A Proposal to My Fellow Lutherans...

[SCALCO]

I can only point you again to the statement made by the Council of Florence. I would ask, though, in what way does it not contradict the Vatican II and Catechism position?

Here is a quote from John Paul II talking about Unam Sanctam and the Council of Florence. The bolded part is actually similar to how I had been understanding the statements.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html

Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus"–“outside the Church there is no salvation”–stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded.

And here it says Pope Bontiface VIII was quoting Thomas Aquinas (I lost the link but can find it if necessary):

Pope Boniface VIII in 1302, facing fierce political opposition, found it necessary to state, in the strongest terms, the supremacy of the papacy over temporal rulers. It is in this light that we must interpret his famous Unam Sanctam. Therein, we read, “We declare, state and define that for every human creature it is a matter of necessity for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” It needs to be noted that this line from Boniface’s bull is but a direct quotation from Aquinas’ Contra Errores Graecorum (Latin for “Against the Errors of the Greeks”), wherein he is simply equating subjection to the pope with membership in the Church of Christ."

According to my understanding, Unam Sanctam and the Council of Florence did not address those who had not received the Gospel proclamation or those who were implicitly inside the Church. They were addressing those who had left the Catholic Church or who had a general knowledge of the truth and chose to remain outside the Church.
In this way, there is not a contradiction with Vatican II and none detract from the fact that salvation comes only from Christ.

Some more food for thought: The same council said even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so it could be said that an element of sanctification exists outside the Catholic Church there.

 

[terryobrien80]

…that the time has come to rid our Confession of the condemnations of the pope or papacy as antichrist…

I’m confused. Does anyone remember that the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation signed a historic document known as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JD)? This document was the fruit of almost thirty years of ecumenical dialogue.

If the pope were the antichrist, I don’t think the Lutherans would have signed an agreement with him. LOL

BTW: Im’ Catholic

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’m confused. Does anyone remember that the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation signed a historic document known as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JD)? This document was the fruit of almost thirty years of ecumenical dialogue.

If the pope were the antichrist, I don’t think the Lutherans would have signed an agreement with him. LOL

BTW: Im’ Catholic

The Lutheran World Federation is not a confessional Lutheran organization. It is a liberal group of Lutherans who have lost any connection with historic Christianity in general, and Lutheranism in particular.

 

[TriuneUnity]

According to my understanding, Unam Sanctam and the Council of Florence did not address those who had not received the Gospel proclamation or those who were implicitly inside the Church. They were addressing those who had left the Catholic Church or who had a general knowledge of the truth and chose to remain outside the Church.
In this way, there is not a contradiction with Vatican II and none detract from the fact that salvation comes only from Christ.

The problem with that SCALCO is that the document was never understood that way prior to Vatican II. Vatican II did not use the decree of Florence or Unam Sanctum in its formulations of the salvation of non-Christians. Even if it had the fact that the Church had to change the entire meaning of Florence and Boniface VIII and the prior 600 years of understanding of it shows that in order to resolve the contradiction they had to change the intent of the writings. Without manipulating the meaning of the words there is simply no way to reconcile the two positions.

Some more food for thought: The same council said even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so it could be said that an element of sanctification exists outside the Catholic Church there.

That’s correct, but that is because the sacrament’s efficacy is not dependent on the one administering it. It is the formula of Christ’s institution which validates the sacrament. It’s also not reflective of any sanctifying quality in the case of a pagan administering it.

 

[peary]

Because by its nature as God’s breath, we can be confident that since God is infallible, His Word is also infallible.

Then how do you explain 33,000 nonCatholic denominations all proclaiming that each of them is infallible on determining God’s infallible Word?

I do not believe He has promised an infallible Church

Matthew 16:18-19: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

“The Advocate [parakletos], the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name-*he will teach you everything *and remind you of all that I told you” (John 14:26; 15:26, 16:7-8).

The Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

 

[JonNC]

I’m confused. Does anyone remember that the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation signed a historic document known as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JD)? This document was the fruit of almost thirty years of ecumenical dialogue.

If the pope were the antichrist, I don’t think the Lutherans would have signed an agreement with him. LOL

BTW: Im’ Catholic

While Triuneunity makes an important point about the LWF (his view is a bit more critical than mine ), once again I don’t think but a few Lutherans would say the pope is the antichrist. We would say that what we view as errors in the papacy are anti (against) Christ. The pope, the papacy, the Catholic Church are not, as I see it, some type of end-times beast. The CC is filled with millions of good Christian people with many good Christian leaders.

And this is why I am against the continued use of the term - it causes more confusion and ill-feelings, when we could better describe our disagreements with better words.

Jon

 

[Memaw]

True, but when we are dealing with hearts sometimes getting mixed up with heads, it is hard to slow down and listen to anyone who is not saying what we want to hear.

Thats why we need to pray our hearts out as it is only God’s Grace that can touch their hearts and minds. I know I have a long way to go, and God certainly isn’t finished with me, but if there is one thing I am so very thankful for, it is being born into the Catholic Faith. I never had to deal with all that stuff. My uncle’s 6th grade teacher became friends with my Grandmother and brought her into the Catholic Faith. God Bless her. Later my Grandfather became Catholic. I have an uncle, of happy memory, that was a priest .

 

[Memaw]

I’m confused. Does anyone remember that the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation signed a historic document known as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JD)? This document was the fruit of almost thirty years of ecumenical dialogue.

If the pope were the antichrist, I don’t think the Lutherans would have signed an agreement with him. LOL

BTW: Im’ Catholic

I think it depends on which branch of the Lutherins your talking about.

 

[peary]

Since they are sinners who are dead in their trespasses, they are in the flesh. Those in the flesh cannot please God. Their seemingly virtuous actions, by God’s holy standard, are not virtuous at all, but rather, corrupt and offensive to the Lord. Since they do not have faith in Christ, nor honor Him as God, they will die in those sins and face eternal judgment. If they could make it to heaven by following their own invented moral codes, then Christ died in vain. And we are patently foolish for preaching the Gospel to them, since they apparently don’t need it.

Always err on the side of mercy and compassion.

 

[SCALCO]

The problem with that SCALCO is that the document was never understood that way prior to Vatican II.

Pre-Vatican II

Pope Pius IX, 1863
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm

7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

This doesn’t mention the decree of Florence or Unam Sanctum, but it does mention “invincible ignorance” earlier than Vatican II. Admittedly, I have not studied this document or the context, so I could be guilty of misinterpretation. It’s worth mentioning that I have seen other earlier documents that have mentioned “invincible ignorance”, but have not studied them or taken the time to dig them up. My point is that it did not originate with Vatican II.

Vatican II did not use the decree of Florence or Unam Sanctum in its formulations of the salvation of non-Christians. Even if it had the fact that the Church had to change the entire meaning of Florence and Boniface VIII and the prior 600 years of understanding of it shows that in order to resolve the contradiction they had to change the intent of the writings. Without manipulating the meaning of the words there is simply no way to reconcile the two positions.

I have to admit I have a ways to go before I am completely satisfied with my understanding.
I maintain it’s not a contradiction if you consider they are addressing two different audiences and have a different historical context. They were written before the reformation and before the discovery of the new world. At that time, it is likely they presumed that the Christian message was sufficiently known. This could be the reason they stop short of mentioning those with invincible ignorance. I consider Vatican II a clarification or maybe even a development, but not a contradiction.

Now, is it contrary to scripture? I have seen verses that would seem to answer yes and some that would answer no, so I have a long way to go.

 

[Peter_J]

bookofconcord.blogspot.com/2008/07/roundtable-36-papacy-smalcald-articles.html

This is an article from an LCMS blog site discussing the papacy as anti-Christ. I thought this would, perhaps, further the discussion and understanding.

I finally got around to reading that article. I was disappointed in that it had only a fleeting discussion of why the papacy is called not only “an anti-Christ” but “the anti-Christ” (the passage ‘However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ”’ etc.) Nevertheless, I thought it was a very good article. (Mostly it focused on the JDDJ, btw.)

 

[TriuneUnity]

I finally got around to reading that article. I was disappointed in that it had only a fleeting discussion of why the papacy is called not only “an anti-Christ” but “the anti-Christ” (the passage ‘However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ”’ etc.) Nevertheless, I thought it was a very good article. (Mostly it focused on the JDDJ, btw.)

I wish they would stop talking about the JDDJ. It’s a meaningless document. Among the confessional Lutheran community it’s utterly worthless. I am not sure how Roman Catholics have taken it. I imagine they should be pleased since it was mainly the wacko leftist “Lutherans” who compromised doctrine. Blah.

 

[Memaw]

**“Antichrist” is found only *five times ***in the Holy Scriptures, four times as “antichrist” and once as “antichrists.” It was used only by the apostle John, and only in two of his Epistles to the church in which he was speaking, not pagans or people of other religions who opposed Christianity, but of people who had fallen away from the Church because they had been led astray by the “spirit of antichrist.” They alone were not antichrist, but by their apostasy had become among those who were also antichrist. Antichrist was a hostile force, not a specific person i.e. “antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists” (1 John 2:18).

You just put the shoe on the other foot thru Scripture!!

 

[Memaw]

I think in the last half century, yes, we have seen a growing level of charity between noncatholics and Catholics, though some on both sides have resisted what I consider the HS moving within the ecumenical movement. This should be credited in some good measure to Vatican II. It was in this spirit that I made my proposition that Lutherans drop, not only in polite conversation and in intense dialogue, but also in our confession, the term anti-christ, no matter how it is nuanced. Lutherans can disagree with Catholics in matters of doctrine without the term. I believe that with the polemics of the past, from both sides, cleared, dialogue can be furthered.

Jon

And so we pray, and pray.
But when you say “some” on both sides have resisted, I want to clarify that the Catholic Church has NEVER taught us to be uncharitable to any other christian denomination. Any catholic that does that is speaking for themselves, where many protestant denominations were taught to dislike, distrust and even lie about Catholics. Big difference.

 

[Peter_J]

I wish they would stop talking about the JDDJ.

Well, take it up with whoever recommended that blog.

It’s a meaningless document. Among the confessional Lutheran community it’s utterly worthless. I am not sure how Roman Catholics have taken it. I imagine they should be pleased since it was mainly the wacko leftist “Lutherans” who compromised doctrine. Blah.

My understanding is that the ELCA contains many liberals but also a good number of conservatives. I would imagine that’s also true of many other members of the Lutheran World Federation. (If the LWF was all liberal, I don’t think the dialogue that led up to the JDDJ would have happened at all.)

 

[Memaw]

Pre-Vatican II

Pope Pius IX, 1863
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm

7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

This doesn’t mention the decree of Florence or Unam Sanctum, but it does mention “invincible ignorance” earlier than Vatican II. Admittedly, I have not studied this document or the context, so I could be guilty of misinterpretation. It’s worth mentioning that I have seen other earlier documents that have mentioned “invincible ignorance”, but have not studied them or taken the time to dig them up. My point is that it did not originate with Vatican II.

I have to admit I have a ways to go before I am completely satisfied with my understanding.
I maintain it’s not a contradiction if you consider they are addressing two different audiences and have a different historical context. They were written before the reformation and before the discovery of the new world. At that time, it is likely they presumed that the Christian message was sufficiently known. This could be the reason they stop short of mentioning those with invincible ignorance. I consider Vatican II a clarification or maybe even a development, but not a contradiction.

Now, is it contrary to scripture? I have seen verses that would seem to answer yes and some that would answer no, so I have a long way to go.

I trust the Catholic Church as Jesus promised she would never error. She is the only true source of TRUTH. My faith is in the Lord and HIS promises.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well, take it up with whoever recommended that blog.

Oh arent we full of chuckles mister

My understanding is that the ELCA contains many liberals but also a good number of conservatives. I would imagine that’s also true of many other members of the Lutheran World Federation. (If the LWF was all liberal, I don’t think the dialogue that led up to the JDDJ would have happened at all.)

The only traditional body that I know of is the Lutheran Church of Australia, which also has affiliations with the worldwide body that the LCMS belongs to. Chances are if there are conservative bodies in the LWF it’s in Africa. All of the old Germanic state churches are thoroughly liberal.

 

[SCALCO]

I trust the Catholic Church as Jesus promised she would never error. She is the only true source of TRUTH. My faith is in the Lord and HIS promises.

Amen!

 

[elts1956]

Thats why we need to pray our hearts out as it is only God’s Grace that can touch their hearts and minds. I know I have a long way to go, and God certainly isn’t finished with me, but if there is one thing I am so very thankful for, it is being born into the Catholic Faith. I never had to deal with all that stuff. My uncle’s 6th grade teacher became friends with my Grandmother and brought her into the Catholic Faith. God Bless her. Later my Grandfather became Catholic. I have an uncle, of happy memory, that was a priest .

I guess some of us happen to be in the right place at the right time. I think this is why we need to be understanding of our Protestant brethren. Many were born into what they believe. Perhaps others didn’t look far enough.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m glad agree – although perhaps I should have been more circumspect and said “If so, then that was as much or more of an issue before Papal Infallibility was dogmatically defined.”

Well, it was certainly believed prior to being defined in 1870. I would imagine that Roman Catholics in 1850 speculated about whether or not the statement in Unam Sanctum was infallible just as much as Catholics do in 2008 – although they presumably didn’t use the phrase “ex cathedra” until it was coined by Vatican I.

But, and I say this in all sincerity, I do worry about the way so many people – Catholics as well as non-Catholic Christians – seem to think that Papal Infallibility is, shall we say, useful to an astronomical degree.

BTW, for anyone who hasn’t seen it already, there’s a recent Vatican I thread with some helpful quotations from fathers of the council, explaining their understanding of Papal Infallibility and Papal Primacy.