An open question for Lutherans

[moabman]

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.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

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

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 am not really holding the past against. What happened in the past is gone. But I still view the office of the papacy as the antichrist not so much more because it persecutes Christians (it has stopped doing that to their credit) but it still teaches doctrine that obfuscates the gospel IMO.

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 that be enough for what? Full unity, no I am afraid I still wouldn’t consider full unity even though its a nice gesture.

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?

No. No any more than of we decided to accept most of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[ptisme]

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.

What does the office teach that clouds the gospel?

 

[commenter]

Are you arguing the term Church vs. ecclesial community here? The definition of Church vs. ecclesial community, ISTM, is not communion with the Pope, but apostolic succession/valid priesthood/valid Eucharist.

Being in communion with the Pope is not a requirement to be a “Church”, since the EO have Churches. But it is a requirement to be “Catholic Church”.

It helps to avoid blurring the “Catholic Church” with the “Catholic Faith”; and also blurring the dignity and status of institutions with the dignity and status of individuals.

 

[guanophore]

 I am not really holding the past against.  What happened in the past is gone.  But I still view the office of the papacy as the antichrist not so much more because it persecutes Christians (it has stopped doing that to their credit) but it still teaches doctrine that obfuscates the gospel IMO.

Can you be more specific?

What that be enough for what? Full unity, no I am afraid I still wouldn’t consider full unity even though its a nice gesture.

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

No. No any more than of we decided to accept most of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

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

 

[guanophore]

I still view the office of the papacy as the antichrist not so much more because it persecutes Christians (it has stopped doing that to their credit) but it still teaches doctrine that obfuscates the gospel IMO.

What does the office teach that clouds the gospel?

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.

No. No any more than of we decided to accept most of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

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.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Being in communion with the Pope is not a requirement to be a “Church”, since the EO have Churches. But it is a requirement to be “Catholic Church”.

It helps to avoid blurring the “Catholic Church” with the “Catholic Faith”; and also blurring the dignity and status of institutions with the dignity and status of individuals.

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

 

[FathersKnowBest]

It would also seem that if they are a Church, and not an ecclesial community, then they are also “Catholic,” because there is only one Church, no?

It all depends on how you define each of those terms.
Yes, they can be “Catholic” in a sense, but that also makes them disobedient Catholics.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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 see you’re new here. Welcome.
However, you should quote the message to which you’re replying. I have no idea what the context of your reply is.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I am not really holding the past against. What happened in the past is gone. But I still view the office of the papacy as the antichrist not so much more because it persecutes Christians (it has stopped doing that to their credit) but it still teaches doctrine that obfuscates the gospel IMO.

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.

 

[Per_Crucem]

It all depends on how you define each of those terms.
Yes, they can be “Catholic” in a sense, but that also makes them disobedient Catholics.

Sure but that would also be the case with Protestants. However, the Protestants are not considered the Church, whereas the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, etc., are. So there would have to be a difference.

 

[guanophore]

It all depends on how you define each of those terms.
Yes, they can be “Catholic” in a sense, but that also makes them disobedient Catholics.

Do you think the Easten Orthodox are “disobedient Catholics”?

I see you’re new here. Welcome.
However, you should quote the message to which you’re replying. I have no idea what the context of your reply is.

I think it is just a reply to the OP.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Right, and Catholics would not say so. It is Christ, and the work of Redemption on the cross that is the grounds. But, getting back to cooperation, He paid the price of redemption, but not all choose to be redeemed by Him. It is as if he paid the fine for everyone to get out of jail, and some refuse to leave.

I would hate to appeal to mystery here but I have to. I honestly cannot tell you why some choose to believe and why some choose to reject. Or even why some choose to believe and then later fall away (apostasy is an even bigger mystery!). However, as best we are able, we maintain with the Scriptures that if a man believes, it is because the Holy Spirit has regenerated him, renewed his will, etc., all by grace and grace alone, apart from his cooperation; and if he disbelieves it is because in the hardness of his heart he has rejected the Spirit, despised the word and chosen to stay in his sins. It is not necessarily logical.

Baptism is how we unite ourselves with Him in His death and resurrection, dying with Him, that we might be raised to newness of life. In baptism, we are sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, washed, cleansed, and the slavery to sin is broken. He comes to reside in our hearts, so that we are no longer our own, we have been bought with a price.

Amen.

I am pleased with the dialogues, because I think that light must be shed on the language and intent that is more meaningful to us 500+ years later.

It’s a good thing. It makes one wonder though how effective the council was, though, if no one has been able to discern its real intent for 500 years!

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Do you think the Easten Orthodox are “disobedient Catholics”?

Affirmative.

But, just as in families, some can be more disobedient than others.

 

[Peter_J]

It would also seem that if they are a Church, and not an ecclesial community, then they are also “Catholic,” because there is only one Church, no?

So what you’re really asking here is how we define “Catholic”, right? For this forum I believe it is well established as meaning “those in communion with Rome”.

My return question is this: if you define “Catholic” more broadly, then what term would you use for “those in communion with Rome”? (I suppose you could call us “TiCwR”. )

 

[Per_Crucem]

So what you’re really asking here is how we define “Catholic”, right? For this forum I believe it is well established as meaning “those in communion with Rome”.

My return question is this: if you define “Catholic” more broadly, then what term would you use for “those in communion with Rome”? (I suppose you could call us “TiCwR”. )

I get how the forum defines it. I mean how the actual Catholic Church defines it, in the real world

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I get how the forum defines it. I mean how the actual Catholic Church defines it, in the real world

You mean…

This is not…

The real…

World…

 

[Per_Crucem]

You mean…

This is not…

The real…

World…

There there, Jose. Here’s Teddy.

 

[Peter_J]

You mean…

This is not…

The real…

World…

 

[guanophore]

I would hate to appeal to mystery here but I have to. I honestly cannot tell you why some choose to believe and why some choose to reject. Or even why some choose to believe and then later fall away (apostasy is an even bigger mystery!). However, as best we are able, we maintain with the Scriptures that if a man believes, it is because the Holy Spirit has regenerated him, renewed his will, etc., all by grace and grace alone, apart from his cooperation; and if he disbelieves it is because in the hardness of his heart he has rejected the Spirit, despised the word and chosen to stay in his sins. It is not necessarily logical.

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.

It’s a good thing. It makes one wonder though how effective the council was, though, if no one has been able to discern its real intent for 500 years!

I think that Trent did at the time what was needed at the time, to clarify the Teachings of the Church. That being said, we understand things a lot differently now.