Sola Scriptura cannot answer the Liturgy question

This is absurd and indicates a fundamental ignorance of Sola Scriptura, Protestant thought and the history of liturgy and worship. Where do you get this stuff? Maybe from other Catholics who think the same way?

You are very confused. You seem to have no understanding of Protestant worship or the number of different rites and liturgies within Orthodoxy and Catholicism, let alone the liturgies of the Protestants.

You fail to understand that Sola Scriptura means things are evaluated against a Scriptural norm, and that there is room for many other things, including traditions.

You fail to understand current papal directives and Catholic teaching on ecumenism.
Please read forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=13856118#post13856118 and following. You are sadly out of touch with your own church regarding ecumenism, but perhaps you prefer to go your own way. :shrug: You need to think through whether you should call yourself Catholic. What you have posted is NOT Catholic.

I realize a lot of Catholics insist on their personal freedom to go against Church teaching and continue lambasting Protestants with everything they can think of, because Protestants go against Church teaching, but without realizing they are condemning themselves with their own mouths.

This, also, is something you fail to understand. You are out of step with your own Church. How can you post this and claim to be defending Her?

Catholics tend to be quite reserved during the liturgy. It is one of the things I miss about praising God with my separated brethren.

The priest raises his hands on behalf of the congregation. It is much more orderly.:slight_smile:

I hope not. It actually comes across as hostile and disrespectful, as well as ignorant.:frowning:

To be fair, “Protestant” does cover an awful lot of breadth. His statements are actually pretty accurate if they refer to the storefront non-denom. down the street. Some of these are populated by “pastors” that are equally ignorant of their family history.

This is how you and some others define it, but there are others that are closer to “solo” scriptura.

:thumbsup:

If you look at Psalm 134:1 it is in reference to those who minister in the sanctuary anyway.

Your friend should be embarrassed for conceding such a ridiculous argument.

Churches use sound systems because people need to hear the pastor. Churches use pews because people need a place to sit for 90 minutes, for heaven’s sake! Such earthly considerations have absolutely nothing to do with some artificial fight between Scripture and tradition, they’re just simple realities that any installation serving a large group of people on a regular basis need to address.

Surely you can see how petty and anti-Protestant this is.

many Evangelicals don’t accept any such notion as Sacred Tradtion, and believe that what we have handed down from the Apostles is only the “traditins of men”. There are plenty of these traditions of men in Churches, including sound systems and pews.

At the root of your question lies a faulty premise: you think that sola scriptura is the claim that all Christian doctrine and praxis can be read out of Scripture. This is not what Protestants have historically claimed; it is a claim made by radical evangelicals, mostly in North America.

Most Protestants (Anglican, Lutheran, even old fashioned Calvinists) make a much more careful claim. We say that Scripture alone can be considered the final source of theological authority; all other authorities (tradition, councils, one’s bishop, any given theologian, etc.) must be measured against the doctrines taught in Scripture. If there’s a contradiction between Scripture and a claim made by any such authority, then Scripture wins.

It is not a denial that other such authorities exist. Traditions of the early church which don’t contradict Scripture are good and authoritative; it is on this basis, for example, that the Church of England retains a threefold order of Bishops, Priests and Deacons (perhaps implicit in Scripture, but not explicitly articulated until a few generations afterwards).

The only real issue on which mainstream Protestants think Catholic liturgical doctrine and praxis might come into conflict with Scripture is with regard to theologies of Eucharistic sacrifice, and even on that issue your average Lutheran or Anglican will say that (at the very least) when the Fathers describe the Eucharist as a sacrificium laudis this doesn’t seem to contradict anything in Scripture.

To reiterate, sola scriptura is a theological principle which puts other sources of theological authority within a hierarchy. It doesn’t abolish or reject them.

Sure. In fairness, the Catholic Church seems to make similar distinctions too. The subdiaconate is by and large suppressed on the basis that it was a human, post-apostolic tradition; no Catholic could ever allow that the diaconate or priesthood might legitimately be discontinued!

Good Morning,

A charitable reading of your OP, I think, is to see it as a request for people all Christian denominations to conform to what is right and good in Catholic tradition and practice. You are intending to present a Catholic view, one that does not deny Church teachings.

In addition, you do not intend to insult people who see things differently than you do, correct? Instead, your OP is to be read as a request.

If I am incorrect about this, please let me know. Thanks.

God Bless your day! :slight_smile:

This is more of a rant than actually interacting with the argument on the table. Is a Christian free to worship God however they please? If the answer is Yes, then this must be shown in Scripture and it must be recognized that a free-for-all worship isn’t really Liturgy at all. But if the answer is No, such that the Christian is not free to worship God however they please, then that means there has to be some ordered liturgy.

Why do Protestants assert that “Catholic things” like statues/icons of saints are bad because it is a man-made tradition while at the same time these Protestants say it’s ok to follow man-made liturgy?

This is a very problematic theological claim. What you’re saying is that not all Christian doctrine and praxis can be read out of Scripture. This means that some doctrine and praxis must come from somewhere else…but given that no other sources are inspired this means doctrine/praxis comes from human invention.

The idea that Scripture acts only as a referee to see which man-made traditions we can tolerate and which we must reject, is to say religion is something we invent and then check to see if God is ok with it. In Catholicism, religion is delivered to us, the Deposit of Faith is handed on.

It is not a denial that other such authorities exist. Traditions of the early church which don’t contradict Scripture are good and authoritative; it is on this basis, for example, that the Church of England retains a threefold order of Bishops, Priests and Deacons (perhaps implicit in Scripture, but not explicitly articulated until a few generations afterwards).

You do realize that most of historical Protestantism and most Protestantism today rejects this very example you gave?

The only real issue on which mainstream Protestants think Catholic liturgical doctrine and praxis might come into conflict with Scripture is with regard to theologies of Eucharistic sacrifice

Well, when the Mass IS a Sacrifice, what is really being said is “the only real issue” Protestants have with the Mass is EVERYTHING about it. The Lutherans and Anglicans stripped out the sacrificial aspect/language of the Mass, turning it into something else entirely. A vegan burger can look and taste like a real burger, but stripping the meat out of it makes it not a burger at all.

To reiterate, sola scriptura is a theological principle which puts other sources of theological authority within a hierarchy. It doesn’t abolish or reject them.

This doesn’t answer the question of: “What are we supposed to do for worship on Sundays?” If you’re not going to answer that question from an inspired source like Scripture, then by definition you must turn to uninspired sources to teach you how God wants to be worshiped. Surely you see the problem with that line of thinking.

Correct. Nothing I said was intended to insult. I’m simply pointing out a major issue with serious consequences. I’m asking: Is the Sunday worship that is being done actually something God commanded…or did some uninspired tradition of men tell you to worship God a certain way and we simply followed that uninspired guide?

The only acceptable answer is that we must obey God when it comes to worship, and this means we worship Him as He wants us to worship Him, namely the Sacrifice of the Mass. The majority of this information is not taught in Scripture and thus comes from inspired oral tradition. Any other approach to this question forces a person into liturgical relativism.

It is not a rant, CD, but an observation that you have put forth several false premises and as a result, arrived at false conclusions.

There is a broad experience of praise and worship that remains within the boundaries of Spirit and Truth. Not all of it is liturgical.

You have been told repeatedly that the premise of Sola Scriptura you are using does not apply to liturgical Protestants, and you seem unwilling to accept this. You are forcing your concept of Solo Scriptura on to those who do not espouse it. How is that conducive to dialogue? On the contrary, I think you have created a strawman. Protestants who have accepted Sacred Tradition and retain Liturgy (from Catholicism) do not espouse the idea that everything has to be found in Scripture.

Why is this a problem? You seem to want Protestants to accept the Catholic faith “all or nothing”, and since they do not, you are criticizing them for the Catholic parts they DO accept. Wouldn’t it make more sense to affirm what we hold in common, and work toward more unity? It does not make sense to me that you are criticizing the parts of the faith that have been retained. :confused:

This would be true except that Liturgical Protestants do accept that there are other sources of divine guidance. They believe that the Holy Spirit has guided the Church through the Councils and Creeds, as well as the Liturgy. No, these things are not held on the same level as Scripture, but that does not mean they are only “human invention”. No Protestant will claim, for example, that the Trinity is a “human invention”, though this word is not found in Scripture.

Yes, so would it not make sense to affirm what has been retained of that paradosis within the ecclesial communities of our separated brethren?

On the contrary, all the original Protestant communities affirmed Church authority, and the roles of persons intended to serve the Church. The largest denominations still retain these offices. I think you may have been overinfluenced in your assertion by storefront evangelicals who are not connected with mainline historical Protestants.

Where I see the problem is where you are refusing to acknowledge that many elements of Catholic Truth are retained within the separated ecclesial communities.

Seriously? I interacted. You did not like the interaction. So you call it a ‘rant’.

If you say,“Pigs are green, therefore mushrooms are from Montana”, and I tell you that pigs are not green, and even if they were, the ‘therefore’ doesn’t work, so I reject your whole argument, and go so far as to say that your line of argument is actually contrary to papal direction, and you tell me I am simply ranting, that is utterly insipid.

Is there a ‘Nihil obstat’ on what you are trying to do here? I don’t think so. Why not try to advance an actual Catholic teaching instead of your own imaginative innovation? It is especially ironic that you fault Protestants for man-made stuff with this attempted line of reasoning.

Calling it a rant is a shallow, facile, immature way to say that you won’t face my post. Or its consequences.

Your credibility is zero and dropping.

You are insulting. And it is not even an issue, if you would bother to find out the facts.

You demonstrate in your second paragraph that you are not listening. But I knew that. Protestants are wrong unless they agree with you. :shrug:

I think this creates a false dichotomy. Even Catholic Liturgies have certain “man made traditions” that are not contrary to what we have received through Sacred Tradition. Relegating these pious practices to “some uninspired tradition of men” seems disrespectful to your own faith, as well as the practices of others.

There are a great many elements of Sunday Worship that have been retained from Catholic Sacred Tradition, and it is important to recognize and affirm these.

I think we do see a great deal of relativism when it comes to forms of Christian worship. I do agree that it is incumbent upon us to worship as He would have us do.

Don’t hold back, Tomyris, tell us what you REALLY think! :smiley:

Don’t get discouraged, Tomyris. The stats are showing that there are 15 people reading this thread for every one posting in it, so hopefully you are reaching some that are willing to learn about history, and different points of view.

Not all Protestants are iconoclasts. The Lutheran reformers rejected the iconoclasm that is present in some Reformed/ Calvinist traditions.

Jon

I have to admit, as much as I am appalled by a lot of Luther’s writings, when I learned he was agast that they destroyed the icons while he was out of town, it gave me a warm fuzzy. :smiley:

Except that’s not what I’m saying. Sola scriptura doesn’t deny the deposit of faith; it suggests that the deposit of faith has a regulatory fucntion when it comes to discussing the legitimacy of any Christian teaching or practice which has not been directly divinely revealed.

You do realize that most of historical Protestantism and most Protestantism today rejects this very example you gave?

Sure. But that’s a non sequitur. The example is a good one because it shows how sola scriptura is applied in the Church of England.

Well, when the Mass IS a Sacrifice, what is really being said is “the only real issue” Protestants have with the Mass is EVERYTHING about it. The Lutherans and Anglicans stripped out the sacrificial aspect/language of the Mass, turning it into something else entirely. A vegan burger can look and taste like a real burger, but stripping the meat out of it makes it not a burger at all.

(1) The Mass is more than a sacrifice; sacrifice isn’t “everything about it”.

(2) You’re making wild claims here. Sure, the Reformers didn’t share the Roman theology of sacrifice. But you’re completely wrong to suggest they removed all sacrificial language or aspects from the Mass.

O Lord and Heavenly Father, we thy humble servants earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion. And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee, that all we, who are partakers of this holy Communion, may be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction. And although we be unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service; not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord; by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end. Amen.

This doesn’t answer the question of: “What are we supposed to do for worship on Sundays?” If you’re not going to answer that question from an inspired source like Scripture, then by definition you must turn to uninspired sources to teach you how God wants to be worshiped. Surely you see the problem with that line of thinking.

The same sources you use: the living tradition of the Church, the witness of the Fathers. They are valid sources of Christian teaching and practice, provided that their authority is understood to be subject to that of Holy Scripture.

I think this thread was just a hit-and-run by someone who will say ANYTHING to make Protestants look bad (if you look at what he has posted elsewhere, that is a recurrent theme). When confronted, he does not have the integrity or humility to admit he was wrong. His thesis is in shambles and he has fled the scene of his crime.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.