Protestant Christian dilemma

[Mountainmike]

As the archbishop once chosen to hold ecumenical discussions on behalf of orthodox once noted, Kallistos Ware, the differences are exaggerated. He stated that both believe in a form of purgation, if purgatory is viewed as more of a hospital and less as a prison maybe that could be resolved. The filioque can be resolved, and it is a mystery on which there can be opinions. Who knows the mind of God? I once read a 13th century work by an orthodox scholar, saying that if his peers took the time and trouble to understand the nuance in latin, rather than look to pick holes in it, they would see they were talking about the same thing.

Orthodox accept that the eucharist "is the flesh" of Jesus.
The question of what that means as a process is a mystery nobody will truly solve, it is beyond us. Indeed we say little about it, other than it "is the body of Jesus" and therefore the fact the appearance of bread remains is the mystery. Neither dispute the efficacy of it.

Even lutherans accept there is more than bread, and the change is irreversible, they prefer to prioritize fallible senses over what scripture and tradition tells us it "is".

Which brings us to the central question. Throughout salvation history, God left a steward in charge his people, from abraham, moses and so on, so it is no surprise at all, that Peter is explicitly given such a role which we see from the reference to keys is inherited and all the attempted sophistry at denying that fails.

It makes even more sense when the location of Jesus' statement is taken into account. It was By the temple of Pan, at caesarea phillipi (modern day Banyas) , where the river enters is deemed entrance to the underworld. Jesus contrasts the rock platform on which Pans temple is built, verbally pointing at Peter the rock saying "this the rock on which I build my church!"


So the question left, is only what was the nature of Peter's primacy, not the existence of it. Even the orthodox accept that.

My question to orthodox is simple. Most doctrinal questions were solved in early councils. But what happens now to a dispute in the orthodox church or between orthodox churches, take those who do and those who dont accept chalcedon? Who is there in orthodox to say who was right?
They - like all those that distanced from the churches magisterium and councils - have no further means to resolve. The orthodox church has also woven itself far more into the fabric of the rulers of countries, so might find it hard to make statements on behalf of all of it.

Our differences are small. One day I hope they will resolve.

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?

 

[Mountainmike]

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.
View attachment 309376

It wasnt the reason. And I used that example just to say how little some differences are: the fact of respecting the eucharist as the sacred body and blood speaks more than arguments of metaphysical difference of interpretation of what that means to our limited intelligence!. Jesus is truly present there.

I really do prefer to look for points of agreement not disagreement!

 

[Mountainmike]

I have found it. here... A guy called Rick Fee.

The fascinating thing was he was taught "transubstantion" under that name in MSL. Which I suspect serves to show a degree of inconsistency in MSL

But really.... I was trying to point out, that whatever words we used to describe it, Lutherans respect Jesus truly present there. That generality can offer get lost in discussion of details!

Rick Fee: Former Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod - The Coming Home Network

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.
View attachment 309376

 

[Albion]

and it’s not “institutionalised Custom” - that is the Protestant falasy echoed by you on occasion.

Well, if you think this ^ is an adequate definition of Holy Tradition, I'll have to disagree.

When Cranmer expressed his personal opinion as a set of articles to replace accepted tradition it was hardly an inspired act.

Has someone said it is?

 

[Mountainmike]

Since the origin of the Henry splitting with Catholicism - which led to supremacy - was intended adultery and wishing to confiscate the wealth of the church, I am not convinced any document by Cranmer to declare the split and “ acceptable beliefs” going forwards is of good faith intent.

Well, if you think this ^ is an adequate definition of Holy Tradition, I'll have to disagree.


Has someone said it is?

 

[Albion]

Since the origin of the Henry splitting with Catholicism - which led to supremacy

What are you talking about? Oh, that's right. If an Anglican gets the best of you in a discussion, play the "Henry" card even though Henry remained a Catholic all his life, didn't start a new church, and isn't revered by Anglicans in the way that Luther or Calvin are in those other churches.

Why not go back instead to what you said earlier was what you really wanted to do:

I really do prefer to look for points of agreement not disagreement!

 

[Mountainmike]

What are you talking about? Oh, that's right. If an Anglican gets the best of you in a discussion, play the "Henry" card even though Henry remained a Catholic all his life, didn't start a new church, and isn't revered by Anglicans in the way that Luther or Calvin are in those other churches.

Why not go back instead to what you said earlier was what you really wanted to do:

The status of articles and confessions as a substitute for lost tradition in schism is an important issue. It was a fair question? Why did Cranmer feel the need to write such a document, if scripture can stand alone?

On points of difference . Perhaps you might try the same…


Meanwhile, the Romans really did think Christians were cannibals because of how Christians described the Eucharist.

 

[Albion]

The status of articles and confessions as a substitute for lost tradition in schism is an important issue. It was a fair question?

No, because almost all denominations have some articles of belief, creedal statements, or the like. And they are not a substitute for anything, whether the Bible or "Sacred Tradition."

Why did Cranmer feel the need to write such a document, if scripture can stand alone?

As I said in my last post, all these statements of belief--including the ones in use in your own church--are summaries and are drafted so that the essentials are known or highlighted for the benefit of the membership and for the general public as well. That's true of the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds and, also, the Articles of Religion.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I have found it. here... A guy called Rick Fee.

The fascinating thing was he was taught "transubstantion" under that name in MSL. Which I suspect serves to show a degree of inconsistency in MSL

Rick Fee: Former Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod - The Coming Home Network

I'd be stunned if anyone taught transubstantiation in the LCMS. The Small Catechism with Explanation specifically teaches that is incorrect according to Lutheran teaching. I remember one of my catechism books had a page devoted to Catholic and Reformed doctrine and how Lutherans said that the Body and Blood were present with the Bread and Wine.

290. Do Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament replace the bread and
wine, so that the bread and wine are no longer there?
No, bread and wine remain in the Sacrament.

 

[Albion]

I'd be stunned if anyone taught transubstantiation in the LCMS.

I agree. This looks like a misunderstanding or misrepresentation somewhere along the way.

290. Do Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament replace the bread and
wine, so that the bread and wine are no longer there?
No, bread and wine remain in the Sacrament.

Exactly.

It may be that this man was persuaded of Transubstantiation because he had been a believer in Real Presence as a Lutheran, but that would be to say he made the move on his own as opposed to this from Mountainmike:

The fascinating thing was he was taught "transubstantiation" under that name in MSL

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I agree. This looks like a misunderstanding or misrepresentation somewhere along the way.


Exactly.

It may be that this man was persuaded of Transubstantiation because he had been a believer in Real Presence as a Lutheran, but that would be to say he made the move on his own as opposed to this from Mountainmike:

I didnt watch the video which is an hour long. I'm normally only going to watch something less than five minutes at most. Consubstantiation often gets applied to the Lutheran perspective but that is incorrect as well because it retains accidents and essence. The correct term for the Lutheran view is "Sacramental Union" that the Body and Blood of Christ are in union with Bread and Wine.

 

[Mountainmike]

No, because almost all denominations have some articles of belief, creedal statements, or the like. And they are not a substitute for anything, whether the Bible or "Sacred Tradition."


As I said in my last post, all these statements of belief--including the ones in use in your own church--are summaries and are drafted so that the essentials are known or highlighted for the benefit of the membership and for the general public as well. That's true of the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds and, also, the Articles of Religion.

The difference is the nicene creed was the result of a council in response to a heresy so it had authority.

the articles were written by Cranmer. By what authority??

Whilst Henry wanted to stay catholic , and clearly disagreed with both Luther and Cranmer, he even kept limited prayers for dead, but he didn’t want to obey the rules which by definition made him non catholic.

Like Luther, he didn’t want to abolish the pope, he wanted to be pope to decide his own rules. He murdered Thomas More because he refused to bow to his supremacy.

That problem is the lack of remaining authority after schism is why all Protestant groups have fractured.

Cranmer was all together more in tune with reformation movements, blown back and forth by the whims of monarchs.

let’s take one issue.

Henry despite the schism believed in transubstantiation and confession. Cranmer didn’t . So an entire church was hijacked by cranmers pure OPINION on meaning of scripture after Henry’s death. That proves the Anglican view is arbitrary not authoritative.

I hold my ground on tradition

The problem with the articles is the presumption that there is a unique meaning of scripture which contains all that is needed for salvation. There isn’t. That’s why something else was needed.

It is clear from tradition that succession is needed for valid Eucharist. Scripture doesn’t say so, but it is clearly important for salvation. so the articles are False. Also - since transubstantiation cannot be discounted by scripture - the articles are therefore adding an opinion that isn’t there in scripture.

I can only conclude what I have said before.

I have every respect for anglicans, I met many holy people there but the lack of authority leads to a fudging of doctrine and a range of practice in Anglicanism, eg in respect of such as low church Eucharist that profanes it in my view. It’s why I moved on.

 

[Albion]

The difference is the nicene creed was the result of a council in response to a heresy so it had authority.

Very well, but that wasn't the point. You had been trying to claim that such statements of belief are a substitute for lost tradition. But in fact, the purpose of such statements of belief is NOT to substitute anything for tradition.

Whilst Henry wanted to stay catholic , and clearly disagreed with both Luther are Cranmer, he even kept limited prayers for dead, he didn’t want to obey the rules which by definition made him non catholic.

That's NOT the definition of a non-Catholic and the Roman Catholic Church did not make such a judgment in Henry's case.

 

[Mountainmike]

Very well, but that wasn't the point. You had been trying to claim that such statements of belief are a substitute for lost tradition. But in fact, the purpose of such statements of belief is NOT to substitute anything for tradition.


That's NOT the definition of a non-Catholic and the Roman Catholic Church did not make such a judgment in Henry's case.

He was excommunicated. As bad as it gets for a catholic.

Catholicism doesn’t make the pretence that scripture can stand alone as a source for doctrine necessary for salvation. Another source of truth is needed to resolve conflicts. Anglicans binned it then used articles to state “ their version” of truth to hand down ( aka paradosis) Eg confession is not a sacrament.
John 20:23 has a meaning. You cannot choose the truth. That meaning must come from tradition.

Except we know who wrote your tradition on confession: Cranmer.
By what authority can he state truth?

 

[Albion]

He was excommunicated. As bad as it gets for a catholic.

for someone who is still a catholic.

But the bigger issue is that Henry VIII doesn't belong in this tirade against Anglicanism anyway since it was not until the 1570s that the Church of Rome broke away from the Church of England, and Henry was long since dead by then.

 

[Mountainmike]

for someone who is still a catholic.

You were the one who said Henry remained catholic.
He didn’t. When he ceased to respect the churches edicts , and tried to replace them with his own.

 

[Albion]

You were the one who said Henry remained catholic.

Yes. How many times do I have to say it? Henry remained a catholic (or Catholic) until his death. Excommunicated, yes, but still not a heretic or anything like that.

Catholics can still get excommunicated for, say, an unapproved divorce, but that doesn't make them non-Catholics. In fact, the church considers them still to be under its jurisdiction.

Maybe a refresher RCIA class, if there is such a thing, would be helpful.

 

[Mountainmike]

I will speak for Catholicism
Excommunication is as bad as it gets.
It does not formally remove membership.
But a catholic accepts the authority of the pope.
Henry didn’t accept the pope or the doctrine of adultery, and is not a catholic till he does, although he was never barred from entry. The church hopes all sinners repent.
You are picking at nits.

you speak for Anglicanism
By what authority did Cranmer, impose his own opinion to declare that confession was not a sacrament.
John 20:23 has a meaning, only tradition or the church magisterium : the bishops acting together, the custodian of truth- can pronounce what it is with the power to bind and loose.

So anglicans chose cranmer as pope! and chose his opinion of what scripture means, incidentally at odds with Henry!
Strange choice, since Henry , not Cranmer , was supposedly supreme.

seriously. That’s another problem I had with Anglicanism. The idea that truth can change with a monarch. It can’t. Either a monarch accepts truth or not. They don’t get to define truth.

Yes. How many times do I have to say it? Henry remained a catholic (or Catholic) until his death. Excommunicated, yes, but still not a heretic or anything like that.

Catholics can still get excommunicated for, say, an unapproved divorce, but that doesn't make them non-Catholics. In fact, the church considers them still to be under its jurisdiction.

Maybe a refresher RCIA class, if there is such a thing, would be helpful.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You were the one who said Henry remained catholic.
He didn’t. When he ceased to respect the churches elicits , and tried to replace them with his own.

I tend to agree with Mike on this one. What initiated the reformation in England was not initially theology, but the ego of Henry. I'm going to flip things around; if we look at Henry words and actions through the eyes of Melanchthon's Treatise, one would conclude that Henry bore all the marks of the Anti-christ. Henry gave "lip service" to his catholicity, but by his actions, he self excluded from the fellowship with Rome. Excommunication was moot, as Henry rejected the authority of the Church because the Church would not sanction Henry's sin.

In Germany, the reformation started out not as a Reformation, but as a theological discussion, and Like England, also fell victim to political influence and power struggles. In this case, one would conclude, based on the Treatise that the Pope of the day, and the Holy Roman Empire were the Anti-christ.