P
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Well why didn’t you say so!?
That is a powerful statement; is it taken from the Catechism?The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection
P
ptisme
Guest
The bolded is unbiblical therefore I doubt that would be a place the church would go… No where in the bible does it indicate that we are justified by grace through faith (alone). If it’s there, please show me! We are justified by Grace alone which allows us to have faith and perform good works.We are already united with the church catholic. If you mean the Roman Catholic Church, there are many things that need to happen.
Yes. I would want to see Rome completely acknowledge that the Augsburg Confession is a legitimate confession of the Christian Church, fully equal, blessed and complete as any other confession or creed.
I am fine with relegating the Mary dogmas and Transubstantiation to pious opinions. I am not going to believe in them, but I don’t mind if others do. As do papal universal jurisdiction and infallibility, there would need to be a complete repudiation on Rome’s part of these doctrines, and a return to the proper place of the Pope in the church.
Rome would need to acknowledge that one is justified by grace alone through faith alone. Or at least acknowledge that this is a legitimate position to take as a Christian. Express more liberality on issues such as remarriage, and birth control or at least take each case as a case by case basis. Remove the Mass and Holy days of obligation obligations, allow general group confessions instead of requiring individual auricular confession.
We could start by praying for unity.
I am honored and humbled by your kind remarks.Jon, thank you for your willingness to discuss this openly. I haven’t told you this before, but you specifically are one of the primary reasons that this Roman Catholic even started considering unity among our faiths! You have been inspirational in your many posts here and you have opened my eyes to how just how close we really are. Your discernment of the Scriptures, and your use of kind, calm, charitable language has turned off any ire that I may have once held towards all Lutherans. You are a beacon of Light, and I want to thank you for that.
I welcome your encouragement and prayers that we may seek unity from both sides.
I will agree with many others that have posted here that it is in humility that we will open the doors to unity.
Peace in Christ
Thank you.
His peace,
Jon
C
chero23
Guest
In a way do you think with Lutherans accepting the Pope as a pastor, differs from that of Martin Luther who called the Pope the antichrist?Lutherans accepting the Pope as Pastor of the Church is essentially agreed on. That is a significant development historically and could be seen as non prideful.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Lutherans accept the office of the papacy per the Augsburg Confession and in the Dialogue confirm our willingness to follow the Pope so long as the Gospel is upheld.In a way do you think with Lutherans accepting the Pope as a pastor, differs from that of Martin Luther who called the Pope the antichrist?
C
chero23
Guest
Sorry to be redundant, I don’t mean offensive nor hateful nor attacking. But I do want to ask (I know, whenever somebody says I don’t mean to offend anybody, that’s a sign that somebody will be). But history serves me well, Luther did break from the Church, I know he wanted reform, but one major thing was that he had said the Pope was the Antichrist. Was that said out of anger? Out of belief? Or just plain ignorance? B/c it sounds like the Lutheran position is different from that of Luther’s some 500 yrs ago.Lutherans accept the office of the papacy per the Augsburg Confession and in the Dialogue confirm our willingness to follow the Pope so long as the Gospel is upheld.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Confessional Lutherans still believe the office of the pope is the antichrist. But its conditional on the pope persecuting Christians (which he stopped doing) and teaching falsely (which he hasn’t stopped doing). If he did, we Lutherans would presumably cease believing he is the antichrist.Sorry to be redundant, I don’t mean offensive nor hateful nor attacking. But I do want to ask (I know, whenever somebody says I don’t mean to offend anybody, that’s a sign that somebody will be). But history serves me well, Luther did break from the Church, I know he wanted reform, but one major thing was that he had said the Pope was the Antichrist. Was that said out of anger? Out of belief? Or just plain ignorance? B/c it sounds like the Lutheran position is different from that of Luther’s some 500 yrs ago.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Thank you for your honest answers. I realize that there are still things that divide us, and really do welcome and appreciate you telling me the truth. It is only through open and honest dialogue that we can even dream of being united as one.
Do you know that the Catholic Church already testifies to us being saved by Grace alone? (The faith alone part, no, at least not in the way I presume that you believe it). But we don’t need to squabble over that here.
I really appreciate you mentioning some things (Holy Days of Obligation, etc.) that I did not bring up. Can you provide me with some better insight as to why these particular things are a hindrance for you and others? It would help me to continue our conversation if I had a better feel for the ‘why?’ from your perspective. Please and Thank you.
I will pray that both of our faiths will seek the other out and communicate in an effort to unite around our Savior!
Peace in Christ
Yes. It would have to be removed because it is binding the conscience of believers more than God himself has bound them. God says to not let anyone judge you according to the days you keep or don’t keep.I really appreciate you mentioning some things (Holy Days of Obligation, etc.) that I did not bring up. Can you provide me with some better insight as to why these particular things are a hindrance for you and others? It would help me to continue our conversation if I had a better feel for the ‘why?’ from your perspective. Please and Thank you.
C
chero23
Guest
I don’t think all popes were evil. Of course the Church can not say that b/c we have had some horrible popes, but the majority of the men who have held the position of Vicar of Christ have been men of faith, morals, and a spirit of good that is outstanding. I hope and pray that people don’t see that anymore. I know people have called the Church bad due to the Crusades, but I think with what extreme Islamists have done is Africa and the Middle East, people start realizing that the Church did what it had to doConfessional Lutherans still believe the office of the pope is the antichrist. But its conditional on the pope persecuting Christians (which he stopped doing) and teaching falsely (which he hasn’t stopped doing). If he did, we Lutherans would presumably cease believing he is the antichrist.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
This is where Jon’s expertise helps because Martin Luther did, in-deed, write that the pope can be the antichrist.Sorry to be redundant, I don’t mean offensive nor hateful nor attacking. But I do want to ask (I know, whenever somebody says I don’t mean to offend anybody, that’s a sign that somebody will be). But history serves me well, Luther did break from the Church, I know he wanted reform, but one major thing was that he had said the Pope was the Antichrist. Was that said out of anger? Out of belief? Or just plain ignorance? B/c it sounds like the Lutheran position is different from that of Luther’s some 500 yrs ago.
The Augsburg Confession did not address the papacy per se but affirms the order of episcopacy and the Dialogue presents real options for Lutherans to recognize the papacy:In calling the pope the “antichrist,” the early Lutherans stood in a tradition that reached back into the eleventh century. Not only dissidents and heretics but even saints had called the bishop of Rome the “antichrist” when they wished to castigate his abuse of power.[37]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist
C. Lutheran Perspectives
(28) If perspectives such as the foregoing prevail, papal primacy will no longer be open to many traditional Lutheran objections. As we have noted (see 3 above), Lutherans increasingly recognize the need for a Ministry serving the unity of the church universal. They acknowledge that, for the exercise of this Ministry, institutions which are rooted in history should be seriously considered. The church should use the signs of unity it has received, for new ones cannot be invented at will. Thus the Reformers wished to continue the historic structures of the church.21 Such structures are among the signs of the church’s unity in space and time, helping to link the Christian present with its apostolic past.
Lutherans can also grant the beneficial role of the papacy at various periods of history. Believing in God’s sovereign freedom, they cannot deny that God may show again in the future that the papacy is his gracious gift to his people. Perhaps this might involve a primacy in which the pope’s service to unity in relation to the Lutheran churches would be more pastoral than juridical. The one thing necessary, from the Lutheran point of view, is that papal primacy be so structured and interpreted that it clearly serve the gospel and the unity of the church of Christ, and that its exercise of power not subvert Christian freedom.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-tea…al-primacy.cfm
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
It’s not so much that the popes have sinned, it’s more that the office itself has far overreached its biblical and historical authority. Most popes have been great guys, I will grant it. That’s why we believe the office of the papacy is the antichrist, not an individual pope.I don’t think all popes were evil. Of course the Church can not say that b/c we have had some horrible popes, but the majority of the men who have held the position of Vicar of Christ have been men of faith, morals, and a spirit of good that is outstanding. I hope and pray that people don’t see that anymore. I know people have called the Church bad due to the Crusades, but I think with what extreme Islamists have done is Africa and the Middle East, people start realizing that the Church did what it had to do
As for the crusades, I believe they were a good thing.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Lutherans probably have the best odds of being reunited with the Catholic Church, in my opinion. The Eastern Church would seem the most logical but not only the papacy but papal infallibility seem major obstacles. Groups of Anglicans have been taken into the Catholic Church but I don’t see theological progress compared to the Dialogue between Lutheran and Catholic.
Eucharistic hospitality is very likely in my opinion during our life time.
Eucharistic hospitality is very likely in my opinion during our life time.
G
guanophore
Guest
Oh I agree! JonNC ROCKS!Jon, thank you for your willingness to discuss this openly. I haven’t told you this before, but you specifically are one of the primary reasons that this Roman Catholic even started considering unity among our faiths! You have been inspirational in your many posts here and you have opened my eyes to how just how close we really are. Your discernment of the Scriptures, and your use of kind, calm, charitable language has turned off any ire that I may have once held towards all Lutherans. You are a beacon of Light, and I want to thank you for that.
I welcome your encouragement and prayers that we may seek unity from both sides.
I will agree with many others that have posted here that it is in humility that we will open the doors to unity.
Peace in Christ
:extrahappy: :clapping: :flowers:
G
guanophore
Guest
This is not just a view of Luther, but is contained in the Lutheran Confessions.In a way do you think with Lutherans accepting the Pope as a pastor, differs from that of Martin Luther who called the Pope the antichrist?
As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation — these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)
I am not sure I understand this. The office established by Christ cannot “over reach”. Only sinful persons occupying it can do that.It’s not so much that the popes have sinned, it’s more that the office itself has far overreached its biblical and historical authority. Most popes have been great guys, I will grant it. That’s why we believe the office of the papacy is the antichrist, not an individual pope.
I guess what I am wondering is, when did the “office far overreach”?
Was the office of the Bishop of Rome “antichrist” from the first person that occupied it?
It seems a lot like saying “presidents have been bad leaders, so the office of the presidency has overreached it’s authority”.
G
guanophore
Guest
Perhaps you could post a link for this?Lutherans accept the office of the papacy per the Augsburg Confession and in the Dialogue confirm our willingness to follow the Pope so long as the Gospel is upheld.
I am not finding what you are referencing.
"… especially against the Papacy and its false worship, idolatry, superstition, and against other sects, as the symbol of our time…." (antichrist?)
P
Peter_J
Guest
I had to read sentence two a couple times because I thought you meant If the Lutherans were going to unite with someone, the Eastern Church would seem the most logical option. (Then to complicate things further, I thought that "but"was supposed to be “because”.) Do you have any thought on that?Lutherans probably have the best odds of being reunited with the Catholic Church, in my opinion. The Eastern Church would seem the most logical but not only the papacy but papal infallibility seem major obstacles.
P
Patavium
Guest
My thoughts exactly.Sorry to be redundant, I don’t mean offensive nor hateful nor attacking. But I do want to ask (I know, whenever somebody says I don’t mean to offend anybody, that’s a sign that somebody will be). But history serves me well, Luther did break from the Church, I know he wanted reform, but one major thing was that he had said the Pope was the Antichrist. Was that said out of anger? Out of belief? Or just plain ignorance? B/c it sounds like the Lutheran position is different from that of Luther’s some 500 yrs ago.
My question for Lutherans is which part of the Confessions must the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (OHCAC) must accept given certain beliefs stated clearly in the Lutheran confessions such as The part of the Pope as Anti-Christ, or that the Catholic Mass must be condemned and that is is an abomination?
Also, what compromises are Lutherans going to accept? So far I only see compromises for us to reject the deposit of faith passed to us from the Apostles themselves!.
In contrast, Luther even rejected the early christians beliefs (beliefs of the immediate successors of the apostles…) along with the other reformers… and perhaps Luther may be a gnostic? (see Luther and the unity ofthe churches: an interview with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger)
“Behold what great darkness is in the books of the Fathers concerning faith; yet if the article of justification be darkened, it is impossible to smother the grossest errors of mankind. St Jerome, indeed, wrote upon Matthew, upon the Epistles to Galatians and Titus; but, alas! very coldly. Ambrose wrote six books upon the first book of Moses, but they are very poor. Augustine wrote nothing to the purpose concerning faith; for he was first roused up and made a man by the Pelagians, in striving against them. I can find no exposition upon the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, wherein anything is taught pure and aright. O what a happy time have we now in regard to the purity of the doctrine; but alas! we little esteem it. After the Fathers came the pope, and with his mischievous traditions and human ordinances, like a breaking water-cloud and deluge, overflowed the church, snared consciences, touching eating of meat, friars hoods, masses, etc., so that daily he brought abominable errors into the church of Christ; and to serve his own turn, took hold on St Augustine’s sentence, where he says, Evangelio non crederem, etc. The ##### could not see what occasioned Augustine to utter that sentence, whereas he spoke it against the Manicheans, as much as to say: I believe you not, for ye are damned heretics, but I believe and hold with the church, the spouse of Christ, which cannot err.”
The more I read the books of the Fathers, the more I find myself offended; for they were but men, and, to speak the truth, with all their repute and authority, undervalued the books and writings of the sacred apostles of Christ. The papists were not ashamed to say, What is the Scripture? we must read the holy Fathers and teachers, for they drew and sucked the honey out of the Scripture. As if God’s Word were to be understood and conceived by none but by themselves, whereas the heavenly Father says: “Him shall ye hear,” who in the gospel taught most plainly in parables and similitudes."
(Martin Luther, Table Talk 529)
G
guanophore
Guest
I think, when we are discussing unity with Lutherans, it is important to separate the body of Luther’s writings/thought from the theological confessions that were adopted by the Lutheran congregation. Not all of what Luther rejected or asserted is espoused by Lutherans.In contrast, Luther even rejected the early christians beliefs (beliefs of the immediate successors of the apostles…) along with the other reformers… and perhaps Luther may be a gnostic? )
Furthermore, it is no more helpful to press Lutherans to answer for his ideas than it is to ask modern Catholics to answer to the behavior of the Medici Popes.
I don’t think Luther was a gnostic, but I do think his ideas about human nature, grace, and the constitution of the human person are a departure from what the Aposltes believed and taught.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Hi Guanophore,Perhaps you could post a link for this?
I am not finding what you are referencing.
"… especially against the Papacy and its false worship, idolatry, superstition, and against other sects, as the symbol of our time…." (antichrist?)
Not all Lutherans accept or place the same value in the entire Book of Concord compared to the Augsburg Confession. One CAF member from Norway points out that only the Augsburg Confession and Luther’s Catechism [aside from the ecumenical creeds and Holy Scripture] is required for priests to vow obedience at ordination, for example.
Luther hoped for and even expected that the bishops would ordain Lutheran pastors and became bitter over the rejection. But the abuses of Pope Leo X were seen by Lutherans within the context of reforming the Church; that is why the Sees in some Scandinavian countries were retained. Perhaps Apostolic Succession and the papacy would never have been an issue if Luther had lived in Sweden.
Does that answer your question?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.