The Holy Protestant Tradition?
##############################

:date: 2017-08-06T11:14:39
:category: faith
:tags: blogComment, catholic, ecumenism, Bible, theology

(written originally as a comment to the blogpost “`How Many
Theologians Does it Take To Define Infallibility?`_” by Melinda
Selyms)

I am a Protestant, so I am not entitled to bring much to this
discussion, but we were yesterday with my wife in Wittenberg, so
I cannot resist to add this quote:

    “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or
    by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in
    councils alone, since it is well known that they have often
    erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the
    Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the
    Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it
    is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. [Here
    I stand, I can do no other.]  May God help me. Amen.”

It is almost 500 years old, but I find it refreshingly actual
whenever I hear it.

As I understand it, Sola Scriptura originally did not mean (or it
should not mean, I don’t see inside of the Luther’s head)
something like “Just give me my Bible and ten minutes and we,
with the Holy Spirit, come with better solution than two thousand
years of people a way more holy, certainly a way more smart than
me, who dedicated their whole lives to dealing with such
questions full time”. Yes, some Protestants seem to understand it
this way, but it seems to me they are more full of that horrible
combination of ignorance and arrogance than of the Holy Spirit
and wisdom. Heck, we have now even 500 years of tradition of
creating the church without any tradition! You just cannot get
rid of it!

Now, the real question is, how to find out in this cacophony of
thoughts quite often contradicting (as Luther correctly noted)
what is the right answer for the question at hand. Catholic idea
of having somebody appointed who will decide (bishops, pope, or
the council) is not that bad, but, again, it has its limitations.
Obviously some councils are now more persuasive than others, some
are outright problematic (I won't name any, so we don't fall into
the endless hole discussing particular decisions of particular
council), answers provided by some are obviously dated. I do
sincerely believe that the Second Vatican Council was the work of
the Holy Spirit in the given moment. However, even accepting
that, I can clearly see an effect of more than fifty years since
it finished. Some questions which are now hotly debated it didn’t
address at all (e.g., *Humanae vitae* was published three years
after it finished), some answers seem to be limiting the church
now (that’s for example what I hear from my Catholic friends,
theologians, on the issues of ecumenical relations with
Protestants), and some answers were not brought into action yet
(one Czech Catholic theologian remembered couple of months ago in
the newspaper `The Pact of the Catacombs
<http://www.pro-konzil.de/english-text/>`__; … yes, it was not an
official decree of the council).

However, as a Protestant I obviously believe that the decisions
made by the hierarchy are not the only solution of making sense
of the said cacophony. Whatever the solution is, however,
returning to the theme of Sola Scriptura, it should certainly
include The Holy Scripture as the guide and map for our life with
God. And yes, that is not a simple solution either, because then
we get into another swamp, the interpretation of the Scripture.

.. _`How Many Theologians Does it Take To Define Infallibility?`:
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/catholicauthenticity/2017/08/many-theologians-take-define-infallibility/