Protestant Christian dilemma

[BNR32FAN]

This is Eastern orthodox methodology but it has its flaw. Martin Luther quote augustine and preached sola scriptula. What authority does the Eastern Church to claim they got it all while other groups of Christian too existed on the earth? Also, many protestant denomination read the church fathers but didn't end up being an Eastern orthodox. The concern is how Eastern orthodox weigh the teaching of the leaders? By concensus? The concensus is false when it's limited to a small group of church leaders on this earth.

So basically when the Eastern church talk about concensus they actually concensus of what WE thinks it's right. How does that differ from other denominations which they also think they're teaching the right thing?

Augustine admitted to making many errors in his early writings, unfortunately he didn’t specify what those mistakes were so it’s hard to use his writings as evidence of early church teachings on subjects that are not supported by other early church writings. Because he admitted to making errors we really need to use other early church writings to support his teachings and those teachings that aren’t supported by other writers we should discard.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The concern is how Eastern orthodox weigh the teaching of the leaders? By concensus? The concensus is false when it's limited to a small group of church leaders on this earth.

At the time of the reformation the EOC was made up of all but one of the apostolic churches, which was Rome. I believe that gives a rather large amount of credibility to their theology.

 

[trophy33]

The English Protestants were part of international Protestantism - had they not been, the English Reformation under Edward VI would not have had Protestants like Jan Laski advising Cranmer on the formation of the 1549 Book of Common Prayer. Conversely, the Geneva Bible of 1560 was the work of Protestant English exiles. English Protestants took part in the Synod of Dordt. English history after 1520 cannot be separated from that of the Reformation on the Continent.

They were quite isolated from the rest of Europe. And the centres of reformation were in the central Europe and around it.
Thats why they developed some English specifics not seen in the common reformation. For example, the KJV is the only reformation Bible having the modified text for 1J 5:7.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

At the time of the reformation the EOC was made up of all but one of the apostolic churches, which was Rome. I believe that gives a rather large amount of credibility to their theology.

The other thing is that a lot of Latin authors never got translated into Greek, so they never were a part of our make up. Augustine's works were only translated into Greek a few centuries after his death. John Cassian, who proposed a middle way between Pelagius and Augustine, did write in Greek and so became the EO source for that dispute. By the time of the schism in 1054, the East and West essentially had two distinct theological methods.

 

[Mountainmike]

Then what is tradition? I see tradition as things that has happened, tradition include culture, people, time, environment, incident etc

I am an ex Protestant that by studying early church came to RC.

“ tradition “ is where you must start.

The word translated as “ tradition” is paradosis which means faith handed down. It is not just a set of custom rituals, it is the very essence of the faith. Paul says “ stay true to tradition we taught you”

The reason is simple. The New Testament was a product of the church affirmed by council , both what was in and what was excluded, which was decided not just because of what it said but also what it meant. You cannot divorce one from the other.

Without the authority of the church you don’t have scripture.
Without tradition or the church you cannot determine meaning.

But it would be a couple of hundred years before it existed in final form. Nearly 1800 before an average person could own it or read it.

In the period preceding the canon the faith was handed by “ word of mouth and letter” but it is visible in the writings of fathers what also it was presumed to mean.

Ignatius who took his teachings from John the apostle speaks of a Eucharist of the real presence ( real flesh said Justin) valid only if performed by a bishop in succession. Paul speaks of how some are ill, some have died by profaning it. That is the true meaning of John 6 passed by tradition along with the scripture. You don’t get to choose a meaning.

iraneus speaks of the importance of tradition, and the church succession, and the primacy of Rome, noting that the first canon ( marcions) was rejected by Rome.
So the canon didn’t select itself. Men of the church under inspiration did that. It didn’t drop out of the sky. Jesus said “ do this” not “ write this” or “ read this”

The bible states the pillar and foundation of truth is the church ( physical - the household of God) , not scripture. Scripture was a product of the church.

It is a 3 legged stool. Scripture, the church in council resolving disputes , tradition handing meaning.

Protestants later divorced scripture from tradition and the church, and without it have no means to resolve disputes by other than schism which sadly happens with monotonous regularity.

Net result is every major issue, from trinity, baptism, salvation, role of works, apostolic succession, Eucharist, re marriage , lgbt issues, clergy, you name it Protestants disagree on it. All the really profound issues. Even in baptism there are issues of meaning, method and applicability all different because sola scripture has no means to resolve them.

even Luther despaired of this Pandora’s box he opened later in life “ every milkmaid now has their own doctrine “ he lamented! That’s what happens when tradition and church are lost, how can Luther claim to be the source of unique wisdom? The councils and pope can claim it from scripture but Luthercannot.

There is then the irony that the Westminster confession and various varying articles then fill the void left by tearing scripture away. But they were clearly man made! Cranmer etc wrote them! Where is Cranmers imprimatur? No reference to Cranmer or Luther or their special gift in the bible!

Protestants like to claim they put scripture over tradition. In reality that is a nonsense, an open sesame to make it mean what you want consistent with the words. But the two are indivisible, tradition gives meaning to scripture which wasn’t written as an easy read manual.

That means for example you cannot claim to be practising the historic faith unless you accept a sacramental baptism or a Eucharist of the real presence , valid only if performed by a bishop in succession or his appointee, indeed Anasthasius of the aryan council disputes stated plainly:” before the blessing there is just bread. After It is the body of our lord.” . Oh … and some of those fathers spoke of Marian intercession!

Nobody that has a symbolic only Eucharist , or does not have bishops whose succession can be traced is compatible with tradition , or church.

The differences between orthodox and Catholicism , that kept the old church in most regards are small in comparison to differences in Protestantism.

 

[Mountainmike]

The other thing is that a lot of Latin authors never got translated into Greek, so they never were a part of our make up. Augustine's works were only translated into Greek a few centuries after his death. John Cassian, who proposed a middle way between Pelagius and Augustine, did write in Greek and so became the EO source for that dispute. By the time of the schism in 1054, the East and West essentially had two distinct theological methods.

I suspect a lot of the division was cultural because of language, which made lack of cross understanding of subtleties seem far more stark than they really were.

 

[Albion]

I am an ex Protestant that by studying early church came to RC.

“ tradition “ is where you must start.

The word translated as “ tradition” is paradosis which means faith handed down. It is not just a set of custom rituals, it is the very essence of the faith.

But it must actually have been handed down and been universally accepted, not just one or two theologians' opinion somewhere or other during the first several centuries of Christian history. Unfortunately, the theory and the history are not in synch when it comes to claims about "tradition."

Paul says “ stay true to tradition we taught you”

He doesn't say "we taught you," but that aside, he doesn't identify what traditions he had in mind and whether they refer to doctrine or something else. The passage similarly doesn't say that these traditions are equal in authority to God's word, either, just that they ought to be retained. But if you want to press the point, tell us what traditions he was referring to.

. The New Testament was a product of the church affirmed by council ,

.
Yes, but the church in that case is not the Roman Catholic denomination; it's the whole church. Also, the New Testament was defined (canonized) by the church, but you want us to think that it was written by the church...and your segment of it in particular.

You cannot divorce one from the other.

Oh yes, you can. If I find a diamond in the street, I may have found something that has great value, but that doesn't mean I created the stone.

 

[Mountainmike]

With respect Albion, I was not trying to stir up division with those who fundamentally do believe in sacramental Eucharist , sacramental baptism , succession of bishops which broadly we agree.

But to say, that you cannot use sola scripture to take any definition of baptism, Eucharist, salvation that can be consistent with words. Symbolic only Eucharist is wrong. Some Pentecostals still have modalism! Baptism is not valid in many. Double predestination is wrong. Many Protestants believe in once saved always saved , none of which are compatible with Early church.

Nor did the bible write itself . It was a product of church and councils.
The New Testament only has authority because of delegated power to select it, the power to bind and loose.

Iraneus disagrees with you on tradition and so do I.
I’m in good company.

Without tradition just as I stated YOU would not know that a bishop in succession is vital for a valid Eucharist, but it is. And as far as I am aware anglicans believe it too, which they could not do without tradition : what the first fathers passed on. The faith handed down by the pillar of truth. Tradition passing the MEaNING of scripture. Tradition isn’t an alternative or something lesser or something you can opt out of. You cannot have the true faith without it. Paradosis. Faith handed down.


The Eucharist is a problem I had with CE.

The lack of a fixed anchor in tradition leads to a too wide range in Eucharistic theology under the synod, pneumatic to corporeal , to some preaching almost symbolic, to Anglo catholics who are close to our thinking! It’s why I left. Whether or not they should be so diverse illustrates CE is too broad a church in my opinion. It isn’t a choice. There is one true meaning. Some have it, the rest are profaning it.

Catholic’s know what they believe, why they believe it and how it links back to the first fathers. Our difference with orthodox on the exact nature of the mystery is not enough to stop us respecting the same Eucharist. But we nor they ( nor you!! ) can accept most of the Protestant versions.

But it must actually have been handed down and been universally accepted, not just one or two theologians' opinion somewhere or other during the first several centuries of Christian history. Unfortunately, the theory and the history are not in synch when it comes to claims about "tradition."


He doesn't say "we taught you," but that aside, he doesn't identify what traditions he had in mind and whether they refer to doctrine or something else. The passage similarly doesn't say that these traditions are equal in authority to God's word, either, just that they ought to be retained. But if you want to press the point, tell us what traditions he was referring to.

.
Yes, but the church in that case is not the Roman Catholic denomination; it's the whole church. Also, the New Testament was defined (canonized) by the church, but you want us to think that it was written by the church...and your segment of it in particular.


Oh yes, you can. If I find a diamond in the street, I may have found something that has great value, but that doesn't mean I created the stone.

 

[Albion]

With respect Albion, I was not trying to stir up division with those who fundamentally do believe in sacramental Eucharist , sacramental baptism , succession of bishops which broadly we agree.

Hmm. Well, if so, I am glad of it, but none of that was featured in your post as I recall. (?)

But to say, that you cannot use sola scripture to take any definition of baptism, Eucharist, salvation that can be consistent with words.

I don't think that's true.

Symbolic only Eucharist is wrong.

That's right.

.Some Pentecostals still have modalism! Baptism is not valid in many. Double predestination is wrong. Many Protestants believe in once saved always saved , none of which are compatible with Early church.

Very well, but that's not the fault of Sola Scriptura, Not any more than some of the doctrines that your church has made into dogma, basing it upon "Tradition."

The Eastern Orthodox churches also affirm Tradition and yet the doctrines that they teach are different from what your church does. So...it's no different from the situation with the various Protestant churches that you were thinking of.

Nor did the bible write itself . It was a product of church and councils.

No, it was a product of God who inspired various writers. Then the Church--the ancestor of both of our churches and some others as well--assembled them and affirmed them.

The New Testament only has authority because of delegated power to select it, the power to bind and loose.

I have to disagree. The New Testament has authority because it is divine revelation. And both of our denominations affirm that origin.

The Eucharist is a problem I had with CE.

How unfortunate. To me, it's always been as obvious as can be.

The lack of a fixed anchor in tradition leads to a too wide range in Eucharistic theology under the synod, pneumatic to corporeal , to some preaching almost symbolic, to Anglo catholics who are close to our thinking! It’s why I left.

...and you joined a church that teaches transubstantiation because of Aristotle, who is not a Christian figure, and despite the fact that 2/3 of your fellow Catholics believe the Eucharist is just a representation or symbol of Christ's body and blood.

I don't see that as much of an improvement over the AngloCatholics vs Evangelicals in many Anglican churches.

Catholic’s know what they believe, why they believe it and how it links back to the first fathers.

That's what you'd like to believe, but it's not so.

 

[Mountainmike]

I’m not going to allow nitpicking to override my central point.

Without tradition as the meaning handed to scripture you would not know a bishop in succession is needed for a valid Eucharist. But it’s true. let’s hope we can agree on that. So Scripture alone in that case is not enough for valid interpretation. Church fathers are needed for that.

Scripture is not just defined just by inspiration of books, it is equally defined by inspired table of contents! churches rejection of some books as well as acceptance of others , inspired and ratified in council are seen in history.

If councils were not inspired, or if marcion had not been rejected by Rome, you wouldnt have a present day New Testament. Tradition tells us what bind and loose means , the power delegated to apostles and successors to make inspired judgements such as the cannon, just as Moses seat was.

Our difference on a formula of words to describe a mystery with the orthodox, does not stop us recognising each other’s Eucharist. Any more than the derived definition of trinity altered who Jesus, god, and the spirit are. I take God at his word. This IS my body. He asks me to “ gnaw” Also that senses can be deceived. What it is and what it is perceived to be can be two different things. Only credulity stops others taking it literally. Orthodox shroud it in mystery.

Those who remove tradition , rapidly find they replace it with their own. Confessions or articles or statements of faith that serve the same role. My question to all of them , why are articles needed if scripture alone is enough?
The existence of a confession proves more is needed. So the question then is what tradition? not whether tradition?

Hmm. Well, if so, I am glad of it, but none of that was featured in your post as I recall. (?)


I don't think that's true.


That's right.


Very well, but that's not the fault of Sola Scriptura, Not any more than some of the doctrines that your church has made into dogma, basing it upon "Tradition."

The Eastern Orthodox churches also affirm Tradition and yet the doctrines that they teach are different from what your church does. So...it's no different from the situation with the various Protestant churches that you were thinking of.


No, it was a product of God who inspired various writers. Then the Church--the ancestor of both of our churches and some others as well--assembled them and affirmed them.


I have to disagree. The New Testament has authority because it is divine revelation. And both of our denominations affirm that origin.


How unfortunate. To me, it's always been as obvious as can be.


...and you joined a church that teaches transubstantiation because of Aristotle, who is not a Christian figure, and despite the fact that 2/3 of your fellow Catholics believe the Eucharist is just a representation or symbol of Christ's body and blood.

I don't see that as much of an improvement over the AngloCatholics vs Evangelicals in many Anglican churches.


That's what you'd like to believe, but it's not so.

 

[Albion]

Without tradition as the meaning handed to scripture you would not know a bishop in succession is needed for a valid Eucharist.

I don't think you actually do know what is meant by "tradition" in a theological sense. It's not just custom that's been institutionalized by some church body. The term refers to a means by which essential doctrine is determined--in addition to Scripture which both Catholics and Protestants use for the purpose.

Scripture is not just defined just by inspiration of books, it is equally defined by inspired table of contents!

Now, that sounds just silly. If we acknowledge that 66 books and maybe a few more are divinely inspired, the table of contents listing them is hardly a matter of controversy.

Our difference on a formula of words to describe a mystery with the orthodox, does not stop us recognising each other’s Eucharist.

I didn't say it does. Is there some misunderstanding here?

Those who remove tradition , rapidly find they replace it with their own.

Again, you must misunderstand. But bear in mind that no church can be Sola Scriptura AND, at the same time, accepting of any other such source of authority! That would be an impossibility by definition...and you do admit that most Protestant churches are believers in Sola Scriptura.

Confessions or articles or statements of faith that serve the same role. My question to all of them , why are articles needed if scripture alone is enough?

Simplification. A summary. It's not much different from "Why do Catholics use a Catechism instead of pouring over all the church councils' findings, papal ex cathedra decrees, and the writings of various Early Church Fathers instead of reaching for the Catechism when some question about doctrine arises.

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

I am an ex Protestant that by studying early church came to RC.

“ tradition “ is where you must start.

The word translated as “ tradition” is paradosis which means faith handed down. It is not just a set of custom rituals, it is the very essence of the faith. Paul says “ stay true to tradition we taught you”

The reason is simple. The New Testament was a product of the church affirmed by council , both what was in and what was excluded, which was decided not just because of what it said but also what it meant. You cannot divorce one from the other.

Without the authority of the church you don’t have scripture.
Without tradition or the church you cannot determine meaning.

But it would be a couple of hundred years before it existed in final form. Nearly 1800 before an average person could own it or read it.

In the period preceding the canon the faith was handed by “ word of mouth and letter” but it is visible in the writings of fathers what also it was presumed to mean.

Ignatius who took his teachings from John the apostle speaks of a Eucharist of the real presence ( real flesh said Justin) valid only if performed by a bishop in succession. Paul speaks of how some are ill, some have died by profaning it. That is the true meaning of John 6 passed by tradition along with the scripture. You don’t get to choose a meaning.

iraneus speaks of the importance of tradition, and the church succession, and the primacy of Rome, noting that the first canon ( marcions) was rejected by Rome.
So the canon didn’t select itself. Men of the church under inspiration did that. It didn’t drop out of the sky. Jesus said “ do this” not “ write this” or “ read this”

The bible states the pillar and foundation of truth is the church ( physical - the household of God) , not scripture. Scripture was a product of the church.

It is a 3 legged stool. Scripture, the church in council resolving disputes , tradition handing meaning.

Protestants later divorced scripture from tradition and the church, and without it have no means to resolve disputes by other than schism which sadly happens with monotonous regularity.

Net result is every major issue, from trinity, baptism, salvation, role of works, apostolic succession, Eucharist, re marriage , lgbt issues, clergy, you name it Protestants disagree on it. All the really profound issues. Even in baptism there are issues of meaning, method and applicability all different because sola scripture has no means to resolve them.

even Luther despaired of this Pandora’s box he opened later in life “ every milkmaid now has their own doctrine “ he lamented! That’s what happens when tradition and church are lost, how can Luther claim to be the source of unique wisdom? The councils and pope can claim it from scripture but Luthercannot.

There is then the irony that the Westminster confession and various varying articles then fill the void left by tearing scripture away. But they were clearly man made! Cranmer etc wrote them! Where is Cranmers imprimatur? No reference to Cranmer or Luther or their special gift in the bible!

Protestants like to claim they put scripture over tradition. In reality that is a nonsense, an open sesame to make it mean what you want consistent with the words. But the two are indivisible, tradition gives meaning to scripture which wasn’t written as an easy read manual.

That means for example you cannot claim to be practising the historic faith unless you accept a sacramental baptism or a Eucharist of the real presence , valid only if performed by a bishop in succession or his appointee, indeed Anasthasius of the aryan council disputes stated plainly:” before the blessing there is just bread. After It is the body of our lord.” . Oh … and some of those fathers spoke of Marian intercession!

Nobody that has a symbolic only Eucharist , or does not have bishops whose succession can be traced is compatible with tradition , or church.

The differences between orthodox and Catholicism , that kept the old church in most regards are small in comparison to differences in Protestantism.

tradition is consistent with scripture? what if Iraneous taught something that isn't stated in scripture?

 

[Mountainmike]

tradition is consistent with scripture? what if Iraneous taught something that isn't stated in scripture?

He didn’t.

 

[Mountainmike]

I know precisely what tradition is! It is the Faith handed down, the prime mechanism in early centuries
and it’s not “institutionalised Custom” - that is the Protestant falasy echoed by you on occasion.

As for the bible - It is visible in history the process by which some books were accepted and rejected. The selectors, not just the authors were inspired. They had to judge which books were inspired. Thank the church for the New Testament.

But for the power of the church the New Testament would be at best a “ fallible collection of infallible books”

When Cranmer expressed his personal opinion as a set of articles to replace accepted tradition it was hardly an inspired act. And it was done more at Henry’s behest to distance himself from papal authority.

I don't think you actually do know what is meant by "tradition" in a theological sense. It's not just custom that's been institutionalized by some church body. The term refers to a means by which essential doctrine is determined--in addition to Scripture which both Catholics and Protestants use for the purpose.


Now, that sounds just silly. If we acknowledge that 66 books and maybe a few more are divinely inspired, the table of contents listing them is hardly a matter of controversy.


I didn't say it does. Is there some misunderstanding here?


Again, you must misunderstand. But bear in mind that no church can be Sola Scriptura AND, at the same time, accepting of any other such source of authority! That would be an impossibility by definition...and you do admit that most Protestant churches are believers in Sola Scriptura.


Simplification. A summary. It's not much different from "Why do Catholics use a Catechism instead of pouring over all the church councils' findings, papal ex cathedra decrees, and the writings of various Early Church Fathers instead of reaching for the Catechism when some question about doctrine arises.

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

He didn’t.

I'm sure he's just a human being and have different view of certain things. That's why protestant rely on the bible, not multiple church fathers as absolute truth. Protestant take church father exposition as reference and value their work but if it's not Bliblical we reject them. What's your view on the early fathers who are universalist?

 

[Mountainmike]

RC do not regard church fathers as infallible.
They are not.

And nothing in tradition contradicts scripture or can contradict it.
However it can explain it and resolve ambiguity.

although tradition might contradict your personal opinion of the meaning of scripture , but that’s a different and in essence the point. Tradition and magisterium resolve uncertainty.

You miss the fundamental issue: scripture is not easy to understand, and in places it is not definitive. It was not written as an easy read instruction manual. That is why Protestants end up with multiple contradictory mutually exclusive views about almost every aspect of doctrine. I could list thousands of contradictory positions
All of them claiming they discerned scripture and spirit. But because they are mutually exclusive only one group can be right, the rest by definition preach heresy. Who is to say which is which?

Jesus didn’t ask his disciples to write. He asked them to do and to teach. So they did. And what they taught was handed down from one generation to the next. The word “ paradosis” . The modern word tradition has connotations which are not helpful.

Many issues developed as to true interpretation, noted by the many heresies which were discussed in council and decided on. Our friend iraneus noted many early ones.

The power to resolve doctrine was given in scripture the power of the disciples jointly and Peter alone separately to “ bind and loose” , which to first century Jews meant give binding judgement on matters of law, much as OT had done from Moses seat ( which incidentally is only explained by tradition running along side OT)

To avoid giving hundreds of examples I will stick to one. What is the Eucharist? What did John mean by John6 . Protestants have gone in many mutually exclusive directions on it.

The answer we find by studying tradition. What did the first generation of Christians think it meant? The answer is found in many places in writings of early fathers. That
1/ it is the real presence of Christ . Justin Martyr and others use the phrase “ real flesh” . Anasthasius is definitive.” Before the blessing it is only bread, after it is the real body of Christ”
2/ It is valid only if performed by a bishop appointed in succession.
3/ profaning it has dire consequences some have died” says Paul
4/ ignatius and polycarp were disciples of John the apostle. He surely knew what he meant!

NOWHERE in that , is a contradiction of scripture only an explanation of it. It also shows the necessity of the apostolic succession, as highlighted by iraneus.

Scripture is not definitive without tradition or the church.
Indeed the bible verse you should re read.
“ the pillar and foundation of truth is the church” . Note NOT scripture!!
If the bible was the pillar of truth, why did it not say so?

so…. Sola scriptura is not enough. Doctrine is a 3 legged stool. Scripture, and The magisterium ( ie decisions of the church ) and tradition. The faith handed down.

Without the last two: the Protestant church has doctrinally fractured into thousands of bits on every issue.

you may not know it but thousands of ministers, pastors , and theologians returned to RC , precisely because they recognised the problem of authority. If me and pastor bill disagree , who is to say who is right? the church says who is right.

I'm sure he's just a human being and have different view of certain things. That's why protestant rely on the bible, not multiple church fathers as absolute truth. Protestant take church father exposition as reference and value their work but if it's not Bliblical we reject them. What's your view on the early fathers who are universalist?

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

RC do not regard church fathers as infallible.
They are not.

And nothing in tradition contradicts scripture or can contradict it.
However it can explain it and resolve ambiguity.

although tradition might contradict your personal opinion of the meaning of scripture , but that’s a different and in essence the point. Tradition and magisterium resolve uncertainty.

You miss the fundamental issue: scripture is not easy to understand, and in places it is not definitive. It was not written as an easy read instruction manual. That is why Protestants end up with multiple contradictory mutually exclusive views about almost every aspect of doctrine. I could list thousands of contradictory positions
All of them claiming they discerned scripture and spirit. But because they are mutually exclusive only one group can be right, the rest by definition preach heresy. Who is to say which is which?

Jesus didn’t ask his disciples to write. He asked them to do and to teach. So they did. And what they taught was handed down from one generation to the next. The word “ paradosis” . The modern word tradition has connotations which are not helpful.

Many issues developed as to true interpretation, noted by the many heresies which were discussed in council and decided on. Our friend iraneus noted many early ones.

The power to resolve doctrine was given in scripture the power of the disciples jointly and Peter alone separately to “ bind and loose” , which to first century Jews meant give binding judgement on matters of law, much as OT had done from Moses seat ( which incidentally is only explained by tradition running along side OT)

To avoid giving hundreds of examples I will stick to one. What is the Eucharist? What did John mean by John6 . Protestants have gone in many mutually exclusive directions on it.

The answer we find by studying tradition. What did the first generation of Christians think it meant? The answer is found in many places in writings of early fathers. That
1/ it is the real presence of Christ . Justin Martyr and others use the phrase “ real flesh” . Anasthasius is definitive.” Before the blessing it is only bread, after it is the real body of Christ”
2/ It is valid only if performed by a bishop appointed in succession.
3/ profaning it has dire consequences some have died” says Paul

NOWHERE in that is a contradiction of scripture only an explanation of it. It also shows the necessity of the succession, as highlighted by iraneus.

Scripture is not definitive without it.
Indeed the verse you should re read. “ the pillar and foundation of truth is the church” .
If the bible was the pillar of truth, why did it not say so?

so…. Sola scriptura is not enough. Doctrine is a 3 legged stool. Scripture, and The magisterium ( ie decisions of the church ) and tradition. The faith handed down.

Without the last two: the Protestant church has doctrinally fractured into thousands of bits on every issue.

you may not know it but thousands of ministers, pastors , and theologians returned to RC , precisely because they recognised the problem of authority. If me and pastor bill disagree , who is to say who is right? the church says who is right.

Irony I'm a Lutheran who accept the doctrine of the real presence and defend it against a mere memorial view. But we also rejected the Roman Church view haha.

 

[Mountainmike]

Irony I'm a Lutheran who accept the doctrine of the real presence and defend it against a mere memorial view. But we also rejected the Roman Church view haha.

You rejected the ESTABLISHED view!

A little anecdote for you. The Romans tortured Christians to find out what went on behind closed doors. Some of the records still exist. That’s why they were convinced that Christians were cannibals!!
Which tells you exactly what the first Christians were taught.

So the question is not why we changed, we didn’t ,
The question Is by what authority did you change?

To set the cat amongst pigeons , I can show you a video of a MS Lutheran coming back to RC who clearly was taught and practised adoration. Here’s the thing.if that really is our Lord … all should bend in knee and worship.

To me Luther was a hothead. Give it me now!!! He demanded a supertanker turn instantly . Reality was the pope spoke out against paid indulgences at the council of Trent only a few years later. I suspect even Luther regretted his actions later.

He lamented the inevitable consequence of “ sola scriptura”. He opened the flood gates. “ now every peasant has their own doctrine”
After all… if Luther can redefine tradition, so can anyone else. So was born thousands of schisms.

It’s also true that defining words can be a problem. “ faith” cannot only be intellectual assent. Even the devil assents that Jesus Is God. It must be “ formed faith” which leads to charity. And on that basis one section of the lutherans signed an accord with the Holy See agreeing on “ faith alone” provided faith was defined correctly. If only Luther had waited….

if Luther had been less of a hothead, ( the other side just as bad on occasion) the split might not have occurred. Ditto the personality clashes with orthodox 500 years earlier.

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

You rejected the ESTABLISHED view!

A little anecdote for you. The Romans tortured Christians to find out what went on behind closed doors. Some of the records still exist. That’s why they were convinced that Christians were cannibals!!
Which tells you exactly what the first Christians were taught.

So the question is not why we changed, we didn’t ,
The question Is by what authority did you change?

To set the cat amongst pigeons , I can show you a video of a MS Lutheran coming back to RC who clearly was taught and practised adoration. Here’s the thing.if that really is our Lord … all should bend in knee and worship.

To me Luther was a hothead. Give it me now!!! He demanded a supertanker turn instantly . Reality was the pope spoke out against paid indulgences at the council of Trent only a few years later. I suspect even Luther regretted his actions later.

He lamented the inevitable consequence of “ sola scriptura”. He opened the flood gates. “ now every peasant has their own doctrine”
After all… if Luther can redefine tradition, so can anyone else. So was born thousands of schisms.

It’s also true that defining words can be a problem. “ faith” cannot only be intellectual assent. Even the devil assents that Jesus Is God. It must be “ formed faith” which leads to charity. And on that basis one section of the lutherans signed an accord with the Holy See agreeing on “ faith alone” provided faith was defined correctly. If only Luther had waited….

if Luther had been less of a hothead, ( the other side just as bad on occasion) the split might not have occurred. Ditto the personality clashes with orthodox 500 years earlier.

Well I'm not a big fan of a perfect tradition. You should denounce and stop being Roman Catholic because the Eastern orthodox would accuse you being a heretic, you see the problem?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

<SNIP>

To set the cat amongst pigeons , I can show you a video of a MS Lutheran coming back to RC who clearly was taught and practised adoration. Here’s the thing.if that really is our Lord … all should bend in knee and worship.

<SNIP> if Luther had been less of a hothead, ( the other side just as bad on occasion) the split might not have occurred. Ditto the personality clashes with orthodox 500 years earlier.

No cat among the pigeons; this was my Pastor at St. Peter's Lutheran Church, a Lutheran Church Canada Congregation. Adoration within the context of the Mass is good and proper; such is why we also kneel to receive it. We do not do so outside the divine service. It is our custom also to consume all of the Consecrated elements at each service, but some Congregations do reserve these for use at the next Liturgy; we chose not to, as we do not believe in re-consecrating.

I doubt that adoration was the reason that the LCMS Pastor went to Rome.