of faith is one, but has two strands that intertwine (Scripture and Sacred Tradition). The teaching authority appointed by Christ is responsible to serve and protect that divine deposit.

Whenever the faithful have perceived that the Truth is not being protected, reform has become necessary.

In tandem with what Don provided in the Helsinki dialogue, it is this standpoint that encourages at least some optimism that the two approaches have enough similarity to be a foundation for further understanding.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Why would one require such a definition?

Because Steido said/asked…"
Originally Posted by steido01 View Post
In the literal sense, sure.

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12361907]

So does Luther have a definition or not? (that we can use to authentically see/describe Lutheran use of SS)

That authenticity comes, not from Luther, but the confessions.

Taken out of context of course. Even if they are not, their understanding is quite different that how it is being portrayed or projected or in trying to rationalize a practice.

The key word, as I see it is the “if”. As I mentioned, Lutherans often point to the Fathers on the matter. I personally think that practice, used by either side, has the gap that the Fathers could not know about the current debate regarding scripture and tradition.

Sure, but what is the root definition? Or is this a another…I do not subscribe to Luther kind of thing again…

For Lutherans:

We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Hi Jon: In you answer to poblope who asked the question does Luther have a definition or not concerning SS and you said that authenticity comes not from Luther, but the confessions. I wonder then are not the confessions based in part if not all on Luther’s doctrines and teachings?

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon: In you answer to poblope who asked the question does Luther have a definition or not concerning SS and you said that authenticity comes not from Luther, but the confessions. I wonder then are not the confessions based in part if not all on Luther’s doctrines and teachings?

Perhaps rephrased, did Luther contribute to the way Lutherans believe, teach, and confess, based on scripture and the confessions? Clearly so. But in no way could it be said “all of Luther’s doctrine’s and teachings”.

Of the documents in the Book of Concord, Luther accounts for three- The Small and Large Catechisms, and the Smalcald Articles. Of those three, the Small Catechism is held in highest regard. It needs to be noted that, the first section of the BoC contains the three ancient Creeds. They are first, and for good reason.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Perhaps rephrased, did Luther contribute to the way Lutherans believe, teach, and confess, based on scripture and the confessions? Clearly so. But in no way could it be said “all of Luther’s doctrine’s and teachings”.

Of the documents in the Book of Concord, Luther accounts for three- The Small and Large Catechisms, and the Smalcald Articles. Of those three, the Small Catechism is held in highest regard. It needs to be noted that, the first section of the BoC contains the three ancient Creeds. They are first, and for good reason.

Jon

Hi Jon: Yes, I did understand what you are saying and have read the BoC and the Small and Large Catechisms and Smalcald Articles. yet, it one is not in union with the Bishop of Rome then one is at best in schism.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Since the same conditions existed then which describes them as such now, I would say so by default.

However, at the time, the Church was much more focused on the rampant heresies than the elements of grace present.

I suppose it is possible. I don’t know much about your story, except what you have shared here, and am still mystified about your spiritual journey. Clearly you seemed to have some personal despair that was relieved by becoming Lutheran, and at one point, I think I read that a Lutheran told you the “gospel”. I remember wondering when I read that what you meant by it, and why you thought you never “heard” it in the CC.

Heresy is an obstinate denial of the the Truth, which requires that one must first know and accept the Truth.

Most people that leave the faith do so without accurate understanding of what is taught, and why. You are probably in the best position to determine whether you meet those criteria.

Since the same conditions existed then which describes them as such now, I would say so by default.

However, at the time, the Church was much more focused on the rampant heresies than the elements of grace present.

I appreciate the RC softer and more conciliatory stance towards me. I have heard some Catholics pine away for the days of the inquisition and such. That makes me sad. I am glad that many don’t feel the same. I have heard that the only reason that the RC participates in ecumenical activities is in an effort to make more people be Catholic.

I suppose it is possible. I don’t know much about your story, except what you have shared here, and am still mystified about your spiritual journey. Clearly you seemed to have some personal despair that was relieved by becoming Lutheran, and at one point, I think I read that a Lutheran told you the “gospel”. I remember wondering when I read that what you meant by it, and why you thought you never “heard” it in the CC.

I am not sure if I heard it or not. If I did, it wasn’t emphasized in the sense of “this is the gospel”. In fact most of the preaching I heard while an RC was more like to be a good person, go out and help your neighbor, etc. Which is commendable, but it’s not the gospel, it’s the law. And the law only serves to point out sin. I rarely heard actual theology preached, much less theology of salvation.

Even so my despairing was getting so bad I had to make it stop. I went to confession weekly. I was actually angry I would have to wait another week for confession. The ramifications of my sin was so grievous I felt I needed to be in confession all day everyday. My spiritual mentor gave me directive after directive from doing the rosary to holy hour in front of the blessed sacrament. Nothing was working, I was just getting more miserable and more miserable. Combined with the local parishes in my area dropping a bomb on me by attempting to make me pay for my daughters baptism. It was like the last straw. Me and my buddy (who was Reformed Baptist) decided to check out a local Lutheran parish church. Thankfully the lutheran pastor sat down with me and explained the Law/Gospel distinction, and encouraged me to read scripture in light of that distinction. It was like reading the scriptures for the first time again, everything became clear all of a sudden, like coming up for air. And it totally explained why I was suffering so much.

Thankfully now, I don’t suffer anymore. And another Lutheran pastor baptized my daughter completely free of charge, which no strings attached. We didn’t even have to be lutherans or members of the parish for him to do the baptism.

 

[guanophore]

So does Luther have a definition or not? (that we can use to authentically see/describe Lutheran use of SS)

It would be in appropriate. Lutherans subscribe to their confessions (at least those who have not been contaminated by modernism), so when talking about Luther, yes, it is proper to use Luther’s definition, and when talking about Lutherans, it is proper to use the definition in the Confessions. There are some concepts that are the same in both places, but in some they are not.

Taken out of context of course. Even if they are not, their understanding is quite different that how it is being portrayed or projected or in trying to rationalize a practice.

Not at all ! The Fathers consistently testify the necessity of using Scripture as a norm, as does the Magesterium. This is evident in the catechism. The only difference are the additions not fund in the Fathers: those words “sola” and “final”. There is a world of difference between Scripture as a norm, and the “only final norm”.

Sure, but what is the root definition? Or is this a another…I do not subscribe to Luther kind of thing again…

There surely are a plethora of definitions for SS. It is important when discussing them to be on the same page with the person holding the view.

 

[guanophore]

I have heard that the only reason that the RC participates in ecumenical activities is in an effort to make more people be Catholic.

If we really believe we have the fullness of Truth, it would be disingenuous to participate otherwise, would it not?

I am not sure if I heard it or not. If I did, it wasn’t emphasized in the sense of “this is the gospel”. In fact most of the preaching I heard while an RC was more like to be a good person, go out and help your neighbor, etc. Which is commendable, but it’s not the gospel, it’s the law. And the law only serves to point out sin. I rarely heard actual theology preached, much less theology of salvation.

I had the same experience.

Thankfully the lutheran pastor sat down with me and explained the Law/Gospel distinction, and encouraged me to read scripture in light of that distinction. It was like reading the scriptures for the first time again, everything became clear all of a sudden, like coming up for air. And it totally explained why I was suffering so much.

Yes, I had the same experience, except that the Pastor was Methodist.

Thankfully now, I don’t suffer anymore. And another Lutheran pastor baptized my daughter completely free of charge, which no strings attached. We didn’t even have to be lutherans or members of the parish for him to do the baptism.

Sometimes it seems as though Catholics are the main force driving people away from Catholicism.

However, I must admit that there are “strings attached” at infant baptism. The Church rightfully refuses to baptize when the parents are unable or unwilling to raise the child in the faith.

 

[MaryT777]

If we really believe we have the fullness of Truth, it would be disingenuous to participate otherwise, would it not?

I had the same experience.

Yes, I had the same experience, except that the Pastor was Methodist.

Sometimes it seems as though Catholics are the main force driving people away from Catholicism.

However, I must admit that there are “strings attached” at infant baptism. The Church rightfully refuses to baptize when the parents are unable or unwilling to raise the child in the faith.

Let’s not sell the majority of Catholics short by saying it seems as though Catholics are the main force driving people away from Catholicism. We can take things too far for the sake of …fill in the blank. We could also take that comment and apply it to all religions.
“LOOK LOOK that is why no one is Fill in the blank religion; that OTHER person gives the entire denomination a bad name and drives people away.”

I know many Catholics that participate in RCIA, have been sponsors etc that have enhanced and drawn people to the Faith and find that comment is unfair to many Catholics.

Better to concentrate on how we ourselves can help bring people to the Faith not the"others" driving people away.

Mary.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Let’s not sell the majority of Catholics short by saying it seems as though Catholics are the main force driving people away from Catholicism. We can take things too far for the sake of …fill in the blank. We could also take that comment and apply it to all religions.
“LOOK LOOK that is why no one is Fill in the blank religion; that OTHER person gives the entire denomination a bad name and drives people away.”

I know many Catholics that participate in RCIA, have been sponsors etc that have enhanced and drawn people to the Faith and find that comment is unfair to many Catholics.

Better to concentrate on how we ourselves can help bring people to the Faith not the"others" driving people away.

Mary.

I agree, Mary, about Guanophore’s comment being applicable to just about all religions. But that doesn’t make it any less true about Christians in general needing to acknowledge that fairly often our own behavior, and fellow church members’ behavior, causes a reactionary rejection of Christianity.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am not sure if I heard it or not. If I did, it wasn’t emphasized in the sense of “this is the gospel”. In fact most of the preaching I heard while an RC was more like to be a good person, go out and help your neighbor, etc. Which is commendable, but it’s not the gospel, it’s the law. And the law only serves to point out sin. I rarely heard actual theology preached, much less theology of salvation.

Even so my despairing was getting so bad I had to make it stop. I went to confession weekly. I was actually angry I would have to wait another week for confession. The ramifications of my sin was so grievous I felt I needed to be in confession all day everyday. My spiritual mentor gave me directive after directive from doing the rosary to holy hour in front of the blessed sacrament. Nothing was working, I was just getting more miserable and more miserable. Combined with the local parishes in my area dropping a bomb on me by attempting to make me pay for my daughters baptism. It was like the last straw. Me and my buddy (who was Reformed Baptist) decided to check out a local Lutheran parish church. Thankfully the lutheran pastor sat down with me and explained the Law/Gospel distinction, and encouraged me to read scripture in light of that distinction. It was like reading the scriptures for the first time again, everything became clear all of a sudden, like coming up for air. And it totally explained why I was suffering so much.

Thankfully now, I don’t suffer anymore. And another Lutheran pastor baptized my daughter completely free of charge, which no strings attached. We didn’t even have to be lutherans or members of the parish for him to do the baptism.

The only thing that troubles me about what you’ve written is this: how many times have I as a parent tried to explain something to my kids (who are older) only to have them ignore me. Later, however, I find that when someone else told them the same things, they accepted it as if they had heard it for the first time. Well, in a sense, they did “hear” for the first time because they weren’t really listening all the other times that they were told the same things by me!

I’m happy for you that some Lutheran pastors have been helpful, but I am saddened that the consequence of that is that you are no longer Catholic. Jesus never intended for us to be separated as we are today.