Reformation Sunday
Posted by Joshua Claybourn on 27 October 2009 | 25 responses
“Reformation Day” is almost always celebrated on October 31st, and this post by Zach does as good of a job as any in marking that eventful day. But for many churches “Reformation Sunday” is celebrated on the last Sunday in October, and this year that fell on this past Sunday. I had the pleasure of listening to a sermon by Pastor Walter Ullman of St. Paul’s Lutheran Church on that day, and I enjoyed it so much I wanted to embed it here.
25 Responses to “Reformation Sunday”
I realize the risk of starting an argument that I know very well will never be resolved on an internet forum, but I can’t help but shake my head at this “feast” day, which seems to commemorate the greatest straw man argument in the history of religious belief. How young Protestants today continue to be taught that Catholics believe in salvation through works, a heresy denounced by the Church in the fifth century, or that one can “buy one’s way into heaven,” which was the long-recognized sin of simony, is beyond anything I can understand. Of course there were members of the clergy selling indulgences, but to say that because a certain member of the Church practices simony it means that the Church upholds simony in its doctrine and therefore must be broken away from is like someone saying that because an election was rigged in a certain county or state, American democracy no longer exists and we must secede.
If Lutherans were willing for a moment to consider the possibility that the Catholic Church has not taught the anti-scriptural heresies that they say it teaches, they would find ample evidence in Church documents and writings throughout history to support them. But this would take away their reason for remaining separate, and at the end of the day, I think they really just like being separate.
I welcome any thoughtful comments or indications of where I might have misunderstood.
How young Protestants today continue to be taught that Catholics believe in salvation through works, a heresy denounced by the Church in the fifth century, or that one can “buy one’s way into heaven,” which was the long-recognized sin of simony, is beyond anything I can understand.
I don’t encounter that being taught as a continued Catholic belief. Rather, I think it is taught as being a belief held by many Catholics at that time.
It makes me feel better (I mean that without sarcasm) Joshua that you haven’t been taught that as a continued Catholic belief, although I’ve met many Lutherans who have (and this can be seen in the comments on Zach’s post). As to your second point, I have usually gotten the sense that “salvation by works” is not presented to today’s Lutherans as merely a belief held mistakenly by many Catholics back then, but rather as being the doctrine of the Church in those days. And it was not, nor ever has been.
I think the divide here is not necessarily between Protestants and Roman Catholics but between those who take theology seriously and those who don’t. While it is true that there are many Protestants who do not understand Roman soteriology*, it is also true that there are Protestants who do understand it and still disagree. Further, while there certainly are confounding political and cultural contexts, the separation from Rome rests on many doctrinal differences, not just salvation.
* On that note, I would say that most Protestants and Romans don’t know their own soteriology.
Good points, Zach. If I had to guess, I would say that the main doctrinal differences separating Lutherans from the Catholic Church tend to fall roughly in this order:
1. Doctrine of salvation
2. View on sources of revelation (Scripture and Church for Catholics; Scripture alone for Lutherans)
3. View on doctrinal authority (bottom up for Lutherans with individual as ultimate arbiter; top down for Catholics with Pope as ultimate arbiter)(stems directly from 2)
4. Importance of Mary and the Saints
Would you say that these are the essentials?
and the sacraments….
I think that “salvation by works” is a crude (and inaccurate) abbreviation for the Protestant disagreements with RC soteriology. Likewise, I have heard fellow Protestants describe RC traditions regarding the saints as “idol worship,” which seems to go beyond inaccurate abbreviation to deliberate mischaracterization (although there seem to be Roman Catholics who misunderstand their own doctrine and do regard the saints in a manner that is tantamount to idolatry).
For me, the largest practical point of disagreement with RC theology is the source of revelation. As a Protestant, I am to respect the guidance of my pastor and other spiritual leaders, but it is ultimately my responsibility to read the Scripture and live according to its directions. Roman Catholics view the teachings of the Pope and the Bishops as authoritative over every believer. (If I’m mis-stating this, I’m sure someone will let me know.)
Well done Mike and Dave: looks pretty comprehensive.
(One quibble: Lutheranism might not be as highly individualistic as other forms of Protestantism, or within American Christianity in general.)
Eric, the teachings of the pope and the bishops that are authoritative are actually quite few. They include the canonical statements of Church councils, and statements that the pope makes ex cathedra (i.e. from his chair as bishop of Rome).
Most people do not realize that the pope has only made two ex cathedra (infallible) statements in modern history (concerning Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption into heaven) and very few before that. Everything else the pope says is there for consideration but does not form part of the deposit of faith.
Likewise with Church councils, although these are the major source of Church doctrine, only a small portion of what they say are “de fide” statements. Most have been done in response to serious heresies that threatened to divide the Church; the Nicene Creed is probably the most famous example.
I thought that the Roman Catholic Church taught that scripture and tradition were the sources of revelation, hence some things which grow to be widely accepted by the faithful can be accepted by the church as true.
For all the focus on sources of revelation it doesn’t seem that the Augsburg Confession, or the Roman Catholic refutation, discussed differences of opinion about the sources of revelation. I’d note that the Augsburg Confession holds that “The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.” There is no life to one who sets himself apart from the Church based on his or her individual interpretation of scripture. Of course the reformers were not referring to the “visible church” as manifested by the institutions of the Roman Catholic Church. Could we say that a more fundamental difference isn’t the sources of authority, but a difference in views as to what the church is?
Paul, to your first point, it is not scripture and tradition but scripture and the Church that the Catholic Church sees as sources of revelation. A number of faithful might start to believe something but it does not become doctrine unless canonically stated by a Church council or stated ex cathedra by the pope. This was the case with the two dogmas concerning Mary – they had been popularly believed for many centuries, but did not become Church doctrine until stated by the pope ex cathedra.
As to your second point, I think there is definitely a difference of view between Catholic and Lutheran as to what the Church is, but Martin Luther’s statement of “sola scriptura” has always led me to think that for Lutherans, one is indeed entitled to live by his or her own individual interpretation of scripture.
Mike-
You might want to refer to Roman Catholic commentary on the revelation issue. They have had a long, and to date unsettled, argument between two theories of revelation, the first being “two sources (Scripture and Tradition)” and the second being “one source (Scripture alone, as interpreted by Tradition)”. See the New Jerome Biblical Commentary [72:13].
Regarding “sola scripture”, the Formula of Concord provides: “We believe, teach and confess that the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments are the only rule and norm according to which all doctrines and teachers alike must be appraised and judged . . .”. When Luther stood before the Charles V he said he was willing to admit error if his error could be demonstrated to him from scripture. The Formula and Luther’s stance were not the same thing as proclaiming some sort of right to a private interpretation. Otherwise what they taught would not be subject to being judged by scripture. I’d allow that much of American Protestantism thinks that what Luther stood for was just a right to personal interpretation of scripture, but it isn’t a correct exposition of the teachings of the evangelical (Lutheran) Church.
There is a confusion between tradition and Tradition. Tradition (with a capital T) is not simply any belief that becomes common among the faithful (plenty of heresies have fallen into this category) but those sacred teachings not explicit in Scripture that have nonetheless become guarded and passed down by the Church. As the Cathechism states:
Through Tradition, ‘the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.’37 (CCC 78)
The best way of putting it would be that Scripture and Tradition are both sources of revelation, but only as preserved and handed down by the Church which Christ instituted:
As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”44 (CCC 82)
Hence those scriptures which are not accepted by the Church (like the many erroneous gospels) do not become part of Scripture, and those traditions not accepted by the Church (like Arianism or Pelagianism) do not become part of Tradition. Hope this clarifies.
“The Formula and Luther’s stance were not the same thing as proclaiming some sort of right to a private interpretation. Otherwise what they taught would not be subject to being judged by scripture.”
This makes it sound as though scripture were some absolute standard which taught the same clear doctrine to every reader regarding all controversies. All we need is to refer our private interpretations to scripture and then we will be set right. But of course this isn’t the case – ten people reading scripture will have ten different interpretations of what it says. If your only standard is scripture, then there will be as many doctrines as there are people, unless you have a church that can state which doctrines are correct and which are false.
Regarding “tradition vs. Tradition”, none of the commentary cited sounds like a claim that the church is an ongoing source of revelation. I take your “clarification” as a disguised retraction.
I disagree that it logically follows that the Formula of Concord’s “sole rule and norm” standard means that scripture will always be clear on doctrine. I get the impression of someone confusing “who gets to judge” with “what standard shall be referred to in reaching judgment”. The Book of Concord through the Large catechism relating to the instruction of Pastors, the defense in the Augsburg Confession of ordination as a condition for preaching and retention of the Office of the Keys provides a basic, if minimal, structure for the visible church to correct abuses. Nothing like talking about the Office of the Keys to send a visiting hardcore Baptist racing for the door. That said, the visible church can itself become corrupted and can come to defend abuses. In the end we trust that the Holy Spirit will guide and protect the invisible church so that abuses are seen and eventually corrected in the visible church.
Mike did indeed clarify his point, which is not a retraction in disguise. However, he may need to go further to clear up remaining ambiguity.
In the first place, we need to know whether there is revealed truth that lies outside of Scripture.
If so, in the second place, we might hypothesize that the Roman Magisterium (or any unified and authoritative Church) has a number of potential roles in regard to that extra-Scriptural revelation.
H1. The Church is the repository of revelation, preserving it through the generations since the Age of the Apostles.
H2. The Church is the certifier of revelation, acknowledging that certain beliefs that have persisted among Christians (possibly since the Age of the Apostles) are indeed revealed truths not contained in the Bible.
H3. The Church is the source of novel revelation.
I’ll leave it to Mike or another informed Roman to clarify this second step.
As for Protestantism in general, it is true that they reject the first proposition: that there is extra-Biblical revealed truth that is binding on the consciences of Christians. There may be some wiggle room for personal experience, but the Bible commands that all new revelation must be tested against what is found in Scripture.
As for Lutheranism in particular, one may certainly find strong overlaps with generic Protestant individualism, but one must recognize that this is not inherent or fundamental to the Lutheran Confessions. Rather, the Confessions, and indeed much of Lutheran practice, acknowledges that small-t tradition is an important source of Christian teaching, edifying the Christian. However, such reverence stops short of calling tradition authoritative.
“…none of the commentary cited sounds like a claim that the church is an ongoing source of revelation.”
My second quote doesn’t?:
As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted
“I take your ‘clarification’ as a disguised retraction.”
I take your combative stance as an indication that our discussion has reached the end of its usefulness.
Zach – not to sound Jesuitical here, but the question of revealed truth outside of Scripture depends on what you mean by “truth” as well as “outside of Scripture.” If you mean that there are revealed truths with no connection to what’s in Scripture, I would say no – every canonically pronounced statement of the Church has some backing in Scripture. But if by “truth outside of Scripture” you mean any statement that is not immediately obvious or deducible from the letter of Scripture, I would say that there is plenty of that. The doctrine of the Trinity, for instance, does not appear in Scripture, though it is based on things that are written in Scripture. Same goes for such doctrines as the sacraments, the two dogmas concerning Mary, etc.
I am curious where the Bible commands that “all new revelation must be tested against what is found in Scripture.” If you mean the closing lines of the Book of Revelations, then your reading of those lines as applying to the entire Bible and not merely the apocalyptic prophecies of St. John is, in my eyes, itself a rather extra-Scriptural leap of interpretation. Of course those lines also command not to take away anything from the book, which if applied to the whole Bible would render troublesome Martin Luther’s dismissing of several books.
The problem in general though with these arguments is that, as I believe it was Augustine who stated, “The Church does not come out of the Bible, the Bible comes out of the Church.” He should know, for it was during his priesthood that the Church councils took place that canonized the books that we currently have as Scripture. That for instance the Gospels you and I read are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and not more or less than these, rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church to select them.
As for Lutheranism in particular, one may certainly find strong overlaps with generic Protestant individualism, but one must recognize that this is not inherent or fundamental to the Lutheran Confessions. Rather, the Confessions, and indeed much of Lutheran practice, acknowledges that small-t tradition is an important source of Christian teaching, edifying the Christian. However, such reverence stops short of calling tradition authoritative.
It sounds like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Your reliance on a Confession promulgated by an authoritative body in directing your interpretation of Scripture as well as your worship life seems no different in substance from a Catholic’s reliance on the Church in directing theirs. But you advertise “sola scriptura,” as though to somehow make your authoritative body seem more firmly founded than the one that you split away from.
I think ultimately you must decide which rests on what: the church on scripture or scripture on the church? If it’s the church on scripture, I see nothing to stand in the way of eventual anarchy and atomization of the community of believers. If it’s scripture on the church, I don’t see how any criticism of the Catholic setup is possible.
Anything else seems to rest on a slippery slope.
Sorry if my last comments seemed more aggressive than earlier but I find irritating the practice on this blog of always referring to Catholics as “Romans.” It’s tendentious and deprecating.
It’s shorthand. It happens in other settings as well. Patients with Sickle Cell Disease are often called “Sickles” by medical personnel. People with Cystic Fibrosis are often called “Cystics”. In the cases I am familiar with, those described in such a manner also feel demeaned. I wonder if it is related to other areas, like Irish being referred to as “Micks”, etc., etc. But, thanks for a very interesting and lengthy thread. I never have the persistence to keep on going so long.
And 99.9% of the time, Roman Catholics are called “Catholics.” I have never heard of any Catholic identify his or herself as a “Roman,” just like I have never heard of any member of the LCMS call his or her self a “Missourian.”
Mike,
I am agreeing with you. No one with cystic fibrosis goes around calling themselves a “cystic”, either. Maybe people should be called what they prefer being called. I remember from much younger days there was confusion in the white community about which to use: Black or African-American. I think the conclusion was that you should use the term that the people you’re referring to prefer. Perhaps it gets confusing if their preference changes, but we are supposedly intelligent, flexible people, and we should be able to adapt. I’m a lifelong Catholic and I can’t recall ever having heard us referred to as “Romans” before this. I thought maybe I’m unfamiliar with Protestant terminology since I don’t usually discuss religion with my (many) friends and acquaintances from other, or no, churches.
First, let me apologize for the offense of using Roman instead of Roman Catholic. As Mary guessed, it was mere shorthand, and I didn’t intend it as a slur. (I would also note that there are quite a few of us who don’t very much like that we even self-identify as “Lutheran,” but there’s not much to be done about that.)
Second, I thought the proposition that doctrine was supposed to be tested against Scripture was fairly uncontroversial, but a short proof text is Colossians 2:8, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, and Acts 17:11.
Third, the suggestion that Lutherans try to have their cake and eat it too is really pretty common across a number of points of doctrine. We’re always being asked to chose one side or another, but we’ve long refused to do so. So when you ask whether the church rests on Scripture or the Scripture on the church, our response is neither: both Scripture and the church have their foundation in the Holy Spirit. He guides interpretation. If you find this answer unsatisfactory, as many people do, the next thing that you must understand about Lutheranism is a commitment to the limits of reason, often to the point of anti-intellectualism. At this point, we quickly lose common ground with interlocutors on which to hold a discussion.
Zach – to your first paragraph, I accept your apology, although I find it a bit disingenuous. I recall me and you having a conversation about this very thing a number of years ago. You knew then why I thought it was a poor term. Also, it does not seem like coincidence that the Lutherans on this board have consistently used “Roman” to refer to Catholics, when no Catholic that I have ever met does so.
To your second point, I looked up these Scripture verses and do not exactly see them as the “proof texts” you say they are.
In Acts 17:11, Paul speaks of Jews referring to their scriptures to “determine whether these things were so.” I assume that “these things” refers to Paul’s claim in 17:3 that according to Jewish scripture, the Messiah has to suffer and rise from the dead. It seems that they were referring to scripture to settle a debate about what scripture says, which falls short of saying that all Church teaching must be tested against Scripture for all time (remember that the New Testament scriptures did not even exist at this point).
In Thessalonians 5:21, Paul enjoins his readers to “test everything; retain what is good.” No mention of Scripture is made (again, New Testament scripture does not even exist yet – is Paul guilty of teaching things that are not in Scripture?), and this could be understood many ways.
Colossians 2:8 is perhaps your strongest source. As my translation reads:
“See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.”
It is clear from this that all doctrine must come from Christ and not from human tradition or “the elemental powers of the world.” Some might see certain Catholic doctrines not clearly stated in Scripture (like the Trinity) as coming from “human tradition.”
A first answer to that is that the Church is not human tradition, any more than Scripture is human tradition. The Church was divinely instituted by Christ, given by Him the authority to teach, and also given by Him the basic pattern of its organization, with a group of male leaders (originally the apostles, later called bishops (”episcopoi” – overseers)) among whom one was chief (Peter). It was given the Holy Spirit on Pentecost and has since then (despite frequent moral lapses of its leaders, beginning with Peter’s denial of Christ) maintained its structure intact, to date the longest existing institution on earth. It is not merely a human institution though, having been instituted by Christ and given the Holy Spirit, and what it teaches is thus not merely human tradition.
Secondly, if everything is to be held against Scripture, from where did Paul get his authority to teach? To a Catholic this is simple – he had authority by being an apostle/bishop of the Church, a position by virtue of which he could expound on the teachings of Christ without being faulted for saying things that Christ did not strictly say. His teachings were later collected into scriptures which the Church recognized in the 4th century as being canonical and thus sacred. But again, witness the flow of authority: from the Church, to Scripture by virtue of its endorsement by the Church. To say that the Church must after a certain date not say anything that was not said by one of its early bishops seems absurd.
To your third paragraph, I find this interesting and informative and will leave it at that.
Whoops, did not intend for the bold highlighting to go beyond that initial sentence about authority.