Would more Protestants become Catholic if it were not for Mary?

[pablope]

Okay…who makes the determination which is commanded by God and which is not? And how can you tell which is commanded by God and which is not?

And how about Sola Scriptura…it is not commanded by God…so would one a Lutheran be condemned if one does not practice it anymore?

How about a Lutheran who practiced a different kind of SS…what should be done to that Lutheran? (since as you said…if it is not commanded by God…it is adiaphora)

And the question from my previous post:

well…how about your own traditions of your own making…that have no back up with Scripture…what do you propose should be done with these?

An example would be Sola Scriptura…should it be dispensed with?

The Lutheran Synods that fully accept and fully subscribe to the Confessions are not drifting but the ones that subscribe only so far as are the ones that for all practicable purposes are really not Lutheran. They have different views on Scripture, marriage, abortion, etc.

But they are still Lutherans…right? If they continue to subscribe to the confessions…but interpret Scripture on their own…or differently…and have a different take on the confessions…what do you propose should be done to them?

What is your authority to say they do not interpret scripture correctly? or the confessions correctly, for that matter?

 

[hn160]

But they are still Lutherans…right? If they continue to subscribe to the confessions…but interpret Scripture on their own…or differently…and have a different take on the confessions…what do you propose should be done to them?

What is your authority to say they do not interpret scripture correctly? or the confessions correctly, for that matter?

They may be Lutheran, but because of doctrinal differences our Church Body would not have Altar and Pulpit Fellowship with them. In other word for lay members of those groups, they could not receive communion because like the Catholic Church we practice closed communion.

 

[Remember_Me]

I was reading through some other posts on here and it got me to thinking: If Protestants do their research and study theology, I think that many of them would come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the true Church. However, many Protestants believe (mistakenly) that Catholics worship Mary.

Do you think that more Protestant Christians would convert to Catholicism if it were not for our veneration of Mary?

If so, what can “we” do in a spirit of evangelism to either educate or correct their misguided notions of our veneration?

I don’t know if this has been stated, but I think if Catholics explain the importance of veneration to Mary, then Protestants might be more open to converting. Personally, I don’t need any explanation because Mary’s not the stumbling block for me.

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;11166390]

Okay…who makes the determination which is commanded by God and which is not? And how can you tell which is commanded by God and which is not?

And how about Sola Scriptura…it is not commanded by God…so would one a Lutheran be condemned if one does not practice it anymore?

How about a Lutheran who practiced a different kind of SS…what should be done to that Lutheran? (since as you said…if it is not commanded by God…it is adiaphora)

The Church decided. In a similar way to the councils, the Lutheran Confessions are our doctrinal guide.

Individual Lutherans do not practice sola scriptura, per se, at least in regards to doctrine.
Sola scriptura is a practice of the Church to hold teachers, teachings, doctrines, etc. accountable to the final norm, scripture.
In regards Adiaphora, Lutherans have the freedom to decide for themselves, so long as that decision does not in some way counter doctrine.

But they are still Lutherans…right? If they continue to subscribe to the confessions…but interpret Scripture on their own…or differently…and have a different take on the confessions…what do you propose should be done to them?

Are Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden still Catholic? Anyone can interpret scripture on their own, but if that interpretation contradicts the doctrines of the Lutheran Church, they are essentially not Lutheran.
My attitude is to continue to admonish and correct them.

What is your authority to say they do not interpret scripture correctly? or the confessions correctly, for that matter?

I don’t have that authority. The Church does.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

Jon,
A couple of comments on your points below. Please note that these comments are not directed at you personally or even at Lutheranism specifically. Rather they reflect more of what I see as the fundamental problems with the principles of the protestant reformation.

The Church decided. In a similar way to the councils, the Lutheran Confessions are our doctrinal guide.

Contained within this is the seed of dissension and the multiple and sometimes contradictory paths of those protesting.
You say here "the Church (At Augsburg) decided. But what of the Church at Rome? Those at Augsburg believed Rome to be of no consequence. No need to listen to anything from Rome. In short, Rome’s authority was rejected and Augsburg was to be the new authority (not the city of course, but the output - the confessions).
But -
If Augsburg could ignore Rome and Rome’s teachings - why should anyone feel bound to Augsburg and it’s teachings on matters?
If one authority can be rejected - so can the other…No other protestant reformer need bind himself to Augsburg for what was Augsburg’s authority?

Individual Lutherans do not practice sola scriptura, per se, at least in regards to doctrine.
Sola scriptura is a practice of the Church to hold teachers, teachings, doctrines, etc. accountable to the final norm, scripture.

And so - based on the above comments regarding the need to submit to authority…what prevents a sincere Christian from taking Sola Scriptura seriously - but then rejecting Augsburg, just as Augsburg rejected Rome?
And when the “final norm, scripture” is interpreted differently by various groups…
What authority - what form - what method is there by which the confusion can be resolved?

In the 1966 movie, “A Man for All Seasons” there was an exchange that rather illustrates this I think.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
I fear that, in a similar way, the rejection of Rome’s authority by the protestant reformers they “cut down” the very principle of authority and, having done that, they had no protection, no authority themselves when the “winds” of contradiction began to blow.

Are Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden still Catholic? Anyone can interpret scripture on their own, but if that interpretation contradicts the doctrines of the Lutheran Church, they are essentially not Lutheran.
My attitude is to continue to admonish and correct them.

They are not Lutheran - but are they Christian? Are they followers of Christ?
How does a Lutheran Admonish a Presbyterian? Upon what authority?

I know that we have discussed these things many times before - and you need not answer these if you wish. As I said earlier…I just had these thoughts as I was reading your reply.
Lord knows those in the Catholic Church of the time were not innocents in all of this…but these are fundamental issues that we are left to deal with today…

Peace
James

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I was reading through some other posts on here and it got me to thinking: If Protestants do their research and study theology, I think that many of them would come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the true Church. However, many Protestants believe (mistakenly) that Catholics worship Mary.

Do you think that more Protestant Christians would convert to Catholicism if it were not for our veneration of Mary?

If so, what can “we” do in a spirit of evangelism to either educate or correct their misguided notions of our veneration?

The main “stumbling block” for Protestants is the office of Pope. The rest is secondary, even if they don’t realise it.

 

[jediliz]

before my brother in law converted (14 years now!) his only stumbling block was understanding purgatory. I don’t think he had any big issues with Mary. He was brought up Lutheran (not sure what “Sect”, though).

 

[JonNC]

=JRKH;11167122]Jon,
A couple of comments on your points below. Please note that these comments are not directed at you personally or even at Lutheranism specifically. Rather they reflect more of what I see as the fundamental problems with the principles of the protestant reformation.

Contained within this is the seed of dissension and the multiple and sometimes contradictory paths of those protesting.
You say here "the Church (At Augsburg) decided. But what of the Church at Rome? Those at Augsburg believed Rome to be of no consequence.

Goodness no!

Augsburg’s conclusion says, in part: *Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches. *

The Lutheran reformer’s intentions were to maintain the Church Catholic. I don’t think the thought Rome was of no consequence at all.

No need to listen to anything from Rome. In short, Rome’s authority was rejected and Augsburg was to be the new authority (not the city of course, but the output - the confessions).
But -
If Augsburg could ignore Rome and Rome’s teachings - why should anyone feel bound to Augsburg and it’s teachings on matters?
If one authority can be rejected - so can the other…No other protestant reformer need bind himself to Augsburg for what was Augsburg’s authority?

Again, I beg to differ. The argument was not against the authority in Rome, but the abuses of the authority in Rome. Again from the conclusion:

• These are the chief articles which seem to be in controversy. For although we might have spoken of more abuses, yet, to avoid undue length, we have set forth the chief points, from which the rest may be readily judged. 2] There have been great complaints concerning indulgences, pilgrimages, and the abuse of excommunications. The parishes have been vexed in many ways by the dealers in indulgences. There were endless contentions between the pastors and the monks concerning the parochial right, confessions, burials, sermons on extraordinary occasions, and 3] innumerable other things. Issues of this sort we have passed over so that the chief points in this matter, having been briefly set forth, might be the more readily understood. *

I think you give Augsburg too much credit, and the Swiss, and the Anabaptists, etc. far too little. They did not need permission from the Lutherans, nor can it be said that Zwingli and Calvin would not have emerged even if Augsburg and the confutators had settled the differences.

And so - based on the above comments regarding the need to submit to authority…what prevents a sincere Christian from taking Sola Scriptura seriously - but then rejecting Augsburg, just as Augsburg rejected Rome?
And when the “final norm, scripture” is interpreted differently by various groups…
What authority - what form - what method is there by which the confusion can be resolved?

I think, in all honesty, that the seeds of division were sown 500 years before the Reformation in the west, when it became clear that Tradition could not be counted on to hold the Church together.

In the 1966 movie, “A Man for All Seasons” there was an exchange that rather illustrates this I think.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
I fear that, in a similar way, the rejection of Rome’s authority by the protestant reformers they “cut down” the very principle of authority and, having done that, they had no protection, no authority themselves when the “winds” of contradiction began to blow.

Again, I contend the authority was already divided, already “cut down”.

They are not Lutheran - but are they Christian? Are they followers of Christ?
How does a Lutheran Admonish a Presbyterian? Upon what authority?

I always side with the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Christians if they are followers of Christ.
For Presbyterians, it depends on the issue. But I feel no need to admonish a Presbyterian. Instead, present to them our teachings, support it from scripture, and the early Church, and understand that human being have some level of free will.

I know that we have discussed these things many times before - and you need not answer these if you wish. As I said earlier…I just had these thoughts as I was reading your reply.
Lord knows those in the Catholic Church of the time were not innocents in all of this…but these are fundamental issues that we are left to deal with today…

And from a Catholic POV, you present them with clarity and charity.

Jon

 

[concretecamper]

Jon,

The Tradition of the Church has held the Church together. Over a billion strong and growing! The great commissioning is proceeding full steam ahead!

 

[pablope]

The Church decided. In a similar way to the councils, the Lutheran Confessions are our doctrinal guide.

Well…which Church and why the need for one? Why would a church need to issue one to contradict what it had been teaching before?

Individual Lutherans do not practice sola scriptura, per se, at least in regards to doctrine.
Sola scriptura is a practice of the Church to hold teachers, teachings, doctrines, etc. accountable to the final norm, scripture.

 

[ffg]

I know I’m jumping in really late on this, at least considering # of pages in discussion.

But the topic question got me thinking.

I think a question like this or similar does not do justice to the effort it takes to convert.

It’s hard enough for many to do simple changes in life. Say for me, my whole life I’ve had high blood pressure. So I don’t (didn’t) see a need taking a high blood pressure pill, Why change what hasn’t been an issue, ever. I’ve been putting it off for years and am finally coming to grips with the potential benefits. Though my doc’s been preaching it for years.

To consider changing who you are in a religion light is a major decision that I don’t think Mary is an obstacle, there are far too many other pressures (family, etc).

Those that make the switch come to learn there is a vast amount of information available on a host of subjects that they did not previously know due to a narrower view of Christianity. Teachings about Mary being only one.

 

[hn160]

Well…which Church and why the need for one? Why would a church need to issue one to contradict what it had been teaching before?

 

[JRKH]

Goodness no!

Augsburg’s conclusion says, in part: *Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches. *

The Lutheran reformer’s intentions were to maintain the Church Catholic. I don’t think the thought Rome was of no consequence at all.

Again, I beg to differ. The argument was not against the authority in Rome, but the abuses of the authority in Rome. Again from the conclusion:

• These are the chief articles which seem to be in controversy. For although we might have spoken of more abuses, yet, to avoid undue length, we have set forth the chief points, from which the rest may be readily judged. 2] There have been great complaints concerning indulgences, pilgrimages, and the abuse of excommunications. The parishes have been vexed in many ways by the dealers in indulgences. There were endless contentions between the pastors and the monks concerning the parochial right, confessions, burials, sermons on extraordinary occasions, and 3] innumerable other things. Issues of this sort we have passed over so that the chief points in this matter, having been briefly set forth, might be the more readily understood. *

I think you give Augsburg too much credit, and the Swiss, and the Anabaptists, etc. far too little. They did not need permission from the Lutherans, nor can it be said that Zwingli and Calvin would not have emerged even if Augsburg and the confutators had settled the differences.

I think, in all honesty, that the seeds of division were sown 500 years before the Reformation in the west, when it became clear that Tradition could not be counted on to hold the Church together.

Again, I contend the authority was already divided, already “cut down”.

I always side with the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Christians if they are followers of Christ.
For Presbyterians, it depends on the issue. But I feel no need to admonish a Presbyterian. Instead, present to them our teachings, support it from scripture, and the early Church, and understand that human being have some level of free will.

And from a Catholic POV, you present them with clarity and charity.

Jon

All good points…
But the bottom line is that once the unity and authority of the Church was rejected, there essentially was no authority at all - not even Scripture itself - since, as we’ve seen, Scripture can be and has been interpreted in many ways.

Peace
James

 

[AbideWithMe]

All good points…
But the bottom line is that once the unity and authority of the Church was rejected, there essentially was no authority at all - not even Scripture itself - since, as we’ve seen, Scripture can be and has been interpreted in many ways.

Peace
James

James and others–I think Jon made a very good point above about giving Augsburg too much credit.

Some years ago I read a book from a historian (Great Heretics of the Middle Ages, by Michael Frassetti), detailing the many and varied heresies and unauthorized spiritual movements from about 800AD (IIRC the book started with the Bogomils) to the reformation. (Some seemed fairly innocent, some were noxious.)

Sometimes I see Catholics implying that all was just fine among Christendom until those darn reformers came along and ruined everything. But, from reading the moderately detailed book I mentioned, it seems to me like Christianity during much of those hundreds of years, far from being quietly happy with Rome, was a simmering pot of spiritual unrest and diversity of belief. The reformation came along, and with it the lid of the pot was lifted, allowing the variety of beliefs that had long been simmering to overflow. Neither the reformation itself, nor SS, was the cause of the overflowing, ISTM, it just revealed what was already there.

So, to think about things another way, please consider this theory–that what Rome lost post-Luther was not so much authority or its laws, but the ability to enforce them. Pre-reformation, Rome had the power and means to make people very, very uncomfortable (excommunicated and cut off from the sacraments and therefore eternal life, or ostracized in their towns, or killed for heresy). By that theory ( and I admit it’s just my theory), to go (sort of) with your example from A Man for All Seasons, the laws still existed but the police force and penal system was greatly weakened.