UTTERLY Amazing!
Who needs to go to the movies when discussions like this are taking place? That was thoroughly enjoyable.
One very significant bit of information I hope you add to your future discussions is from the Book of Concord:
+A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope+
http://www.bookofconcord.org/tre...g/
treatise.html
Here are some very key quotes from that document:
++38] In the third place, this must be added: Even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy and superiority by divine right nevertheless obedience would not be due those pontiffs who defend godless services, idolatry, and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel. ... ...
Divine right eh?
++40] ... the Pope assumes to himself divine authority in a threefold manner. First, because he takes to himself the right to change the doctrine of Christ and services instituted by God, and wants his own doctrine and his own services to be observed as divine; secondly, because he takes to himself the power not only of binding and loosing in this life, but also the jurisdiction over souls after this life; thirdly, because the Pope does not want to be judged by the Church or by any one, and puts his own authority ahead of the decision of Councils and the entire Church.
Were not these Lutherans exercising the SAME authority as the accuse the Pope of doing?
++42] ...On this account our consciences are sufficiently excused; for the errors of the kingdom of the Pope are manifest.
Excused from what? Rejecting legitimate authority.
++57] Therefore, even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right, yet since he defends godless services and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him; yea, it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist.
So he did have "primacy by divine right".
++76] Since, therefore, bishops have tyrannically transferred this jurisdiction to themselves alone, and have basely abused it, there is no need, because of this jurisdiction, to obey bishops. But since there are just reasons why we do not obey, it is right also to restore this jurisdiction to godly pastors [to whom, by Christ's command, it belongs], and to see to it that it is legitimately exercised for the reformation of morals and the glory of God.
First the Pope, now the Bishops. The Lutheran Magisterium here has infallibly invalidated the authority of every bishop in the world.
Thanks for your kind words, Nick, and the very interesting material. Glad you posted that. The "divine right" is the most intriguing part.
p. 456; Schaff means by "worship" what Catholics would classify as a sub-worship "veneration")
So how do you know objectively when you are committing worship (latrea) by bowing, praying, singing, praising, extoling; and when you are performing "sub-worship", veneration, dulia, or hyperdulia, by bowing, kissing a statue or cross or relic, praising, praying to, extoling, etc.??
And how does another person watching a person performing these activities objectively tell the difference between the two, between your worship (latrea) and veneration or sub-worship to relics by kissing, extoling, praying to statues, and pictures, etc?
Ken,
#1- Because we know God alone is to be worshipped. Why can't you just accept it; that this is what we believe?
#2- You could ask.
But really; why do you keep asking this same question? If someone says they are not worshipping a statue (an inanimate object) and they tell you that they believe that they worship God alone; why would you worry if someone else is worshipping correctly? What does it have to do with the truth of the matter?
Wouldn't it be much better to believe the best of someone than to believe the worst? I think that's mentioned in Scripture somewhere.
It's one thing to have questions about what someone does; it's quite another to judge them.
One verse I like to point to regarding "worship" vs "veneration" is Joshua 5:13-15. Notice how this was not worship as in Rev 22:8-9.
Idolatry is, by definition, a matter of the heart and interior disposition. Therefore, it can't be judged by mere outward appearances alone.
Secondly, idolatry is replacing God with something else and in effect making it God. Catholics don't do that at all, as any appeal to saints is ultimately to God through the saint (and statues only represent saints in a visual way). The Catholic is not substituting anything for God.
The Eucharist in the Mass has been called idolatry. But that only works if presuppositions are made that Catholics themselves don't hold (circular reasoning). So, e.g., if it is said that we are worshiping a piece of bread (which would indeed be idolatry), we reply by saying we are worshiping Jesus, precisely because we believe the bread is no longer there.
Protestants can't have it both ways. We get blasted for believing in transubstantiation, but then when it cones to the charge of idolatry, all of a sudden, bread is there again, even though that isn't what we believe. Even if we are wrong about what happens there, it still isn't idolatry, because that goes back to what the person believes in his heart, who is doing the act that some think is objectionable. And WE think it is Jesus, Who could take on flesh, so that becoming present under the appearances of bread and wine is just as possible for Him to do.
Any way you look at it, it ain't idolatry. It's just stuff that many Protestants seem to be unable to comprehend unless they put it in a neat little box of "idolatry" without thinking through the matter properly.
Your initial quotes are misleading to your readers. You use them to support your position without providing any background for the context in which they are set.
In the interest of full and fair debate, why not simply publish the entire Wider Hans Wurst, or Against Jack Sausage letter, rather than bits and pieces so that the reader can judge for himself what is being discussed in that letter, and assess whether the quotes truly support your argument? It is a rather extensive letter, some 77 pages, and you use maybe one page of quotes to prove your argument that Luther was wrong about the abuses of the mass.
What of the next quote? This is taken from the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, which is written in response to the Roman reply to the Augsburg Confession. The quote you use is taken from a section entitled "Mass for the Dead," buried in the next to last paragraph after an extensive discussion on the abuses of the Mass then existing in the church. You take it out of context in an effort to support a conclusion with which you want everyone to agree -- namely that you are right and the others are wrong -- Lutherans are wrong about the mass because of more than a thousand years of tradition which, as a presupposition for you, is more important than the revealed word of God. But you do not address the specific abuses that are discussed in the Confession and its Apology -- there is no interaction with that text at all, only a dismissal of its contents based on a statement that is taken out of context.
Such is not debate, nor is it Christian charity which, as a self-professed, Roman Catholic apologist you should be extolling and representing to your brethren. It certainly does not give honor to God when you tear others down in order to puff up your own arguments by attempting to discredit Luther and Lutherans who desire to engage in honest debate as Pastors Nichols and Maton do. I understand that you disagree with the Lutheran position and Luther, but you could at least respect the fact that those who hold such positions do so in all faith and earnestness as members of the body of Christ, and such positions have arisen out of real events and positions taken by men in the history of the church. Given the fact that the Eastern Church Split from the West in 1054, and approximately 500 years later there were a proliferation of denominations as the result of the reformation, it is a necessary and serious question to ask how do we know the one true catholic and apostolic church on earth when we see it? And, too, is it possible that the body of Christ consists of more than just one single denominational body?
One thing you fail to comprehend in your reading of Luther is that he thought Christ should define the church, not man, or traditions of men, or precedents -- the church should lead us to Christ the head, not to His vicars on earth. The church in his day led its people not to Christ, but to bishops and popes, based o
One thing you fail to comprehend in your reading of Luther is that he thought Christ should define the church, not man, or traditions of men, or precedents -- the church should lead us to Christ the head, not to His vicars on earth. The church in his day led its people not to Christ, but to bishops and popes, based on decrees, canon laws, traditions, etc. For your readers who are interested, they can read Article XXIV of the Augsburg Confession and its Apology at www. bookofconcord.com
I understand that you disagree with the Lutheran position and Luther, but you could at least respect the fact that those who hold such positions do so in all faith and earnestness as members of the body of Christ,
Where did I fail to do so? In my Introduction in this dialogue, I wrote, citing my own past words:
"I've enjoyed my dialogues with Lutherans through the years. I disagree with many things, of course, but it is with a lot of respect and thankfulness for all that Lutherans and Lutheranism have brought to Christianity, historically and in the present era."
And:
"The real divide is between liberals and conservatives: those who believe that religious truth claims are valid and supremely important and those who don't. I agree with C.S. Lewis that those at the center of their religious tradition have more in common with those at the center of other faith traditions, than they do with the liberals on the fringes of their own group."
One thing you fail to comprehend in your reading of Luther is that he thought Christ should define the church
That's fine. Please direct us to where our Lord did so. And then tell us why you think your interpretation of the passage where Jesus did this, is authoritative and beyond argument. Thanks.
I think most people would agree that I need not cite an entire 77-page treatise in order to provide proper context. That is a rather ludicrous demand. Many of Luther's works are now available online, and I link to as many of them as I am aware of. This one, from volume 41 is not, but it can be searched to some extent:
http://books.google.com/books?
id..._46Ffo4#PPR7,M1
. . . [I think] Lutherans are wrong about the mass because of more than a thousand years of tradition which, as a presupposition for you, is more important than the revealed word of God.
That's not my presupposition, which is, rather, that all Catholic doctrine should be, and is, in harmony with Holy Scripture. Catholics would never place tradition above the Bible.
What I was doing was critiquing Luther's and Lutherans' own words: that they follow the ancient tradition of the early Church. What I showed, I think, was that in the area of the sacrifice of the mass, Lutherans were and are not following patristic theology; Catholics are doing that. Luther claimed that the mass, period, was an invention; not just abuses in it. He (like Calvin) rejects the sacrifice of the mass. He rejected (at least late in life) adoration of the host,too, which was also widely taught in the early Church.
#1- Because we know God alone is to be worshipped. Why can't you just accept it; that this is what we believe?
#2- You could ask.
these are subjective answers and not really objective (outside of yourself). I believe that you are sincere, and I am not judging your motives. The point is that praying and extolling and praising anything else or someone else other than God in prayer and praises is wrong. There is no objective distinction between the prayers and praises to Mary and the prayers and praises to God.
You have to do better than, "just because we say so".
That the bread becomes Jesus' body and the wine becomes Jesus' blood is just the most irrational of all your particular doctrines.
Do the priests allow the laity to drink the cup of wine representing the blood of Christ?
If not, why not?
It is a clear command in the gospels.
Do the priests allow the laity to drink the cup of wine representing the blood of Christ?
If not, why not?
It is a clear command in the gospels.
----------------------------------------
I see no such command to drink from the Chalice anywhere in scripture. No where.
The only place is in John 6 where Christ tells us to eat his body and drink his blood. When we recieve Christ's body under the species of bread we also recieve his blood. So not only are we eating his body when recieving host but drinking his blood as well.
That the bread becomes Jesus' body and the wine becomes Jesus' blood is just the most irrational of all your particular doctrines.
---------
It makes more sense than Christ's body and blood existing alongside and underneath the bread and the wine. Taht particular doctrine reminds me of pagan doctrines where a god would exist inside an idol.
Ken,
During the posts relating to this discussion, give the Calvinist polemics a rest, would you?
Let the Lutherans have a little thunder for just a bit eh?
Lastly, if the entirety of the faith is to be boiled down merely to rationalism, then we might as well give up on the necessity of faith and Christianity in the first place.
Besides, if you want to have a debate about rational, logical thought, I'd start with the Calvinist position on predestination and perseverence of the Calvinist elect.
Ken,
If I'm reading you wrong then I apologize in advance. But, what you seem to be suggesting is that Catholics are deceiving themselves.
these are subjective answers and not really objective (outside of yourself). I believe that you are sincere, and I am not judging your motives. The point is that praying and extolling and praising anything else or someone else other than God in prayer and praises is wrong. There is no objective distinction between the prayers and praises to Mary and the prayers and praises to God.
I don't believe they are subjective answers. I can judge my devotion to Mary and prayers to her based on experiences outside of myself. I probably wouldn't have to go any further than in your life; have you ever told your mother you love her? if so, was it worship that is only due to God? And if you say that you've done this but not in the context of "prayer and praises" then please explain how that would make a difference. Would it be because Mary is invisible and your mom is not? Or maybe you didn't kneel or fold your hands when you said it; but I doubt you could find a difference.
You're using an unwarranted charge of idolatry because you have no better reason to disagree with our Catholic practice.
"The point is that praying and extolling and praising anything else or someone else other than God in prayer and praises is wrong. There is no objective distinction between the prayers and praises to Mary and the prayers and praises to God."
I can't stack up to the theological knowledge of most of the people in here, so if my response is wrong please correct me: On one level I'll agree with you that there's no objective distinction between prayers to Mary and prayers to God - or in praising or asking for help from your neighbor. In a sense, they're all the same - it's just that we speak to God in the way that suits His nature (adoration) and to saints in the way that fits their nature (veneration) and to our neighbors in the way that fits their nature as human beings.
Dave,
I think another relevant text from Luther would have to be the Babylonian Captivity.
This especially:
"What shall we say, then, about the canon of the mass and the sayings of the Fathers? First of all, if there were nothing at all to be said against them, it would yet be the safer course to reject them all rather than admit that the mass is a work or a sacrifice, lest we deny the word of Christ and overthrow faith together with the mass."
It shows quite clearly that Luther is prepared to reject the Fathers outright, even without argument. (Although he does immediately attempt to interpret 'sacrifice' in... well... a non-sacrificial sense.)
I imagine that it is to these arguments that Pastors Nichols and Maton would have to attend if they want to salvage the thought of the Fathers for the Lutherans.
Have you ever dealt with Luther's arguments about this, before?
This seems like it will be a pleasant debate. I can't imagine any of the nastiness that often occurs in internet debates happening here.
----------------
Ken Temple: It would be helpful if you could tell us what you think worship is. How else can you charge that what Catholics do to Mary or statues is 'worship' unless you first tell us what worship is? And for that matter, how can we refute you unless you tell us what you think worship to be?
-Rob
Ken,
Perhaps the most important difference between prayers offered to God and prayers offered through the saints is precisely that we do not pray TO the saints. We ask the saints to pray for us.
We never ask the saints to do anything of their own power, even the Most Blessed Theotokos, but rather we ask that they, as friends of God in His glorious presence, ask for what we need on our behalf.
If you do not object to asking friends and family on earth to pray for you, and I cannot imagine you do, then you have no reason to reject the intercession of the saints.
As to the objective difference between venerating a holy object and venerating God Himself: first of all, I would suggest that protestants get in the habit of venerating God with their bodies at all before they toss the charge at Catholics of going too far with it.
The Scriptures command you to bow down, to kneel, to prostrate, to raise your hands, to embrace, to kiss, all as part of worship. Does your Church do any of these things? If not, beware the creeping nemesis that is gnosticism.
As for Catholic practice, let's say you're at war. Hunkered down in the trenches and not sure how much longer you have to live. Now, let's say you have a picture of your dear wife with you (I assume you're married). Could you imagine kissing this picture of your wife before you charge the enemy? I'm sure you could. But how would your companions in the foxhole know you were not carrying around a little idol? After all, that kind of adoration is due only to God!
Or, for another analogy perhaps closer to the crux, let's imagine, God forbid, that your dear wife should die. Could you imagine holding close to you a sweater that held on to her smell? Could you imagine weeping before a picture of hers? Could you imagine embracing your children all the more tightly because they are, in a certain sense, little icons of her?
Of course, all these material reminders are good and Godly things, and to love them, to cling to them, to show affection for the people we love through the things that they left behind is merely to show how much we love them.
Such is Catholic practice with the relics and images of the saints. We miss our beloved heroes of old! We regret that we could not have known them personally, but through the ministry of the word of God and through the history of the Church, we feel like we do, and we love them across the ages.
So, is there an objective way to verify what is latria and what is dulia? Perhaps not. But the sin of idolatry is not the sin of adoring a created thing for what it is. It is the sin of adoring a created thing AS GOD. Catholics do not do this in theory or in practice. To portray them as doing so is nothing more than sloppy scholarship at best and slander at worst.
In Pax Christi,
Matt
Hi Rob,
I've touched on Luther's overall perspective on the Fathers before, particularly in this paper:
The Ambiguous Relationship of Luther and the Early Protestants to St. Augustine (Dave Armstrong and Edwin Tait)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...luther-
and.html
Protestants will always have a different view on this because they reject apostolic succession.
Ken, your remarks could be better answered in the open forum to keep this comment box more on topic. On you way there try this page as a starting point:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-of-
images.html
Dave, I too was impressed with your discussion and I hope the Pastors follow up with more replies.
Schlosskirche ("Castle Church") interior, Wittenberg - 27 seconds - You Tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h...h?
v=h7GegqkxOnA
Thanks, Ben! As always, you provide very interesting material.
Glad you liked it, Dave. I know it’s not the greatest quality, but for the price...! 
History is clear that abuses existed in the Catholic church in the middle ages and efforts to correct them were begun before Luther came into the picture. Compare the abuses then to the sexual abuses today which are even greater. We know that these same abuses occur in each religious denomination as well as scouts and school systems, camp programs, etc. Admittedly, the Catholic Church has not handled it well, as perhaps they should have, along with some others I mentioned. Does that mean throw out the teachings of the church and baby with the bath water because of the flawed people who criminalized within the system? Of course not. The same is true of the middle ages and if you look deeper, folks such as St Thomas Aquainas and St. Philip Neri, and St. Thomas More and a host of others fervently defended the Catholic Church's teachings in that period. While Luther and Calvin and pals were right to speak out about abuses and individuals they were not right to claim errors in the Mother Church and then rewrite what Christ had instituted and conform scriptures to suit this thinking. The fact that Luther got a hearing at Augsberg but not the Papacy does not legitimize his writings. That's no different than if he presented them to you. Should you take time to look into the the Catholic history and actully study it, you will see that the teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church have held up. You will also see that the Papacy has held up when it comes to doctrine, where it really counts. No other institution of 2000 years can claim continuous leadership that long. planann2
Linked your site from my blog. This looks fantastic and as soon as I get the bucks I'm buying your 11 books download.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
CM
Thanks! Glad that I can be of some service to you.
Commenting by HaloScan
