An open question for Lutherans

[pablope]

Right. I thought I made that part clear, but perhaps I bolded the wrong portion. Just a few sentences above what I bolded, the sentence reads plainly, “Scripture does not teach that the Pope is the Antichrist.” The Confessional Lutheran use of the term is simply an historical and rather academic identification. Personally, I have a deep, deep respect for the past few men who have served as Bishop of Rome (particularly Benedict XVI), but because of the remaining claims of the office, like those expressed in the Treatise, my Synod maintains its historical stance.

And though I live in Illinoise, I was born in Green Bay. I’ll always cheer the right team.

Well…do you then view the pope as a sort of Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde?

There is a good side and there is a bad side?

 

[guanophore]

 Sorry, no.  The Catholic Church is not a "particular" church; it is THE Church that Jesus began.

The Eastern Orthodox say the same about their Church.

It may be a matter of semantics, because the Catholic Church uses the term “particular” to refer to a specific geographical region, and Norway fits into that definition.

Again, no. They are ecclesial communities.

Catholics only refer to them as ecclesial communities if they do not have valid sacraments and valid Apostolic succession. That means the Church of Norway is not like American ecclesial communities.

I think the question for the Church of Norway would be the validity of the Sacraments, since they have a valid Apostolic succession, is what the vicar intends to do the same as what the Apostles intended when they ordained Bishops?

They may be a disjointed "part" of the Catholic Church, but they are not "particular churches."

When JP II visited, he greeted the Lutherans as a Church which seems to imply recognition of validity.

He even distinguished the Lutheran Church from other Ecclesial communities present:

“I therefore wish to thank all of you, the representatives of the Lutheran Church and of the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities in Norway, for your presence here.”

True, because all the “churches” in the Lutheran tradition are disunified.

Since the Lutherans are making to claim of being in unity with one another, I don’t see how this is helpful to the dialogue. The CC does claim unity, so we are held at a different standard.

The OP is asking what Lutherans need to re-unite. It is not fair for us to place upon them the burden of being in unity with one another. That does not help unification with the Bishop of Rome in the least. In fact, I think forcing such a concept only increases disunity. They all have good reasons for not being in unity with each other.

Of course, we can’t answer for things in “churches” that self-identify as “Catholic” but are not.

Nor do I believe you were asked to do so, but asking the Church of Norway to answer for things that happened 40 years after they were founded is not very practical.

 

[guanophore]

So Jon, do you believe the pope or any pope has set himself up in opposition to Christ?

I think it is pretty much a given that any Lutheran would consister Leo X anti-Christ. The belief that he was obscuring the Gospel is fundamental to the foundation of Lutheranism.

How does considering a past pope anti-christ relate to what is needed now for Lutherans to again be in communion with the Bishop of Rome?

 

[Per_Crucem]

What would it take for you to re-unite with the Catholic Church?

Recognition that the Small Catechism and Augsburg Confession are statements consistent with the apostolic and catholic faith.

Would you need to see a move from Rome first?

No. Confessional Lutherans are already in dialogue with Rome.

What specific doctrines or dogmas do you see as impediments?

Mainly the papacy and magisterium binding our consciences over and above what the word of God does; our inability to believe what Article IV of the Augsburg Confession professes.

Are they the ‘big 3’? Of Marian doctrines, papal infallibility and Transubstantiation?

Only inasmuch as they seek to bind our consciences to things God does not. We wouldn’t see most of the Marian dogmas as issues that bar reunification. Many Lutherans believe them already; for example, I firmly believe in the perpetual virginity and assumption of Mary.

 

[KjetilK]

I understand. But that statement shows that the Church of Norway is NOT Catholic.

If so, then your Church is not Catholic either, since there are churches calling themselves Catholic which do not adhere to your beliefs. Your ‘argument’ makes zero sense.

It’s not my responsibility that some Church somewhere in the world calls itself Lutheran and adheres to something I do not. Just as it’s not your responsibility that some Church somewhere in the world calls itself Catholic and adheres to something you do not.

If stated apart from all the conclusive evidence, perhaps. But the way you’re saying it is a misrepresentation.

Your church claims certain churches are merely ‘ecclesial communities.’ What makes you think I agree in such a way that you can make that the premise of your argument? You state your conclusion as a premise. In other words, you beg the question.

And the argument that my Church is invalid makes no sense. Our current bishops have been ordained by bishops who in turn was ordained by old catholic bishops with valid orders (according to the Roman Catholic Church). It is not my responsibility that your Church is inconsistent.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Oh! Thanks for clarifying. Helps prevent erroneous assumptions on my part.

Any chance you could forgive them?

Any chance you could forgive them?

No. I can’t forgive anyone for something they didn’t do to me,

 

[steido01]

Well…do you then view the pope as a sort of Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde?

There is a good side and there is a bad side?

I’m not sure that’s the phrasing I’d use. The men who have recently held the office are certainly forces for good in the world and have brought many to faith - yet the Office they hold teaches things which I understand to cloud the Gospel. Precisely as Per Crucem has posted.

 

[commenter]

-end-

My response:

People are forgetting the difference between the status of individual clergy, and the nature of religious organizations they may happen to belong to.

There are many organizations that claim the title “Catholic” in their name. The Catholic Church does not recognize the PNCC as a “Catholic Church”, or even as a “church” at all. It is an ecclesial community. Some individual members of the PNCC may - as individuals - have sacramental validity comparable to clergy in the actual Catholic Church. That does not mean the PNCC itself is a “church”. Nor does it make the PNCC part of the “Catholic Church”, nor does it make the PNCC a free standing Catholic Church either.

The Catholic Church recognizes the Eastern and Western Catholic Churches as “Catholic Churches”, and the Eastern Orthodox as having “Churches”. They trace back to apostolic foundation, which the PNCC, the Old Catholics, or Church of England, does not. The PNCC, Old Catholics, C of E, and other religious organizations that claim the title “Catholic” but broke off from the Catholic Church are all Protestant.

Churches in union with the Pope = Catholic; there’s more to it, but that is a prerequisite.

Having individuals with Apostolic Succession, or valid sacramental authority - interesting, but does not prove the organization is Catholic, or the “Catholic Church”. The Catholic Church is, by definition, a singular term. You either are, or are not, in communion with the Pope. I’m not saying it is better than Lutheranism, but it is a different kind of thing.

 

[guanophore]

And the argument that my Church is invalid makes no sense. Our current bishops have been ordained by bishops who in turn was ordained by old catholic bishops with valid orders (according to the Roman Catholic Church). It is not my responsibility that your Church is inconsistent.

Despite the validity of Apostolic succession, there are still issues around validity for other reasons.

From the beginning the life of the Church has been sacramental in nature, and some of that has been lost.

But you have me thinking. I am inclined to attend a Lutheran Church something I have never done, just to see what it is like, but I doubt there is a Norwegian type around.

My maternal grandfather was from Norway, and I just realized that he may have been a Norwegian Lutheran! I never knew him, and was told very little about him but it makes one wonder.

 

[guanophore]

No. I can’t forgive anyone for something they didn’t do to me,

Are you suggesting their actions have not affected your life, and the life of the Church, of which you are a part?

Did not Paul make it clear that what wounds one member of the body wounds the whole Body?

 

[Per_Crucem]

But you have me thinking. I am inclined to attend a Lutheran Church something I have never done, just to see what it is like, but I doubt there is a Norwegian type around.

Just say no to lutefisk

 

[guanophore]

our inability to believe what Article IV of the Augsburg Confession professes.

I think I am confused about this. Are you talking about:

“It is also taught among us that we cannot obtain forgiveness of sin and righteousness before God by our own merits, works or satisfactions, but that we receive forgiveness of sin and become righteous before God by grace, for Christ’s sake, through faith, when we believe that Christ suffered for us and that for his sake our sins is forgiven and righteousness and eternal life are given to us. For God will regard and reckon this faith as righteousness, As Paul says in Romans 3:21-26 and 4:5.”

 

[Per_Crucem]

I think I am confused about this. Are you talking about:

“It is also taught among us that we cannot obtain forgiveness of sin and righteousness before God by our own merits, works or satisfactions, but that we receive forgiveness of sin and become righteous before God by grace, for Christ’s sake, through faith, when we believe that Christ suffered for us and that for his sake our sins is forgiven and righteousness and eternal life are given to us. For God will regard and reckon this faith as righteousness, As Paul says in Romans 3:21-26 and 4:5.”

Yes.

 

[KjetilK]

The Catholic Church does not recognize the PNCC as a “Catholic Church”, or even as a “church” at all. It is an ecclesial community.

You are wrong here, in fact.

 

[KjetilK]

Just say no to lutefisk

Say yes!

 

[guanophore]

Yes.

What is it about this you are unable to believe?

 

[JonNC]

So Jon, do you believe the pope or any pope has set himself up in opposition to Christ?

Hi Pablope,
No. I do not believe that any pope has intentionally set himself up in opposition to Christ. This is why it is so important that we be clear. I am not in a position to judge the heart of any pope. I am bound to abide by the eighth commandment, and the Small Catechism’s commentary on it: 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.. Though, it is obvious to all here that I sometimes fail in this.

Without questioning the sincerity of believe of all Catholics, including the pope and Magisterium, to the extent that the papacy makes the claim that salvation is dependent on being in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and that the pope has supremacy over all of the Church on Earth, as declared in Unam sanctam, that these claims are in opposition to scripture and even the Tradition of the early Church, and therefore in opposition to Christ.

Now, to be fair, a Catholic can claim that our understanding of the Doctrine of Justification is opposed to Christ, or a Baptist’s view of the Eucharist is opposed to Christ. The problem today, IMO, is that the term “anti-Christ” has taken on implications due to its use by some dispensationalist type groups.

Originally Posted by guanophore
I think it is pretty much a given that any Lutheran would consister Leo X anti-Christ. The belief that he was obscuring the Gospel is fundamental to the foundation of Lutheranism.

But even in this, I personally would not consider Leo’s actions as somehow an intentional opposition to Christ. IOW, I don’t question the sincerity of belief of Pope Leo X. It is not my place to do so.

How does considering a past pope anti-christ relate to what is needed now for Lutherans to again be in communion with the Bishop of Rome?

Only in this way, if a particular Lutheran still believes that the pope (the teachings of the office, not the individual man) is obscuring the Gospel, then being in communion with him is impossible. But if that Lutheran believes it no longer to be the case, being in communion with him becomes a new, more pressing, option.

Jon

 

[Hawkiz]

No. I can’t forgive anyone for something they didn’t do to me,

So you can’t forgive the past, but you can hold the past against? You have specifically listed actions of past Popes as a roadblock for you to unity. Or is it that you see ‘anti-Christ’ actions still occurring from the Pope today? Pope Francis has been very much in the public eye; is there something specific that he has done or even said that leads you to view him as ‘anti-Christ’?

I thank everyone for their open and honest comments and discussion, but would ask, as the OP, that we tone down our bickering and turn back to seeking unity. Debating over who is a Church and who isn’t has not proven fruitful. The purpose of my original questions were to begin dialogue amongst lay people about what we can do, in a grass roots way, to unite around Christ. From what I have seen here, we are oh-so-close and still yet oh-so-far away. The good news is that we are close on some very ‘major’ issues…it appears that we are letting small t traditions and, quite frankly issues more closely related to politics than faith, obscure our views of one another.

Please allow me to pose a hypothetical: IF, as an olive branch, Pope Francis said in a press conference later today, that from this moment forward, the Papal office would cease to exist as it has and will function solely as leader, and will henceforth defer to the College of Cardinals, and at the same time extended an offer for all who wish to unite around the Catholic Church, (specifically Lutherans here) and that all Lutheran ministers would immediately by considered fully consecrated priests…would that be enough? A hypothetical question that likely won’t occur, but it will give me a clearer picture of where we are.

What is the Church proclaimed ‘most’ of Ausberg to be accepted? What if the Church accepted all but a few paragraphs of the Small Catechism? What if the Church pulled some of the ‘anathema’ statements?

I don’t have all the answers, and I realize full well that the Catholic Church has some things are it’s side of the aisle that She won’t back down on, just as Lutherans do. I am not trying to make anyone ‘lukewarm’ to their faith, but unity is demanded by St. Paul, and his words are contained in Scripture that we all believe to be from God, so I fight to achieve it. And I thank you for joining me.

BEAR DOWN!!!

Peace in Christ

 

[Per_Crucem]

What is it about this you are unable to believe?

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

 

[KjetilK]

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

From these canons I deduce that the Catholic view is not that justification comes from faith+works, but from a faith that has grace and charity and a faith that is a movement of the will. What, exactly, do you disagree with here? As a Lutheran I also hold that the faith which justifies is faith filled with charity, not ‘naked faith.’ And my confessions don’t say anything else. There might be something in the confessions to which I do not adhere, as a member of the Church of Norway, but I haven’t checked yet.

• The text does not state that this movement is (entirely) his own.