It just frustrates me when such folks give such arguments and positions, yet when asked to present legit sources all one ever gets is the same ole rhetoric.
It’s not so much as the church losing it’s trust in God, but the specifically proclaiming things that are not from God - specifically the abuses in the 1500’s. I’m being charitable here - while I’m calling them abuses, the Lutheran position is that the church (at least in Germany) stepped away from the full Gospel to focus on padding it coffers.
I thought you did. And I am curious what their sentiments are now being in communion with Rome?
also in that post I meant to say “they are now” instead of “they are not” lol
Sikma, I understand the gist of what you are saying - in that none of the ECF would tolerate the abuses that happened in the 1500’s and very likely would have turned to Scripture (or their own memories of what Jesus said) to rebuke and correct.It just frustrates me when such folks give such arguments and positions, yet when asked to present legit sources all one ever gets is the same ole rhetoric.
Nope…Totally! lol. Ultima is Latin for final or last. I figured everyone has a different definition for sola scriptura that I would just make one up and call it my own
And I also made another new one" Solo Index Finger
Well like many Anglicans and Lutherans, they allways felt as if they were part of the OHCAC. With many debates, they started to study and look into things that they never thought to research. Many if not all were Anglican Catholic. They leaned heavily towards Catholicism more than Protestantism. Now they just believe they completed the circle and as my Aunt stated, “we are now allowed to eat at the same table with our family and not the table in the living room.” She is a bit odd, lol, but you can understand what she was trying to say. Many Anglican Catholics believe Tradition and Scripture to be equal. Like GKC always states…“Motley Crew or Crue.”
Very interesting. Well I welcome them back Home…
I need to separate my T and W lol. I did it againVery interesting. Well I welcome them back Home…
Ah, I see your point about excommunication being a call ‘back to reasonable discussion.’ As I understand it (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong), excommunication serves a “medicinal” use today - sort of a ‘temporary salve’ until the ‘cancer’ can be cured. But I’m not sure this was the case in Leo and Luther’s day. Excommunication was terribly serious and permanent, and abused throughout the Church. Didn’t Trent make many changes to the practice?
Again, I don’t have a strong grasp on Rome’s historic use of excommunication, but I think we can agree that men on both sides shared blame for the schism. And we’d be doing history a disservice if we didn’t consider the many political factions that widened the actual distance between Luther and Rome with hyperbole and spiteful rhetoric.St. Catherine also called for reforms prior to Leo X’s pontificate.
But that’s neither here nor there.Oh, I see what you’re asking. I am not aware of Luther himself using the exact words ‘Sola Scriptura’ (though that does not mean he did not). However, the proper definition of the practice is spelled out in the Lutheran Confessions, as I noted in previous posts. Regardless- that the term was co-opted by other groups should not legitimize their definitions over the original meaning. Perhaps another Lutheran on these boards would be more knowledgeable as to the origins of the phrase?
No disagreement there. “All of the gifts are produced by one and the same Spirit.”
This has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads, so I’ll briefly quote the Confessions here. From the Lutheran perspective, the papacy demands recognition that ought to be reserved only for Christ, thereby detracting from the gospel:
Indeed, He does. But is that obedience required to a Bishop on the other side of the world, or to the God who speaks His Word to even the smallest corner of the soul? “My conscience is held captive by the Word of God… to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. So here I stand! I can do no other. God help me.”
St Catherine did not go out and start her own faith either. If I am upset with a Bishop or Pope, I do not start my own fraction, rather I trust in the Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit. Many times, if not all, my disagreements are due in part to my sinfulness and ignoring the Will of God.Ah, I see your point about excommunication being a call ‘back to reasonable discussion.’ As I understand it (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong), excommunication serves a “medicinal” use today - sort of a ‘temporary salve’ until the ‘cancer’ can be cured. But I’m not sure this was the case in Leo and Luther’s day. Excommunication was terribly serious and permanent, and abused throughout the Church. Didn’t Trent make many changes to the practice?
St. Catherine also called for reforms prior to Leo X’s pontificate.
Oh, I see what you’re asking. I am not aware of Luther himself using the exact words ‘Sola Scriptura’ (though that does not mean he did not). However, the proper definition of the practice is spelled out in the Lutheran Confessions, as I noted in previous posts. Regardless- that the term was co-opted by other groups should not legitimize their definitions over the original meaning. Perhaps another Lutheran on these boards would be more knowledgeable as to the origins of the phrase?
No disagreement there. “All of the gifts are produced by one and the same Spirit.”
This has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads, so I’ll briefly quote the Confessions here. From the Lutheran perspective, the papacy demands recognition that ought to be reserved only for Christ, thereby detracting from the gospel:
-Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope
- 1] The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].
- 2] Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].
- 3] And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.
- 4] These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.
Indeed, He does. But is that obedience required to a Bishop on the other side of the world, or to the God who speaks His Word to even the smallest corner of the soul? “My conscience is held captive by the Word of God… to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. So here I stand! I can do no other. God help me.”
:banghead::bowdown2:
Luther did not intend to ‘start his own faith.’ The only point I was trying to make is that Leo was not magically immune to sinfulness simply because he was pope. Had there been a more pastoral human in the office at the time (as opposed to someone whose father bought him a position in the College of Cardinals at age 13), the Reformation may have seen an entirely different outcome.
But…who decides which Tradition is correct or not? Who is the authority to make such a decision here on earth?But we do trust Tradition - as long as it’s correct.
And be fair! You know that it’s in God’s promises that I find peace and serenity.
But see, I think here is the difference between Luther and Catherine…Catherine did not lose trust in the leadership to reform…she continued talking to them, praying for them…she did not turn to the gospel…she turned and trusted more fully in God and the HS to make things happen…as per God’s will and time.
Luther too could have affected its outcome…by emulating Catherine. Catherine had to deal with bad popes too(not one but two).
Totally! lol. Ultima is Latin for final or last. I figured everyone has a different definition for sola scriptura that I would just make one up and call it my own
And I also made another new one" Solo Index Finger
Ben,
Once again, you misinterpret for your own purposes what I have said. If I applied the term “doctrine” to SS, it was used as a synonym for “teaching”. I make no claim that any authority ever formally declared SS to be official church doctrine. But that hardly invalidates it as a worthwhile practice.
