I have added the final section after the Chemnitz citations, featuring St. Francis de Sales' words, since I first posted this. Be sure to read it if you missed it the first time, as I think it is a significant addition to my argument.
I absolutely agree that the citation of St. Francis de Sales added considerable weight. I am eagerly looking forward to more of your treatment of Chemnitz. Keep up the excellent work, Dave! God bless you and yours.
Mike
You didn't substantially address any of Chemnitz's arguments; you only quoted citations that you found personally offensive. For example, you didn't actually argue about whether or not there is a great affinity between scholastic ideas of Tradition ca. 1545 and that of Jewish rabbis, you merely complained that you found the comparison offensive.
You open up with whing about "Protestant hostility," you quote only things you find personally offensive, and your concluding paragraph states that you really don't know one way or another whether anything Chemnitz says is actually accurate. Brilliant!
I'll let Dave reswpond to you directly if he wants to, but which specific arguments in the first 100 pages of the book are you alleging Dave didn't deal with, Josh S?
There will be plenty of responding to arguments, rest assured. I probably will get all four volumes. I eagerly look forward to seeing his argument from the Fathers, trying to prove that they believed in sola Scriptura or something more like it than like the Catholic view.
The question is whether Lutherans like Josh will actually engage the arguments as I reply to Chemnitz. It remains to be seen whether Josh can have an intelligent, non-ridiculous serious discussion with any Catholic. I think he's capable; it's the willingness which is lacking.
As I wrote:
"At this point, Chemnitz has not yet dealt with a single word of the Tridentine decrees."
As the book is an examination of Trent, surely this has a bearing on what I choose to respond to. I did, however, respond to Chemnitz' argument that Catholics believed thus-and-so about Holy Scripture. I showed that this was not the case. I dispute the factuality of his claims, if he intends to indict the entire Catholic view. I think that is more than worthy of discussion, but Josh wants to dismiss it with his usual mockery.
To hell with him, then. It's unimportant in the final analysis, whether he or any Lutheran will step up to the plate and defend their great hero. I will do my critique anyway. If they want it to be completely unopposed, all the better.
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to have a bona fide substantive discussion (I love few things more), but apparently that is a commodity all too rare on the Internet anymore, in proportion to how important the subject matter is. The more important it is, the less likely anyone can be found to have a good old-fashioned passionate discussion, minus the juvenile silliness and insults.
I probably will get all four volumes.
Good. I could practically see the outcome if you only did volume I: cries of, "you didn't read his whole argument!"
Then again, even if you did all four, then it would be, "Yeah, but which edition did you use?"
Whatever you do, no ellipses. 
Happy hunting.
Scott W.,
Very funny! Because true.
I just added your page to my bookmarks.
"I did, however, respond to Chemnitz' argument that Catholics believed thus-and-so about Holy Scripture. I showed that this was not the case."
As near as I can tell, you "showed that was no the case" with one example, St. Francis de Sales.
But you didn't explain what Francis had to do with Trent.
Besides, pointing out one post-Trent Roman Catholic who says "The Christian faith is grounded on the Word of God" is hardly convincing. That is like hearsay or something.
Right; a Doctor of the Church has no relation to Catholic dogmatic teaching. That makes a lot of sense.
Don't they had out those Church Doctorates posthumously? He wasn't a Doctor of the Church until 1877. You can't use his status as Doctor of the Church to impress me into thinking his opinions are in any way related to the state of "dogmatic teaching" in 1596. You will have to try harder.
Not I. Perhaps someone else will discuss the point with you further.
Jeffrey,
I'll bite. St. Francis de Sales was examined by the Pope (Clement VIII), Cardinal Bellarmine, Baronius and Borromeo among others prior to his appointment as coadjutor of Geneva, where, by the way, he had labored strenuously to recover approximately 70,000 souls who had been lured into Calvinism. In the space of less than a decade, from 1594 until about 1600. This stint also included a famous debate with Beza. It seems that many Protestant witnesses thought St. Francis had the better of the two and that Beza was disturbed by the event. After St. Francis's death in 1622, he was beatified at the end of 1661 or the very beginning of 1662. He was canonized in 1665. By popes who all too cognizant of the "state of dogmatic teaching in 1596" when St. Francis de Sales was, well, magisterially teaching. What did he have to do with Trent? About as much as John Knox had to do with the Institutes of the Christian Religion, about as much as Andreae had to do with the Augsburg Confession, about as much as Melanchthon had to do with De Servo Arbitrio. Which is to say, while those figures had no role in the works mentioned, they had a tremendous impact in the immediately -- relatively speaking -- subsequent time frame.
Not me.
Mr Armstrong,
I will take a little time to engage you on this topic, if that is okay with you. But I certainly don't have the time or talents for a full discussion of the topics.
For example: one of the issues that you speak about is Roman Catholics' attitude towards Scripture.
You point is that Chemnitz acts as though the RC have a low view of Scripture, when your position is that they do not.
But I don't think that is exactly his position. His position is that because of their teaching of tradition--because of how they hold to tradition over and against Scripture--this naturally will lead for them to place their own opinion against those of Scripture.
So, even though they may make claims about the importance of Scripture and how it acts as a foundation for their beliefs, yet because of their position on tradition, ultimately Scripture is given a lower status.
Let me make an analogy: Mormons would say that they think very highly of Jesus Christ. Why, Jesus Christ is a part of their official name, they speak about His atoning sacrifice--why, He is the Son of God!
So, from the Mormon point of view Jesus Christ is venerated and seen as foundational to their faith.
But doubtless, you would agree with me, that Christ is not truly the center of the Mormon faith. At least not the Christ of our religion. So, their claims are not in fact correct.
I am not saying whether Chemnitz's claims are right or not--the truth is, I, a Luthrean pastor, have not read his Examination of Trent (I know, the shame, the shame). But what I do know is that in order to disprove his position on how the Roman Catholic Church looks at Scripture, you will need to address his argument concenring that and simply not point to Roman Catholics who commend Scripture and its use.
Does that make sense?
I would indeed like for the conversation to be a friendly and beneficial one. Certainly pointed at times. I would hope that we could treat one another as intelligent adults--no, rather as God's beloved children.
Now: as to whether the Lutheran church was actually a reform movement that brought the church back in line with the teachings of the early church fathers (my positon) or whether the Roman Catholic church can lay that claim, obviously there are a lot of church fathers who said a lot of things. Certainly many of them spoke highly of tradition. The question is What is their overall opinion about the role of Scripture authority?
You can pull out plenty of quotes of Luther himself on tradition and the Word. Most Lutherans see the liturgy as coming from Scripture certainly--and that is a part of the tradition of our church. But you say "The Fathers believed as Catholics do today, regarding this question of Scripture and Tradition."
Well...I guess we'll have to see concerning that.
Is this enough for some discussion? Is this what you are looking for?
Uh, I might have published those comments a bit quickly...they are not entirely coherant...
But then, perhaps the author isn't either...
Still, if you have any questions concerning what I said let me know.
--because of how they hold to tradition over and against Scripture
Sorry, this won't fly. Tradition is equal to Scripture because Scripture is the same breath of the Holy Spirit.
You would have to demonstrate where Tradition has ever been held against Scripture.
So, even though they [Mormons]may make claims about the importance of Scripture and how it acts as a foundation for their beliefs, yet because of their position on tradition, ultimately Scripture is given a lower status.
Hmmm, I'm a junior Apologist-wannabe so I'm not sure I can coherently answer your point but let me try "typing out loud" for a moment.
I think the comparison fails because the Mormon’s trace their tradition to John Smith and Catholics to Peter and Christ. Catholic Tradition is simply the memory of the Holy Spirit “remembering” Christ. It is an effective living memory because the Holy Spirit lives in the Church.
It is back to the idea of the zero sum game. Chemnitz assumes lifting up tradition lowers scripture but he does not prove it. Most protestants accept that as obvious as well. Still if both are ultimately true sources of revelation of the same God then it is not obvious at all. Nobody says creation takes away from scripture. That somehow looking at creation as a source of information about God will cause you to lower your view of scripture. The argument only hold if you assume sacred tradition is an inferior source of information. But that is begging the question.
The mormon example is the same. If Joseph Smith is as good a revelation of God as Jesus is then there is no problem. But because Jesus is divine He is the best revelation of God to man. So mormonism loses by letting him share the focus with Smith.
Martin Tohill
=====
Tradition is equal to Scripture because Scripture is the same breath of the Holy Spirit.
=====
This is of course, what we are wondering about. Scripture is indeed the breath of the Hoyl Spirit. Is tradition?
And by saying that it is, doesn't that create problems?
====
You would have to demonstrate where Tradition has ever been held against Scripture.
====
I guess I would point to a celibrate priesthood. I myself am married. I look at Scripture and I see that affirmed as a pastor.
====
I think the comparison fails because the Mormon’s trace their tradition to John Smith and Catholics to Peter and Christ.
====
Sure....but my point is, the Mormon honestly believes that Christ is at the center of their faith, don't they?
Do we hold to that? No.
So, also it is true with Tradition, Scripture, and the Roman Catholic church.
Do you understand? My point of comparison is not the Mormon church with the Roman Catholic church--obviously they are completely different. My point is just in saying "Simply because a person's point of view states that they hold something to be crucial, from another standpoint, criticism can be made that they undercut the position; they do not build it up."
Is that more coherant?
Randy,
====
It is back to the idea of the zero sum game. Chemnitz assumes lifting up tradition lowers scripture but he does not prove it.
====
Well...I would probably say that he does NOT believe that. Once again, not having read him, I'm flying a bit blind, but I have read enough Lutheran works to know that we DO lift up tradition. There is nothing zero sum abotu lifting up tradition and celebrating what the Church has taught.
But when it comes to forming the foundations of our doctrine, Chemnitz--much like Luther before him--was concerned about the doctrinal statements that were supported more from tradition than from Scripture.
====
The argument only hold if you assume sacred tradition is an inferior source of information.
====
I think we do hold to that. "Popes and councils can err" said Luther. Our position is that they are human and humans can make mistakes.
I'm not neccesarily giving an argument about why, I am just confirming what you say here.
And once again, my point is not to compare Smith and his interpretation with RC theology--I'm just saying "Just because a person says 'This is really, really important to us!' does not mean that I need to admit 'Yes, obviously it is.'" The truth is, I might say "I think you misunderstand what this truly is and its significance."
Are you with me?
Question: how do you do the italics in the comments? I think that would be easier for responding.
If you put <i> at the start of the part you want to italicize, and </i> at the end, you get italics.
Be sure to "close" the italic portion with the </i> or it will affect the rest of your post (hint: use preview )
A very warm welcome to Pastor Louderback.
Most Catholics I know believe in material sufficiency of Scripture: i.e., that all that is necessary to be saved, and indeed all Catholic beliefs can be found in Scripture, either explicitly, implicitly, or deductively / or indirectly, based on other more clear teaching.
So when you write:
"Chemnitz--much like Luther before him--was concerned about the doctrinal statements that were supported more from tradition than from Scripture."
I would say this is asking the wrong question (from Catholic perspective). We would say that any of our doctrines are not inconsistent with Scripture and can be supported by it in some significant fashion (though there are degrees).
The key to understanding our view is the notion of Tradition and Scripture flowing from the same divine wellspring. We believe they are harmonious with each other. Obviously, you guys disagree with us, but that is our view, and the particulars have to be argued individually. In no sense, for us, to they oppose each other. They're of a piece.
I will let others interact with you for the time being. I have a day off of my driving job tomorrow and I want to try to put together my next response: on how Chemnitz deals with tradition and the Catholic view. I have to read more, do some serious patristic research in replying, and write, so it'll take a lot of time.
I would love to interact with you and other Lutherans, and non-Lutheran Protestants who take the same position on these issues, after I complete my next installment.
I thank you very much for your courtesy and the gentlemanly spirit in which you conduct yourself. I think you'll find that virtually all of those who comment here treat Protestants with respect and courtesy and brotherly friendliness as well.
I'll bite. St. Francis de Sales was examined by the Pope (Clement VIII), Cardinal Bellarmine, Baronius and Borromeo among others prior to his appointment as coadjutor of Geneva, where, by the way, he had labored strenuously to recover approximately 70,000 souls who had been lured into Calvinism.
It sounds like Francis was some kind of apologist to the Calvinists. So, applying his works to Evangelicalism would be tricky, because Francis was attacking positions Lutherans did not actually hold.
Besides, it looks to me as if Chemnitz and Francis pretty much agree anyway:
Chemnitz: [T]he papalists have in their church many, yes, mostly such things which they can in no way prove, establish, and defend with testimonies and proofs from the canonical Scripture. Therefore, they seek other proofs outside of and beyond the Scripture, in order that, when they are pressed and attacked with testimonies from Scripture, they may not be compelled to yield to the truth but may have other aids ready for use, a refuge, as it were, to which they may turn.
Francis: And if you closely consider how the Council compares Traditions with the Scriptures you will see that it does not receive a Tradition contrary to Scripture: for it receives Tradition and Scripture with equal honour
Six of one, half dozen of the other.
Chemnitz: The Papalists cannot prove all of their doctrines from the Scriptures alone, and when we claim that the Scriptures contradict their doctrines, they go outside of Scripture, to Tradition, to establish their doctrines.
St. Francis: The Church does not receive any Tradtion that is contrary to the Scripture.
So, "Six of one, half dozen of the other"? How is it that Chemnitz and St. Francis "pretty much agree" when Chemnitz advocates pitting Scripture against Tradition whereas St. Francis says the Church receives no Tradition contrary to Scripture. They obviously are in disagreement on this point, St. Francis holding the historical Christian doctrine while Chemnitz holds the heterodox opinion of Sola Scriptura.
Jordan just beat me to the punch. Additionally, Jeffrey said, "It sounds like Francis was some kind of apologist to the Calvinists. So, applying his works to Evangelicalism would be tricky, because Francis was attacking positions Lutherans did not actually hold." Lutheranism in 1594 had a fluidity it no longer does thanks to the gnesiolutherans. Likewise, Calvinism of 1594 Geneva was different from "Calvinism" in its later developments, and furthermore, the repeated attempts of Melanchthon and Calvin and Beza, et alia, show there was a belief on the part of substantial parties in the Swiss and German Reformations that there was significant overlap. And, unless you've read "The Catholic Controversies" at least, I don't think you know what St. Francis was arguing for or against, or, as you put it, "attacking."
What did you mean by "Evangelicalism?" Did you mean continental Lutheranism? Or contemporary American non-confessional Protestantism? If the latter, I'm having trouble understanding the relevance of raising that in the current context. Perhaps you could help me understand what you meant because I don't want to deal with arguments you're not making.
(A) Francis: The Church does not receive any Tradition that is contrary to the Scripture.
So, "Six of one, half dozen of the other"? How is it that Chemnitz and St. Francis "pretty much agree" when Chemnitz advocates pitting Scripture against Tradition whereas St. Francis says the Church receives no Tradition contrary to Scripture. They obviously are in disagreement on this point, St. Francis holding the historical Christian doctrine while Chemnitz holds the heterodox opinion of Sola Scriptura.
Actually, Francis' statement (A) is close to Sola Scriptura as Lutherans know it. Lutherans would say that the Church is incorrect to accept any tradition contrary to Scripture.
If Francis' statement (A) were true, it would make this statement superfluous:
(B) Francis: for it receives Tradition and Scripture with equal honour.
If it is true that the Church receives no Tradition contrary to Scripture, then it would not be necessary to hold Tradition with equal honor to Scripture. Holding only Scripture to honor would cover Tradition because Traditions would naturally not violate Scripture.
BTW, could you define "receiving Tradition"? It seems to me that the church receives bad tradition all the time. Councils met to determine which traditions that had been received are bad.
Better yet, could you point out where Francis defines "receiving Tradition"?
If it is true that the Church receives no Tradition contrary to Scripture, then it would not be necessary to hold Tradition with equal honor to Scripture. Holding only Scripture to honor would cover Tradition because Traditions would naturally not violate Scripture.
Sorry, that's a massive non sequitur. Just because the Church receives no Tradition contrary to Scripture, that doesn't mean that it is impossible for there to be traditions that are contrary to Scripture, and that therefore the Church does not receive.
It seems to me that the church receives bad tradition all the time. Councils met to determine which traditions that had been received are bad.
If the Church had received the bad tradition, then how could the Church have gathered together and authoritatively rejected it? Anything the Church receives as Tradition can never be rejected, or else the Church would not be able to be the Church.
As the first oecumenical council, the doctrine of Arius was rejected. The Church never received or accepted Arianism, though many Christians went astray and accepted the doctrine of Arius. Only had the council approved his doctrine would it be correct to say that the Church received Arius' bad tradition.
As for St. Francis de Sales, I've not read much of his writings, so I couldn't say where he defines "receiving tradition," but since he was (and is) an orthodox Catholic, he would accept the ancient Vincentian rule of "that which is believed always, everywhere, and by all," and would accept the Magisterium as the authentic interpreter and preacher of Scripture and Tradition.
Just because the Church receives no Tradition contrary to Scripture, that doesn't mean that it is impossible for there to be traditions that are contrary to Scripture,....
Huh?
If the Church had received the bad tradition, then how could the Church have gathered together and authoritatively rejected it?
Easy. They get together and reject it. Again, huh?
Anything the Church receives as Tradition can never be rejected, or else the Church would not be able to be the Church.
I don't understand. Why not? Isn't it the church's job to weed out bad tradtions?
As the first oecumenical council, the doctrine of Arius was rejected. The Church never received or accepted Arianism, though many Christians went astray and accepted the doctrine of Arius. Only had the council approved his doctrine would it be correct to say that the Church received Arius' bad tradition.
The traditions of Arianism were received. There were churches and Bishops that followed those traditions. Were these churches not catholic? Were those bishops not catholic? There were catholic churches that taught Arianism. There were catholic bishops that taught Arianism. If a stranger walked into town and asked for the local christian church, they would have been directed to the local christian church, which happend to teach Arianism. The traditions called Arianism were received and were part of the experience of catholic Christianity.
Until a council got together and purged these bad received traditions. That is the Church at work.
If the Church formally "receives" something, she has accepted it, which means she cannot be rejecting it. The Church uses "receive a Tradition" in a more specific sense than just "a lot of Catholics believe something." The Church receives the Tradition of the biblical canon, but I think there are a lot of Catholics who don't believe that Tradition -- that doesn't mean the Church has "received" their opinions as true, any more than the fact that most Catholic couples today contracept means the Church has received their practices as legitimate.
If the Church formally "receives" something, she has accepted it, which means she cannot be rejecting it.
So the begotten, not made Jesus was not a received tradition before Nicaea? I think the pre-Nicaean trinitarians would disagree with that.
The Church uses "receive a Tradition" in a more specific sense than just "a lot of Catholics believe something."
I agree. Mary's intercessory abilities shouldn't be accepted just because a lot of catholics believe it.
So the begotten, not made Jesus was not a received tradition before Nicaea? I think the pre-Nicaean trinitarians would disagree with that.
That tradition had been received from the apostles, and was never rejected by the Church, but was reaffirmed when Arius and his party tried to overturn it.
Mary's intercessory abilities shouldn't be accepted just because a lot of catholics believe it.
No, they shouldn't be accept just for that reason, but because it is something believed always, everywhere, and by all, because it is affirmed by the Scripture ("the fervent effectual prayer of a righteous person avails much"), and because it is affirmed by the Magisterium at the highest level.
"Receiving tradition" is not something that happens in isolation from Scripture and Magisterium. If it did, the Protestants would have a point, but it doesn't, so they don't.
because it is affirmed by the Magisterium at the highest level.
That's a fancy way of saying "a lot of catholics believe it".
No, Jeffrey, it's not a fancy way of saying "a lot of Catholics believe it." The Magisterii are the Pope and the bishops in communion with him, acting in their role as teachers, as successors of the apostles. The Pope and the other Catholic bishops are rather more than just "a lot of Catholics."
Jeffrey,
St. Francis de Sales answers your question about how the Church receives Tradition in several places and in several ways in his pamphlets which have been compiled in book form as "The Catholic Controversy" by TAN Books. Very large portions (if not the whole text) are available online; I will be happy to send you a copy if need-be. It is very inexpensive and readily available from TAN.
One succinct way is an appeal to the Vincentian canon. Another support is the realization that the same Spirit Who inspired the Apostles to write Scripture inspired them to give doctrinal instruction which was not written down, e.g. St. Paul's eucharistic teaching referenced in his first epistle to the Church at Corinth.
One mistake you are making is that the Church receiving Tradition is not the same as a church receiving a tradition or some individuals traditioning things. There is a very specific definition, and I think Jordan was right to point out that you were talking past each other.
The Pope and the other Catholic bishops are rather more than just "a lot of Catholics."
The Pope and Catholic bishops are Catholic aren't they? There is no getting around it. You believe in Marrian intercessions because there are other Catholics who believe it. Bandwagoner!
The Pope and Bishops are "rather more than just" Catholics, you say? You are right. I don't really have an answer to that one. A Catholic is a Catholic to me. I can't imagine someone "more than just" Catholic.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
