A Proposal to My Fellow Lutherans...

[Peter_J]

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

There’s no problem with questioning your own understanding. A clarification would be a further development along the same line of thought as the previous teaching. The papal Bull and the ecumenical Council’s statement, however, are not developed by Vatican II. They are changed. Both documents clearly state that all heretics, Jews, schismatics, Muslims, and pagans will be consigned to hell. Vatican II says they may not be. That’s not a clarification.

I think that in focusing on the words “not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics”, you’re missing the key qualifier of that statement, to wit “unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock”.

So the question is, what does the phrase “added to the flock” in that paragraph mean? (Or the other phrase “remain in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church”.) Vatican II gives us some very important ideas on how to think about this question.

(Keep in mind that an ecumenical council, e.g. Florence, is only infallible in what it dogmatically defines, not in every thing that its participants might be thinking – it is not even infallible in the arguments it uses to support its dogmas.)

 

[Peter_J]

That is very true and I am sure that it was helpful in clarifying it via a dogmatic pronouncement.

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.”

However, that presupposes that prior to the Middle Ages the doctrine of papal infallibility was believed throughout the history of the Church. And of course, the problems inherent in the dogmatic pronouncement of requiring Christians to believe in it for unity with Rome.

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.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Other than in a PM, better not.

I understand what you’re saying, even if I don’t entirely agree. As for Pope Benedict, one could quote Spock’s Vulcan axiom: “It took Nixon to go to China”.

Jon

A fan of Star Trek VI, I like this guy!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Being Catholic and a big fan actually of Martin Luther, I have several things that keep me Catholic. I definitely don’t always feel great about teaching from Rome and I still struggle mightily with a host of questions…but here are my troubles with Luther’s view of the Church…

Christ told us the “gates of hell would not prevail” against His Church. If Luther’s hypothesis is true, that the Church fell into innovations and heresies and lost its way through the middle ages, then that means that millions of people for centuries were receiving watered-down, phony, un-Christian doctrines with their salvation imperiled. I just can’t believe that? I can’t believe the Holy Spirit would allow the Church to go off in such wild, lost, incoherent directions and imperil his flock?

The early church is clearly set up with a Bishop, a Priest, and a Deacon. Now this wasn’t cemented until the beginning of the second century, but clearly the idea of a priesthood of all believers when it comes to conveying sacraments and administration of churches was not left to the laity? Lutheranism takes away bishops and the traditional idea of holy orders, apostolic succesion that existed for 1500 years all of a sudden was not important?

I just find it hard to believe that God would allow 30,000 different views of His divine person, His theology, and His eternal desires for us. The Holy Spirit truly cannot be teaching contradictory theology to 30,000 denominations? Infallibility as a charism of the church makes sense despite it not being biblical.

Sola scriptura seems to me to not hold water. The Church existed before the gospels were even written down. It was bishops and presbyters who guided the flock. And for decades not even all the churches had all the epistles and gospels.

It was the Church that fought heresies like Arianism, Monothelitism, Nestorianism, etc., not scripture. The Bible and the Church are inseparable.

Just my observations as a Catholic who frequently questions his church but stays for the above reasons.

I admire Luther so much for taking on the sickening corruption of his time, risking his neck, writing superb commentaries and theological writings, and for his passion. He was an incredible man.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I think that in focusing on the words “not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics”, you’re missing the key qualifier of that statement, to wit “unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock”.

So the question is, what does the phrase “added to the flock” in that paragraph mean? (Or the other phrase “remain in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church”.) Vatican II gives us some very important ideas on how to think about this question.

(Keep in mind that an ecumenical council, e.g. Florence, is only infallible in what it dogmatically defines, not in every thing that its participants might be thinking – it is not even infallible in the arguments it uses to support its dogmas.)

I understand what you’re trying to say here…but do you see how utterly arbitrary and subjective that is? We certainly can’t get into the heads of what the bishops at Florence were thinking, but we can certainly analyze the intent of its statements. I don’t think one can honestly stretch the arguement as far as saying that it took a council 600 years after Florence to define what “added to the flock” means. There’s no question they mean added to the membership of the Roman Catholic Church! How else will Muslims, Jews, and pagans be added to the flock? Does Christ really have a flock out there who hate, despise, and reject their Shepherd?

Incidentally, Florence was almost absolutely right in its statements about Muslims, Jews, and pagans!

From our perspective, it demonstrates that to Rome, the teaching of the apostles is whatever the present Magisterium says it is. It simply states “the church has always believed, taught, and confessed that Muslims, Jews, and pagans may attain salvation as long as they live according to the Law.” The fact that the Church has always taught, for 2000 years, that non-Christians will be condemned, doesn’t seem to be a barrier to infallibility.

 

[Peter_J]

I understand what you’re trying to say here…but do you see how utterly arbitrary and subjective that is? We certainly can’t get into the heads of what the bishops at Florence were thinking, but we can certainly analyze the intent of its statements. I don’t think one can honestly stretch the arguement as far as saying that it took a council 600 years after Florence to define what “added to the flock” means. There’s no question they mean added to the membership of the Roman Catholic Church! How else will Muslims, Jews, and pagans be added to the flock? Does Christ really have a flock out there who hate, despise, and reject their Shepherd?

The normal way is through Christian baptism, but I would want to rule out “baptism of desire”.

BTW, I should mention that some Catholics don’t consider the Council of Florence to be an ecumenical council. (For example, go to this link and scroll down to question number 8.) If they are correct, then it really wouldn’t matter what the Council of Florence said.

 

[JonNC]

A fan of Star Trek VI, I like this guy!

Live long and prosper.

 

[Memaw]

Triune,
I am LCMS as you are, and I see nothing in the JDDJ that indicates that the ELCA “caved”. In fact, the term “faith alone” does appear in the document, but whatever. The idea that we are justified by grace through faith is confirmed throughout the document, in my mind, consistent with Augsburg. Besides, if the LCMS had wanted a greater say in the language, we could have been more aggresive in participating in the discussions. As it is, the LCMS usually sits on its hands.

What is more, we can have a strong disagreement with Rome on any number of issues, such as we do with many over our protestant brothers and sisters, and yet not invoke this scritpural reference as a condemnation of them.

The papacy is what it is now, not what it was in 1530.

Jon

The Papacy is now and always has been just what Jesus Christ gave it the authority to be, and nothing can nor has ever changed that. Now you can spread all the falsehoods you want about it but its here to stay as Christ gave Peter the "Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. So to Call the Pope, any Pope or the Catholic Church an anti-christ, is like telling Jesus HE doesn’t know what HEs doing and is fighting against HIMSELF. Can’t happen!! You tell me of what other institution there has ever been that is over 2,000 years old, has seen kingdoms and nations, come and go and still teaches exactly what Jesus taught the Apostles, has all 7 Sacraments, the Holy Mass, Eucharist, and Apostolic Succession, teaches the same truths the world over. While the protestant revolution has resulted in so many divisions that a protestant source says over 40,000 different denominations of protestantism that disagree with each other in many important ways. Thats not the fault of the Catholic Church and I for one am really tired of all your old anti-Catholic lies against the Church that Jesus Christ founded and promised that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against. I suggest that you take up all those lies with Jesus Himself. Don’t forget the 8th Commandment while your at it.

 

[Memaw]

The normal way is through Christian baptism, but I would want to rule out “baptism of desire”.

BTW, I should mention that some Catholics don’t consider the Council of Florence to be an ecumenical council. (For example, go to this link and scroll down to question number 8.) If they are correct, then it really wouldn’t matter what the Council of Florence said.

I should mention that it doesn’t matter what “some” Catholics “don’t consider” about the Council of Florence. What really matters is what the Catholic Church does consider about the Council of Florence. “Some Catholics” are not the Catholic Church and if they go against Church teaching, they are separating themselves in some way against the teachings of the Church.

 

[Memaw]

That is very true and I am sure that it was helpful in clarifying it via a dogmatic pronouncement. However, that presupposes that prior to the Middle Ages the doctrine of papal infallibility was believed throughout the history of the Church. And of course, the problems inherent in the dogmatic pronouncement of requiring Christians to believe in it for unity with Rome.

A Dogma is NOT a new doctrine, it is defined so that all Catholics will know it has been believed all throughout the time of Christianity. It goes back to Jesus and Peter. If a Catholic doesn’t believe in the Infallibility of the Pope, then he is not in union with the Church. His choice.

 

[Peter_J]

Live long and prosper.

-Yes, and may I say, “May the Force be with you.”
-Do you even know who I am?
-I think I do. Aren’t you one of the Little Rascals?

 

[JonNC]

The Papacy is now and always has been just what Jesus Christ gave it the authority to be, and nothing can nor has ever changed that. Now you can spread all the falsehoods you want about it but its here to stay as Christ gave Peter the "Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. So to Call the Pope, any Pope or the Catholic Church an anti-christ, is like telling Jesus HE doesn’t know what HEs doing and is fighting against HIMSELF. Can’t happen!! You tell me of what other institution there has ever been that is over 2,000 years old, has seen kingdoms and nations, come and go and still teaches exactly what Jesus taught the Apostles, has all 7 Sacraments, the Holy Mass, Eucharist, and Apostolic Succession, teaches the same truths the world over. While the protestant revolution has resulted in so many divisions that a protestant source says over 40,000 different denominations of protestantism that disagree with each other in many important ways. Thats not the fault of the Catholic Church and **I for one am really tired of all *your ***old anti-Catholic lies against the Church that Jesus Christ founded and promised that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against. I suggest that you take up all those lies with Jesus Himself. Don’t forget the 8th Commandment while your at it.

Memaw,
First, please search my posts and find one single lie I’ve told about the Catholic Church. If you find one, I will certainly apologize. I have a number of disagreements with the Catholic Church (fewer than I used to have), but I have never intentionally spoken or written a falsehood about the Catholic Church. Additionally, I am not anti-Catholic. Once again, I challenge you to find one post here that I have made that is anti-catholic. In fact, I have, on occasion challenged here some who are.
Second, it is undeniable that there were errors in the Catholic church leading up to the time of the reformation. These errors were the result of sinful humans, not the Holy Spirit. This is what I meant by my statement that the Papacy of today is not what it was in 1530.
Finally, it is curious that you would target me for your rant, when it is I, as the OP, who has condemned and promoted the removal of the anti-christ condemnation from the confessions.

Luther’s Small Catechism

The Eighth Commandment.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

What does this mean?–Answer.

We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.

I try, in every post here, to keep this in mind.

Jon

 

[TriuneUnity]

The normal way is through Christian baptism, but I would want to rule out “baptism of desire”.

I agree with you that Baptism is the normative means of regeneration… but in cases where Baptism is not possible, but the person believes I would consider that a Baptism of desire. There arent many practicing Muslims who also profess the Christian faith and are prevented from baptism. A desire to be Christian is one thing. A rejection of it, or a lack of knowledge of it, is another.

BTW, I should mention that some Catholics don’t consider the Council of Florence to be an ecumenical council. (For example, go to this link and scroll down to question number 8.) If they are correct, then it really wouldn’t matter what the Council of Florence said.

That’s true… but the Church does. So while I may find YOU less contradictory, that doesn’t mean Rome is in the same situation. By its own teachings it has trapped itself in an ever more tangled web.

 

[TriuneUnity]

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.

 

[Memaw]

Memaw,
First, please search my posts and find one single lie I’ve told about the Catholic Church. If you find one, I will certainly apologize. I have a number of disagreements with the Catholic Church (fewer than I used to have), but I have never intentionally spoken or written a falsehood about the Catholic Church. Additionally, I am not anti-Catholic. Once again, I challenge you to find one post here that I have made that is anti-catholic. In fact, I have, on occasion challenged here some who are.
Second, it is undeniable that there were errors in the Catholic church leading up to the time of the reformation. These errors were the result of sinful humans, not the Holy Spirit. This is what I meant by my statement that the Papacy of today is not what it was in 1530.
Finally, it is curious that you would target me for your rant, when it is I, as the OP, who has condemned and promoted the removal of the anti-christ condemnation from the confessions.

Luther’s Small Catechism

I try, in every post here, to keep this in mind.

Jon

I was referring to your statement that the Papacy is not the same as it was in 1530. The Pope may change but the Papacy can’t. Even when we had “bad” Popes, (Popes leading openly sinful lives), the Pope did not do anything to harm the doctrines, (teaching authority) of the Catholic Church. Thats the protection of the Holy Spirit. Thats where our faith in the infallibility of the Pope comes in. Doesn’t mean the Pope is perfect but it does mean the Pope can’t do anything to harm the doctrine of the Church. Our trust is in Jesus when HE said the “Gates of Hell” will never prevail against HIS Church. And it hasn’t, even tho it has tried many times all thru the 2,000 years of the existence of the Catholic Church.
As for the 8th Commandment, I was referring to protestants in general (I was talking about the protestant revolution) and It wasn’t fair for you to put it in BOLD letters as I didn’t do that. Thats what causes misunderstanding when someone takes one word out and makes it what it wasn’t ment to be. I am sorry if you misunderstood what I said, but hope you understand what I did mean now.

 

[Memaw]

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 read it or at least as much as I could stomach of it.
All I can say is consider the source!. And keep in mind the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ Himself and Martin Luther was a man that broke his solemn vows to God and married a Nun and removed parts of the Bible that he didn’t agree with and started this whole mess we find ourselves in today. I wouldn’t put to much trust in him or anything he had to say about the Catholic Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Memaw,

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is how so many so-called ecumenists can be so very intolerant. There are various examples I could give (Catholic and non-Catholic alike) but I won’t.

Instead, I would just like to raise my electronic eyebrow at the fact that the ink has not even cooled on your pronouncement that “Orthodox believe the same as Roman Catholics” (for anyone who hasn’t been following that conversation, see this thread) and already I’m reading …

While the protestant revolution has resulted in so many divisions that a protestant source says over 40,000 different denominations of protestantism that disagree with each other in many important ways. Thats not the fault of the Catholic Church and I for one am really tired of all your old anti-Catholic lies against the Church that Jesus Christ founded and promised that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against. I suggest that you take up all those lies with Jesus Himself. Don’t forget the 8th Commandment while your at it.

I read it or at least as much as I could stomach of it.
All I can say is consider the source!. And keep in mind the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ Himself and Martin Luther was a man that broke his solemn vows to God and married a Nun and removed parts of the Bible that he didn’t agree with and started this whole mess we find ourselves in today. I wouldn’t put to much trust in him or anything he had to say about the Catholic Church.

If it isn’t presumptuous of me to offer you advice, I would suggest pacing yourself.

 

[JonNC]

I was referring to your statement that the Papacy is not the same as it was in 1530. The Pope may change but the Papacy can’t. Even when we had “bad” Popes, (Popes leading openly sinful lives), the Pope did not do anything to harm the doctrines, (teaching authority) of the Catholic Church. Thats the protection of the Holy Spirit. Thats where our faith in the infallibility of the Pope comes in. Doesn’t mean the Pope is perfect but it does mean the Pope can’t do anything to harm the doctrine of the Church. Our trust is in Jesus when HE said the “Gates of Hell” will never prevail against HIS Church. And it hasn’t, even tho it has tried many times all thru the 2,000 years of the existence of the Catholic Church.
As for the 8th Commandment, I was referring to protestants in general (I was talking about the protestant revolution) and It wasn’t fair for you to put it in BOLD letters as I didn’t do that. Thats what causes misunderstanding when someone takes one word out and makes it what it wasn’t ment to be. I am sorry if you misunderstood what I said, but hope you understand what I did mean now.

Hi Memaw,
I do now understand what you are saying. As I think you could have been clearer that you were referring to the protestant revolution, and not me personally, I could have been clearer
that I was referring to the differences in individual popes and not the office itself.
I put a portion of your quote in bold only to let you know that that was the target of my response.
I might finally say that it is an extremely broad brush to say that noncatholics are anti-catholic. Certainly some are, just as there are some Catholics who are anti-noncatholic. Many of us are not, and love our Catholics friends as truly brothers and sisters in Christ. We are linked at the very least in our baptism, a powerful link indeed. That we are all part of His flock is another thing I try to remember with every post.

Jon

 

[SD_Catholic]

JonNC:
Jon… you are a great Christian… it’s great to have people like you to discuss certain things with even though you disagree with some of the Catholic doctrine… Man I wish you were Catholic

SD

 

[JonNC]

Jon… you are a great Christian… it’s great to have people like you to discuss certain things with even though you disagree with some of the Catholic doctrine… Man I wish you were Catholic

SD

You made my day. Thank you.
Jon