A Question for Lutherans - One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic

[marywarfield]

christus_vincit;11992937:

A very informative response, as usual. But I have more questions!

How can Lutherans claim to be the faithful continuation of the Church yet be out of communion with the Bishop of Rome? Isn’t such a claim contrary to Scripture as well as history and tradition?

So Lutherans do accept the Apostolic authority of Catholic bishops, and also admit to not having Apostolic Succession? I understand that you argue Apostolic Succession is not necessary for valid ordinations - but if one Church does have this Succession, why would you want to be separate from it?

How interesting. Personally I would be more inclined
to accept Lutheran claims of apostolic succession simply
because even though I side with the historians
who viewed Luther as a nutcase, Luther WAS
an ordained priest. That counts for something in my
book.
But Henry VIII? Really? Not ordained= a lame
claim to valid succession for the Episcopalians.
I can’t quite see the apostolic ordination there…
Please explain if you will how they rationalize that?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

True, but the Orthodox seem to recognize the important role of the Bishop of Rome, and profess that ideally they would be in communion with him. They see that the Bishop of Rome has a place of primacy. Why would you want to be out of communion with the pope when Christ himself established the office? How do you reconcile the Scriptures, and the 1500 years of Catholic history (at the time of Luther) that attested to the necessity and primacy of the Bishop of Rome? What of Christ’s promise to Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church?

But do you accept the Apostolic Succession of Catholic Bishops? Do you accept that there is an unbroken chain going all the way back to the Apostles? If not, why? And if you do, why wouldn’t you want to be in communion with those bishops?

True, but the Orthodox seem to recognize the important role of the Bishop of Rome, and profess that ideally they would be in communion with him. They see that the Bishop of Rome has a place of primacy.

Ideally I would be in communion to with the him as well, if he would stop teaching error. I would happy to give him back that place of honor if he were to repent of his error. I doubt that is going to happen though,

Why would you want to be out of communion with the pope when Christ himself established the office?

Begging the question, I in no way accept that Christ founded any such office. In fact I believe the office of the Papacy is the very antichrist.

How do you reconcile the Scriptures, and the 1500 years of Catholic history (at the time of Luther) that attested to the necessity and primacy of the Bishop of Rome? What of Christ’s promise to Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church?

I don’t read anywhere in scripture where a “bishop of Rome” is even hinted at. To read the bishop of Rome back into scripture is error. As to the “necessity” of the bishop of Rome, it was only a necessity to be in union so long as his teaching was orthodox, as our EO friends will attest to. That the gates of hell shall never prevail, I agree, I don’t read anything about the Roman Catholic Church though, so Christ wasn’t speaking of that particular denomination. Although members of that denomination are for sure part of that ekklessia.

But do you accept the Apostolic Succession of Catholic Bishops?

Not specifically, no.

Do you accept that there is an unbroken chain going all the way back to the Apostles? If not, why?

All Christians can trace their roots back to the Apostles including the Catholic bishops. But it am not willing to accept that through the laying on of hands any authority is passed as per a bishop. I am fine with presbyter ordination. And the records of ordinations are practically nonexistent from the early Middle Ages back, so to appeal to it is simply an assumption that’s unfounded from the evidence.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Do Lutherans actually believe their theology and way of doing things existed before Lutheranism? No doubt they have taken certain things from the fathers and the bible and incorporated that into their church. But on the whole do Lutheran’s recognise their unique origins exclusively within the mind of Martin luther?

 

[christus_vincit]

Ideally I would be in communion to with the him as well, if he would stop teaching error. I would happy to give him back that place of honor if he were to repent of his error. I doubt that is going to happen though,

I see that you are an ex-Catholic. If I may ask, what “errors” taught by the pope contributed to your switch from Catholicism to Lutheranism?

Begging the question, I in no way accept that Christ founded any such office. In fact I believe the office of the Papacy is the very antichrist.

Is it a widely held Lutheran view that the pope is the anti-Christ? Was the Church on earth lead by the anti-Christ until the 16th century?

I don’t read anywhere in scripture where a “bishop of Rome” is even hinted at. To read the bishop of Rome back into scripture is error.

So was the Western Church in error then until the Reformation because it believed the primacy of the Bishop of Rome to be an essential part of the Christian Faith?

As to the “necessity” of the bishop of Rome, it was only a necessity to be in union so long as his teaching was orthodox, as our EO friends will attest to.

Are you refering to the filioque clause? Don’t you as Lutherans also include the filioque in your creed?

That the gates of hell shall never prevail, I agree, I don’t read anything about the Roman Catholic Church though, so Christ wasn’t speaking of that particular denomination. Although members of that denomination are for sure part of that ekklessia.

He was speaking to Peter, on whom the Roman Catholic Church was established. Even if you don’t agree with it, you can at least see how the connection is made.

=Not specifically, no.

Why not?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Per the quote below; both Lutheran and Catholic believe that we are all part of the holy apostolic and catholic church.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I see that you are an ex-Catholic. If I may ask, what “errors” taught by the pope contributed to your switch from Catholicism to Lutheranism?

Is it a widely held Lutheran view that the pope is the anti-Christ? Was the Church on earth lead by the anti-Christ until the 16th century?

So was the Western Church in error then until the Reformation because it believed the primacy of the Bishop of Rome to be an essential part of the Christian Faith?

Are you refering to the filioque clause? Don’t you as Lutherans also include the filioque in your creed?

He was speaking to Peter, on whom the Roman Catholic Church was established. Even if you don’t agree with it, you can at least see how the connection is made.

Why not?

I see that you are an ex-Catholic. If I may ask, what “errors” taught by the pope contributed to your switch from Catholicism to Lutheranism?

The serious error that my works effect my merit of my continued justification. This teaching lead me to despair and became like spiritual torture for me. I had to make it stop. I can speak at length to this is you want.

Is it a widely held Lutheran view that the pope is the anti-Christ? Was the Church on earth lead by the anti-Christ until the 16th century?

All confessional Lutherans accept this position. Its in the Smalcald Articles section 2, part 10. The church on earth is not lead by the pope even though he claims to be the sole leader of the church. And it definitely wasn’t lead by the pope for the first couple hundred years, the position that he is the sole leader of the church took centuries to fully develop.

So was the Western Church in error then until the Reformation because it believed the primacy of the Bishop of Rome to be an essential part of the Christian Faith?

No. Only a part of the western church.

Are you refering to the filioque clause? Don’t you as Lutherans also include the filioque in your creed?

No. There are many other points of contention other than the Filioque. Mostly due to popes claim to universal jurisdiction, status as the vicar of Christ etc. The Filioque is really a non issue for me.

He was speaking to Peter, on whom the Roman Catholic Church was established. Even if you don’t agree with it, you can at least see how the connection is made.

I don’t think the Roman Catholic Church was established on Peter to the exclusion of all other churches and denominations. There is no mention of it or any denomination, there is no mention of Peter as being a bishop of Rome or anywhere. There is no mention of The Pope of Rome being the sole successor of Peter, in fact the ECFS expressly reject that view.

Why not?

Because even the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t teach that its bishops are solely the successors of the apostles. Why would I dispute that when the RC doesn’t teach it? I accept that they are in apostolic succession the same as every other bishop or priest and Christian regardless of denomination is.

 

[marywarfield]

The serious error that my works effect my merit of my continued justification. This teaching lead me to despair and became like spiritual torture for me. I had to make it stop. I can speak at length to this is you want.

All confessional Lutherans accept this position. Its in the Smalcald Articles section 2, part 10. The church on earth is not lead by the pope even though he claims to be the sole leader of the church. And it definitely wasn’t lead by the pope for the first couple hundred years, the position that he is the sole leader of the church took centuries to fully develop.

No. Only a part of the western church.

No. There are many other points of contention other than the Filioque. Mostly due to popes claim to universal jurisdiction, status as the vicar of Christ etc. The Filioque is really a non issue for me.

I don’t think the Roman Catholic Church was established on Peter to the exclusion of all other churches and denominations. There is no mention of it or any denomination, there is no mention of Peter as being a bishop of Rome or anywhere. There is no mention of The Pope of Rome being the sole successor of Peter, in fact the ECFS expressly reject that view.

Because even the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t teach that its bishops are solely the successors of the apostles. Why would I dispute that when the RC doesn’t teach it? I accept that they are in apostolic succession the same as every other bishop or priest and Christian regardless of denomination is.

Yes please speak at length on your works justification issue.
That is not something taught by the Church so
please explain how you were so unfortunate as to
experience such foolishness.

Yes Peter was Pope and did have successors.
If that is untrue then the Lutherans lack ANY apostolic
succession. You can’t have it both ways House.

You are correct. Peter was not established as Vicar of
Christ to the exclusion of other churches and denominations
simply because Christ established ONE Church not many.

 

[Cathoholic]

House Harkonnen. You said:

QUOTE:
The serious error that my works effect my merit of my continued justification.

Aside from the fact that the Church affirms the necessity of supernatural faith and for that matter supernatural hope, and the Church has never taught “my works” per se effect my justification in a positive sense . . . Do YOU assert this “serious error” infallibly?

How about Jesus’ works? Do they effect your continued justification?

How about Jesus works in and through you . . . . that you have the freedom to reject (sometimes called grace works)? Does THAT effect your continued justification?

If the answer is yes, do you need to CONTINUE as St. Paul says in 2nd Corinthians 6:1 and elsewhere (see this link for some more examples of “elsewhere” of Jesus working in and through you)?

2nd CORINTHIANS 6:1 1 Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.

You appeal to Eastern Orthodoxy to deny the Catholic view of One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, but the Eastern Orthodox hold to the necessity of faith WORKING in love too–just as Catholics do.

The Eastern Orthodox also make some claims concerning Apostolic Authority—something else you seem to reject (so why appeal to the Eastern Orthodox?).

House Harkonnen. You said regarding the office of the papacy:

QUOTE:
I in no way accept that Christ founded any such office.

And (bold mine)

QUOTE:
In fact I believe the office of the Papacy is the very antichrist.

But then you also said (with the parenthetical addition of “the Pope” mine):

QUOTE:
Ideally I would be in communion to with him (the Pope) as well, if he (the Pope) would stop teaching error.

Why? Why would you be in union with someone you “in no way accept that Christ founded any such office” with House Harkonnen?

Because you happen to agree with him (or he with you)? Is “communion” then, merely a synonym for doctrinal agreement with you . . . . or is it more?

Because the Pope had and has God-given God protected authority given from Christ that you are rejecting unless he happens to agree with you (in which case you would be tacitly affirming Christ DID found such an office)?

Or because you assert YOU have God-given God-protected authority given from Christ?

Again you said:

Ideally I would be in communion with the him (the Pope) as well, if he (the Pope) would stop teaching error. I would happy to give him back that place of honor if he were to repent of his error. I doubt that is going to happen though,

You said the Pope should “stop teaching error.”

Do you think the office of the papacy is “the very antichrist” when you apply papal prerogatives to yourself House Harkonnen?

Or do you only assert papal prerogatives as being “the very antichrist” only when you apply it to the real Pope?

How about anyone else you doctrinally disagree with? Are they too "“the very antichrist” . . . . or just the Pope?

How about the Eastern Orthodox Bishops? Is the Eastern Orthodox Bishops office the “anti-Christ” too because they exercise in some sense, Apostolic authority?

When people rejected the Apostles message because they were sure the Apostles were in error, were the Apostles “the very antichrist” too? Or if not, do you deny this God-given, God-protected authoritative aspect of Apostolic Succession (One, Holy, Catholic, and APOSTOLIC) and the fact that this protection can be passed on (Apostolic Succession) in a God-given, God-protected manner?

Or is the Pope (or merely his “office”) the antichrist in your opinion because of the papal prerogatives in general?

 

[Cathoholic]

christus_vincit

You asked:

Do Lutherans make the claim that Lutheranism is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic? If so, how do Lutherans defend this position?

Regarding the Four Marks of the Church (FMC) . . .

Lutherans often include the FMC in their creeds. Some just change the Creed (as has been stated) to “One, Holy, Christian, and Apostolic”. Other various Lutheran ecclesial communions leave the Creed intact (“One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic”). I have seen it both ways in assorted Lutheran services.

Asserting it and defending it is quite another thing for our Lutheran friends and family members.

I have never heard a Lutheran defend the four marks of the Church in my conversations with them (I am not saying it does not happen, I am just saying I have never heard it from them in conversation and they DO seem to shy away from the topic when it is brought up).

The one-ness makes Lutherans very uncomfortable as it doesn’t fit in their religious traditions that have spawned from the Reformation. The word “Catholic” (even with a small “c”) sometimes makes Lutherans and some other non-Catholics uncomfortable.

Regarding the “Apostolic” aspect, that also seems to depend on the Lutheran you talk to.

(Various Catholics may offer differing opinions too concerning Apostolicity, but in various Lutheran communities, since they have no earthly person that has God-given, God-protected authority, there can be no definitive settling of such a difference at least in an authoritative manner. Catholics can be authoritatively corrected).

Lutherans view Apostolic Succession different than the Church views it.

This impossibility to have the “One” (of the FMC) or unity in Lutheranism occurs on account of the Lutheran ecclesial motif.

This lack of unity is one of the reasons my dad left one of the Lutheranisms for Catholicism.

Christus_vincit (and others), I think you already have this Papal/unity paradigm in your heart. But I will elaborate on a point or two as there are other readers of this thread here that may not . . .

The Pope (who has a special office) is the living visible sign of Christian unity on earth among other things. Christ set it up this way. That’s why the Church can be ONE. No other religion can authentically have this level of unity or “one-ness”.

St. Peter (along with the other Apostles) were to become fishers of men.

Now think of John 21, the Resurrected Lord Jesus, and the Apostles on the Sea of Galilee.

When the net was brought to shore in John 21, the Apostles had to drag it, as it was so heavy (assuming these “large fish” averaged 7 pounds, this net-full, would weigh approx. half a ton).

Yet when the Resurrected Lord Jesus orders fish to be brought to Him, St. Peter alone is described as bringing the net “full of large fish” to Him. I am not saying the others didn’t help Peter. But I am saying St. John only describes St. Peter as bringing this untorn or unschismed net.

It would be worth prayerfully dwelling on John 21:10-11 and asking yourself if there could be deeper meanings here or if this is mere coincidence (St. John certainly isn’t trying to tell us about St. Peter’s muscular prowess. Nor is he telling us about the superb fishing-net material).

**
JOHN 21:10-11** 10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish which you have now caught.” 11 Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn (literally the net was not “schismed” or “schisthe”).

The Church is ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

Lutherans are not One in this sense. Lutherans are not in the fullest sense, Catholic either.

And for Lutherans, the concept of Apostolic Succession is not the same as the Church (One, Holy, Catholic, and APOSTOLIC).

These are probably among the reasons why I never hear the Four Marks defended by Lutherans (although again, technically speaking, these Four Marks are usually affirmed by Lutherans, but this “affirmation” turns out to be something quite different from what the Church teaches–which is just what you’d expect perhaps).

 

[JonNC]

Hi Syro,

Doctrine.

Hi Izzy,
Welcome to CAF.
I think, just by our brief acquaintance here at CAF, that Syro probably has a good understanding of the major differences our communions hold. In fact, the understanding of ecclesiology is one of them.

As for the book you reference, could you be more clear what book you speak of?

Thanks,
Jon

 

[izzydizzydo]

Hi Izzy,
Welcome to CAF.
I think, just by our brief acquaintance here at CAF, that Syro probably has a good understanding of the major differences our communions hold. In fact, the understanding of ecclesiology is one of them.

As for the book you reference, could you be more clear what book you speak of?

Thanks,
Jon

Hi Jon,

I can’t recall the title of the book but would be happy to track it down for you at the library in a few days. I do recall what the cover looks like. Please tell me how we share email addresses?

I was surprised that a number of people including Syro seemed to not give much recognition to our differing faith practices which are considerable.

Gods peace be with you,

Izzydizzydo

 

[gcnuss]

I’m assuming, then, that Lutherans believe Catholics are also a part of this church?

Absolutely!!

 

[gcnuss]

We removed “catholic” from the creeds and replaced it with “Christian”.

Now we confess “one holy Christian and apostolic church”. We are much happier that way.

Many Lutherans do confess “one holy catholic and apostolic church.” There was a time when I found it disconcerting but I have come to believe it is the proper confession.

 

[gcnuss]

Regarding the Pope (or the papacy) being the anti-Christ:

All confessional Lutherans accept this position. Its in the Smalcald Articles section 2, part 10.

While I have a high regard for Luther and his writings, I don’t think this applies in our time. Even if we accept that some Popes were not shining examples of faith and morals, painting all Popes with the same brush is not productive. Remembering the Luther quote that “popes and councils may err,” is it not also possible that Luther got the “anti-Christ” bit wrong even if a particular pope might have merited it?

 

[steido01]

Regarding the Pope (or the papacy) being the anti-Christ:

While I have a high regard for Luther and his writings, I don’t think this applies in our time. Even if we accept that some Popes were not shining examples of faith and morals, painting all Popes with the same brush is not productive. Remembering the Luther quote that “popes and councils may err,” is it not also possible that Luther got the “anti-Christ” bit wrong even if a particular pope might have merited it?

Thank you, Pastor. As always, you raise a very good point. Even the strongest Lutheran opposition to the Office of the Papacy is conditional - there may very well be a day when the term no longer applies.

For those unfamiliar with Lutheranism, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, a binding document in the Lutheran Confessions, notes three reasons for the anti-Christ label (which can apply to anyone - even Lutherans!):

1. 
   *]The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].
   *]Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].
   *]And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.

1. 
   

   These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.

   The question, for Lutherans, is whether any of these still apply to the office today. And even if they do apply to the office, what if the man in that office doesn’t act on those claims? The tremendous, humble Christian example set by the past few popes gives me hope for eventual reunion – however far off it may be. Would that the Western church had a Ratzinger or Bergoglio instead of a Medici.

 

[SyroMalankara]

There is no mention of it or any denomination, there is no mention of Peter as being a bishop of Rome or anywhere. There is no mention of The Pope of Rome being the sole successor of Peter, in fact the ECFS expressly reject that view.

There is also no mention of “office of the Papacy” as “the very antichrist” as you claimed, in Scripture or Apostolic Tradition, but you believe it to be true.

I think, just by our brief acquaintance here at CAF, that Syro probably has a good understanding of the major differences our communions hold. In fact, the understanding of ecclesiology is one of them.

I do have a general understanding, but I would not be an expert on the differences between ELCA, WELS, LCMS, and the various European Lutheran groups – there’s even an EasternRite Lutheran group in Ukraine calling itself the “Ukrainian Lutheran Church”, similar to the “Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar” (an EasternRite Anglican offshoot of the Malankara Syriac Church).

 

[steido01]

I do have a general understanding, but I would not be an expert on the differences between ELCA, WELS, LCMS, and the various European Lutheran groups – there’s even an EasternRite Lutheran group in Ukraine calling itself the “Ukrainian Lutheran Church”, similar to the “Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar” (an EasternRite Anglican offshoot of the Malankara Syriac Church).

Differences between the ELCA and Confessional bodies should be quite plain, even to an outside observer. Heck, dialogue has essentially ceased between Confessional bodies and the ELCA. Between the Confessional bodies, however, the differences are slight. But slight is enough for one Lutheran synod to call another synod to repentance and ceasing of error. We take fellowship seriously, just as the Orthodox.

I wasn’t aware that Lutherans still existed in Ukraine or western Russia - Lutherans were made extinct thanks to Soviet persecution. I know that there is a Siberian Evangelical Lutheran Church on the opposite side of the continent, and it is in full fellowship with the LCMS.

 

[Stilldreamn]

Differences between the ELCA and Confessional bodies should be quite plain, even to an outside observer. Heck, dialogue has essentially ceased between Confessional bodies and the ELCA. Between the Confessional bodies, however, the differences are slight. But slight is enough for one Lutheran synod to call another synod to repentance and ceasing of error. We take fellowship seriously, just as the Orthodox.

I wasn’t aware that Lutherans still existed in Ukraine or western Russia - Lutherans were made extinct thanks to Soviet persecution. I know that there is a Siberian Evangelical Lutheran Church on the opposite side of the continent, and it is in full fellowship with the LCMS.

This blog has an interesting discussion mentioning Eastern Rite Lutherans - apparently the Ukrainian Lutheran Church is in communion with WELS/ELS

Pastoral Meanderings

 

[JonNC]

=izzydizzydo;11995317]Hi Jon,

I can’t recall the title of the book but would be happy to track it down for you at the library in a few days. I do recall what the cover looks like. Please tell me how we share email addresses?

Hi Izzy,
No need to go to any trouble. I was just curious. If you click on my name at the top of any post of mine, a drop down box will open with contact options, including email.

I was surprised that a number of people including Syro seemed to not give much recognition to our differing faith practices which are considerable.

I didn’t get that impression, but maybe Syro could comment on it.

Gods peace be with you,

And also with you,
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Regarding the Pope (or the papacy) being the anti-Christ:

While I have a high regard for Luther and his writings, I don’t think this applies in our time. Even if we accept that some Popes were not shining examples of faith and morals, painting all Popes with the same brush is not productive. Remembering the Luther quote that “popes and councils may err,” is it not also possible that Luther got the “anti-Christ” bit wrong even if a particular pope might have merited it?

I would agree, Pastor. I would add further that even the term has evolved in usage and meaning. We could say quite simply that we believe that some of the teachings of the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome are heterodox, and be absolutely accurate from our POV without all the baggage and hard feelings of the term “antichrist”.
Besides, anyone who thinks Pope St. John Paul II or Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI or any of a number of popes were the antichrist seems to be missing an opportunity to benefit from these great Christian men.

Jon