An open question for Lutherans

[ptisme]

The belief that salvation is gained only in the catholic church for one. Also the idea that only a marriage in the catholic churh is valid in the eyes of God. I doubt that God would turn back a good luteran on judgement day.

I’ll refer you to the Catechism:
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

 

[commenter]

So there is more than one entity that Christ founded called the Church?

I agree the terminology is confusing! Catholics refer often to “the Church”, meaning all those in communion with the Pope. But each of those Rites that is in communion with the Pope also has the dignity and status of a “Church”, as do the EO Rites, which are “Churches”. Whether or not the EO are “Catholic” I guess depends on your definitions.

Using another definition, individual Protestants are considered members of “the Church” to the extent they follow Christ (who only founded one “church”.) But what are the Protestant organizations themselves? Vatican II described them as ecclesial communions, and validated their importance, but not exactly to the level of the ancient “churches” such as RC and EO.

Having individuals with valid Orders in your denomination is significant, not exactly the same thing as your organization being a “church”

The actual question is what authority (teaching, governing, sanctifying) do Protestant denominations have? What would be the difference - if any - between the ELCA and, say, Focus on the Family? I suppose Pat Robertson’s organization has Sunday services…some Christians look to it for spiritual leadership…how is it less a “church” than the various denominations?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Can you be more specific?

This does not seem to reflect the heart of Christ, who desired us to be one, as He and the Father are One.

I think there is more overlap than you might expect. A willingness to explore where we differ seems to be necessary.

Can you be more specific?

Sure. Pope Francis, however humble, still teaches that he himself is the universal bishop of the church, the sole vicar of Christ, and able to exert infallible authority over the entire church at any time to which all Christians must submit. This is false teaching.

I think there is more overlap than you might expect. A willingness to explore where we differ seems to be necessary

Sure, we agree on many things. But partial agreement cannot mean full unity.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

This is what does not make any sense to me. The “office” does not teach, people teach.

Furthermore, the Pope, as should all the Bishops, is bound to embrace and promulgate the Teaching of the Apostles that has been infallibly preserved in the Church.

So when HH says “the papacy teaches” it is not really about the office of the Bishop of Rome, or the person occupying it. HH is saying that the doctrine of the CC is “antichrist” and obfuscates the gospel, and is just blaming this on the Pope, who did not create the doctrine.

I suspect that you already do accept it, and that maybe you just don’t realize it. I don’t know how short your sojourn in the RC church was, or if your catechesis was very helpful, but Lutherans accept the majority of wha tis in the CCC.

I suspect that you already do accept it, and that maybe you just don’t realize it. I don’t know how short your sojourn in the RC church was, or if your catechesis was very helpful, but Lutherans accept the majority of wha tis in the CCC.

Sure. My sojourn was ten years, and my catechesis was pathetic. I had to teach myself the faith through this website and other sources such as reading the CCC, and other books. Even so I can get behind probably 85 percent of the CCC. That’s not enough for unity. Unity for me would be full agreement.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

That.

That’s the exact problem.

You are putting your fallible opinion above the “opinions” of those to whom Jesus gave authority to make such decisions.

I know it’s humbling to realize (it certainly was for me), but the Church was never meant to be a democracy. That approach was tried by Korah. Read Numers 16 to see how that was rejected by God. And Jude 1 to see that this is a warning that is to be carried over into the NT as well.

How did you determine the Roman Catholic denomination was the correct one without relying at least in part on your own fallible opinion?

 

[Per_Crucem]

This sounds like the total depravity stance of the Calvanists. I did not realize that Lutheran theology was so similar.

The Apostles taught that, though the image of God in which we are created was marred by original sin, it is still possible for us to respond to grace, and that God gives sufficient grace for all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth.

I think that Jesus explained some of the mystery with the parable of the seeds.

All that I can say to that is that I was 3 weeks old when I was baptised. There wasn’t much cooperating going on!

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Sure. My sojourn was ten years, and my catechesis was pathetic. I had to teach myself the faith through this website and other sources such as reading the CCC, and other books. Even so I can get behind probably 85 percent of the CCC. That’s not enough for unity. Unity for me would be full agreement.

I think that is a very honest statement that reflects most Lutherans. The ecumenical excitement often isn’t front page news in the parish bulletin. Lutherans are in an awkward position. By signing JDDJ, we acknowledge the supremacy of the Church of Rome and the steps toward full communion.

 

[guanophore]

Sure. Pope Francis, however humble, still teaches that he himself is the universal bishop of the church, the sole vicar of Christ.

Can you produce a document or a quote that supports your assertion here? When and where did he say this?

and able to exert infallible authority over the entire church at any time to which all Christians must submit. This is false teaching.

Can you cite any Catholic document or source that supports this statement? I suspect you may be right, that it is false, but I do not believe it has it;s source in Catholicism.

Sure, we agree on many things. But partial agreement cannot mean full unity.

This is true, but pandering falsehoods does not support unity either.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Can you produce a document or a quote that supports your assertion here? When and where did he say this?

Can you cite any Catholic document or source that supports this statement? I suspect you may be right, that it is false, but I do not believe it has it;s source in Catholicism.

This is true, but pandering falsehoods does not support unity either.

Can you cite any Catholic document or source that supports this statement? I suspect you may be right, that it is false, but I do not believe it has it;s source in Catholicism.

Sure.

937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls”

 

[guanophore]

my catechesis was pathetic.

As was mine.

I had to teach myself the faith through this website and other sources such as reading the CCC, and other books.

Yes, it has been largely independent study for me too. I also found Catholic radio helpful.

 Even so I can get behind probably 85 percent of the CCC.  That's not enough for unity. Unity for me would be full agreement.

85% is a lot, and certainly more that exists with many factions.

I agree, unity is most pure when we are in full agreement.

"Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, 2make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. " ( Phil. 2:2)

How did you determine the Roman Catholic denomination was the correct one without relying at least in part on your own fallible opinion?

1. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”
2. The CC is not a denomination (though all current denominations have resulted from it
3. The reason we know we can trust the church is because Jesus is her Head, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is the divine elements that make the Church infallible, not the human.

 

[guanophore]

All that I can say to that is that I was 3 weeks old when I was baptised. There wasn’t much cooperating going on!

That is like saying that Jesus did not cooperate in his own circumcision. God set it up this way, so that children born to parents within the covenant are brought into the covenanat based upon the faith of their parents.

It seems to me that your parents, godparents, pastor and community were all cooperating in faith when you were baptized.

I think that is a very honest statement that reflects most Lutherans. The ecumenical excitement often isn’t front page news in the parish bulletin. Lutherans are in an awkward position. By signing JDDJ, we acknowledge the supremacy of the Church of Rome and the steps toward full communion.

I don’t understand this at all. the JDDJ is just to articulate how our communions agree about justification,and to clarify some of the misutnderstandings from the Reformaiton. It does not contain anything about primacy of Rome (or “supremacy” as you call it).

I do think at some point that authority/primacy will have to be part of dialogue and agreement, but I don’nt see it in this document.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

As was mine.

Yes, it has been largely independent study for me too. I also found Catholic radio helpful.

85% is a lot, and certainly more that exists with many factions.

I agree, unity is most pure when we are in full agreement.

"Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, 2make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. " ( Phil. 2:2)

1. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”
2. The CC is not a denomination (though all current denominations have resulted from it
3. The reason we know we can trust the church is because Jesus is her Head, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is the divine elements that make the Church infallible, not the human.

1. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”
2. The CC is not a denomination (though all current denominations have resulted from it
3. The reason we know we can trust the church is because Jesus is her Head, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is the divine elements that make the Church infallible, not the human.

1. The sign in front of my former Roman Catholic parish proudly proclaimed that it was “Roman” Catholic. Also, the entire Catholic Church is headquartered in Rome.
2. It is a denomination according to the dictionary definition of “denomination”. I suppose it would depend on how you define the word.
3. He do we know they Jesus is solely the head of the Roman Catholic Church and not the Eastern Orthodox, or any other denomination without using our own fallible opinion on the matter?

 

[guanophore]

Sure. Pope Francis, however humble, still teaches that he himself is the universal bishop of the church

You did not answer my question

Can you produce a document or a quote that supports your assertion here? When and where did he say this?

Place these words in the mouth of Pope Francis, please.

the sole vicar of Christ, and able to exert infallible authority over the entire church at any time to which all Christians must submit. This is false teaching.

937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls”

Your statement, and the teaching of the Church, seem to be at variance. The successor of Peter has the particular gift and responsibility of the feeding and care of the flock. This charge was given to Peter, and has been passed to his successor up to the present day. This gift and responsibility has never included “exert infallible authority over the entire church at any tiem to which all Christians must submit”. You are pandering a falsehood here.

The gift of infalliblity is for the Church, and it is not an “anytime” gift.

The successor of Peter has responsibility for the care of the souls in the Church at all times.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

You did not answer my question

Can you produce a document or a quote that supports your assertion here? When and where did he say this?

Place these words in the mouth of Pope Francis, please.

937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls”

Your statement, and the teaching of the Church, seem to be at variance. The successor of Peter has the particular gift and responsibility of the feeding and care of the flock. This charge was given to Peter, and has been passed to his successor up to the present day. This gift and responsibility has never included “exert infallible authority over the entire church at any tiem to which all Christians must submit”. You are pandering a falsehood here.

The gift of infalliblity is for the Church, and it is not an “anytime” gift.

The successor of Peter has responsibility for the care of the souls in the Church at all times.

You did not answer my question

Can you produce a document or a quote that supports your assertion here? When and where did he say this?

Place these words in the mouth of Pope Francis, please.

Has he repudiated any doctrine regarding the papacy?

937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls”

Your statement, and the teaching of the Church, seem to be at variance. The successor of Peter has the particular gift and responsibility of the feeding and care of the flock. This charge was given to Peter, and has been passed to his successor up to the present day. This gift and responsibility has never included “exert infallible authority over the entire church at any tiem to which all Christians must submit”. You are pandering a falsehood here.

The gift of infalliblity is for the Church, and it is not an “anytime” gift.

The successor of Peter has responsibility for the care of the souls in the Church at all times.

When the pope decides to exert his supreme, full, immediate, and universal power for the care of your soul, do you have an option to disobey and remain in good standing? If not, then you must submit to such authority.

 

[moabman]

I’ll refer you to the Catechism:
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

 

[moabman]

moabman:
I left the Catholic church of my own free will. I saw the truth. The church today is not what God planned out . Sure there are some fomrs a skeleton structure of what was meant to be. The catholic church as it is at this moment in time is not the one true church. None of them are. I converted to a Lutheran church a station in time a place to wait for the time when We are all live in another time and place. Maybe one day you also will find the truth. I will keep you and all in my prayers. I hope you see the truth soon time may be running short ! Best of luck to you !

 

[Peter_J]

Sure. Pope Francis, however humble, still teaches that he himself is the universal bishop of the church, the sole vicar of Christ, and able to exert infallible authority over the entire church at any time to which all Christians must submit.

Yes, which is what you’d need to believe to join the Roman Communion. (Which is not to assume you want to come into communion with Rome, but if …)

Edit: I’m not sure I would say “universal bishop”.

 

[commenter]

I left the Catholic church of my own free will. I saw the truth. The church today is not what God planned out . Sure there are some fomrs a skeleton structure of what was meant to be. The catholic church as it is at this moment in time is not the one true church. None of them are. I converted to a Lutheran church a station in time a place to wait for the time when We are all live in another time and place. Maybe one day you also will find the truth. I will keep you and all in my prayers. I hope you see the truth soon time may be running short ! Best of luck to you !

Well, I agree with you on some things. This Catholic is sure "not what God planned out’. If I were, I wouldn’t need the Church. It nudges me in the right direction - toward God, and I need that. I think the LCMS, along with some other bodies, has retained a lot of what I (and they) call doctrinal orthodoxy, as opposed to other groups, including the ELCA (and Presbyterians, TEC, etc), that moved away from orthodoxy on faith and morals, quoting Scripture all the way.

But how do you know what IS “true teaching?” All denominations that left doctrinal orthodoxy claim they still follow the Bible and their own historic traditions. They say the LCMS, and similar Protestants, are the ones who departed Scripture, the Confessions, or tradition. How do you judge who’s right in responding to new challenges to the Gospel in 2014 with the truth, when everybody holds a bible in their hand, contradicting each other?

The LCMS and similar traditional, solidly orthodox bodies maintain orthodoxy by looking at the landmark - the Catholic Church. They don’t say “we need to follow Rome” on responding to these new challenges to faith and morals, to modern ideas good and bad, to the changed societies Luther could not have envisioned. The LCMS (like ELCA) would say we are following Scripture, the ECFs, the Confessions, etc. But the LCMS looks at where Rome has stood on each issue, and the ELCA does not. Rome’s historic position (past and present) defines orthodoxy, for evangelical or traditional Christians today even though they won’t acknowledge it, many unaware of it. If there were no landmark, if all the churches were boats looking at each other, there would be no orthodoxy.

Some will say “We’re not following Rome, we’re following the historic Christian truths on marriage, abortion, religious liberty, the Trinity, etc”; this is like the guy who said he doesn’t depend on the farmer, he gets all his food at the grocery store.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

****guanophore/**B:

I don’t understand this at all. the JDDJ is just to articulate how our communions agree about justification,and to clarify some of the misutnderstandings from the Reformaiton. It does not contain anything about primacy of Rome (or “supremacy” as you call it).

I do think at some point that authority/primacy will have to be part of dialogue and agreement, but I don’nt see it in this document.

I draw on statements from the Dialogue as well as the JDDJ

1. The Lutheran argument did not merely contest abuses, however; it also challenged the alleged jure divino character of the papacy. Philip Melanchthon added to his subscription to the Smalcald Articles that, if the pope “would allow the gospel,” the papacy’s “superiority over the bishops” could be granted jure humano.122 Historical criticism has significantly altered understandings of divine and human law and criteria for distinguishing them.123 Especially in relation to the papacy, but also in relation to other traditionally controversial questions relating to ministry, the categories of divine and human law need to be re-examined and placed in the context of ministry as service to the koinonia of salvation.
   usccb.org/beliefs-and-tea…-salvation.cfm

1. Openness to a rightly exercised primacy is part of the Lutheran theological legacy. The Lutheran Reformers’ rejection of the papacy focused on “the concrete historical papacy as it confronted them in their day” rather than on the very idea of a universal ministry of unity.119 In Against the Papacy in Rome, Instituted by the Devil (1545), perhaps his sharpest writing against the papacy, Luther nevertheless affirms that the pope might have a primacy of “honor and superiority” and "of oversight over teachingand heresy in the church."120 This “conditional openness” to papal primacy is dependent upon a reformed papacy, subject to the gospel, that would not arbitrarily restrict Christian freedom.121
   usccb.org/beliefs-and-tea…-salvation.cfm

 

[Peter_J]

I draw on statements from the Dialogue as well as the JDDJ

Oh, I see.