N
Neithan
Guest
To all the Lutherans here: I was raised a Lutheran, so I am very sympathetic to your cause. I firmly believe that nothing in 2004 should be separating Lutherans from the Catholic Church.
There are basically two types of Lutherans, Confessional Lutherans, who still hold fast to the teachings of the Book of Concord (e.g. Missouri Synod) and main-line Protestant Lutherans who only follow the Confessions “insofar as they agree with Scripture.” The latter group has had heavy influences from Calvinist doctrine as well as Evangelical movements, which explains the characteristically un-Lutheran doctrines you were taught.
I’m sorry that I’m not so well-versed in the Fathers that I can call up quotes off-hand, but I heard a great dialogue recently with *James Likoudis–*a convert from Eastern Orthodoxy and writer of Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism–on the “Coming Home network.” I highly recommend listening to it. Listen carefully to what this learned scholar mentions about early Church writings and the papacy. It is quite clear that the Bishop of Rome recognized his supreme status. Many Orthodox Bishops agree, but there are still a few who refuse to acknowledge this fact.
Now, in the Lutheran doctrine, the implication is that you are actually consuming human flesh and blood together with wine and bread? That’s ridiculous, and outright heresy. Surely you don’t believe that. Luther himself did not fully understand Transubstantiation, and did away with it in favour of a mystical understanding. “Consubstantiation” was a label later applied to his simplistic thinking, nothing that he himself came up with. Really, though, this should not divide Lutherans and Catholics. The first Protestants to exclaim “sola Scriptura!” should know better. Personally, I think Lutherans and Catholics share the same understanding but we can’t seem to agree with one another because agreement in itself would seem like concession, and concession goes against eternal truths and blah blah ad infinitum nauseum. Let’s reconcile this!
(Continued)
Things haven’t changed, but you are referring to the many splinters which have affected Lutheranism since its founder’s death. The Formula of Concord was published in 1580 to harmonize several different interpretations of Dr. Luther’s (and Melancthon) writings, but problems continued.
There are basically two types of Lutherans, Confessional Lutherans, who still hold fast to the teachings of the Book of Concord (e.g. Missouri Synod) and main-line Protestant Lutherans who only follow the Confessions “insofar as they agree with Scripture.” The latter group has had heavy influences from Calvinist doctrine as well as Evangelical movements, which explains the characteristically un-Lutheran doctrines you were taught.
You seem to have the same misconceptions and twisted view of the Fathers that modern stubborn Eastern Orthodox Bishops have used to signify that the Church never had a supreme head. This is contrary to both Scripture and Tradition. The successor of Peter was personally instituted by Christ to “Rule” over his sheep (John 21:15-19).
I’m sorry that I’m not so well-versed in the Fathers that I can call up quotes off-hand, but I heard a great dialogue recently with *James Likoudis–*a convert from Eastern Orthodoxy and writer of Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism–on the “Coming Home network.” I highly recommend listening to it. Listen carefully to what this learned scholar mentions about early Church writings and the papacy. It is quite clear that the Bishop of Rome recognized his supreme status. Many Orthodox Bishops agree, but there are still a few who refuse to acknowledge this fact.
This also should not be just a huge point of dispute. The truth is clear from Scripture once again. Transubstantiation, which is philosophical in nature and therefore should not be confused with purely scientific observation, merely observes the fact that Christ is actually physically assuming the form of bread and wine. He said “This is my body. This is my blood.” Not “This bread contains my body” or, “In this bread is my Body.” It’s absolutely clear from scripture. In the mystery of incarnation, He can do this. If you scientifically study the bread and wine, they will seem exactly like bread and wine. Yet, they are Christ’s very body and blood. This is a vitally important article of faith.
Now, in the Lutheran doctrine, the implication is that you are actually consuming human flesh and blood together with wine and bread? That’s ridiculous, and outright heresy. Surely you don’t believe that. Luther himself did not fully understand Transubstantiation, and did away with it in favour of a mystical understanding. “Consubstantiation” was a label later applied to his simplistic thinking, nothing that he himself came up with. Really, though, this should not divide Lutherans and Catholics. The first Protestants to exclaim “sola Scriptura!” should know better. Personally, I think Lutherans and Catholics share the same understanding but we can’t seem to agree with one another because agreement in itself would seem like concession, and concession goes against eternal truths and blah blah ad infinitum nauseum. Let’s reconcile this!
(Continued)
God Bless.
