Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?

[rfournier103]

Jon NC… I know little about Lutheran doctrine, but am I to understand that Lutheran doctrine is one of Sola Fide? I’m not going to debate Sola Fide, but is THAT the main thing keeping Lutherans from coming back?

Clearly so. Though I might add that our view of sola fide is not what one might hear from radical protestants, the Reformed, evangelicals, etc.

So… may I ask how Lutheranism differs on the view of Sola Fide from the “radical Protestants”?

 

[JonNC]

Man, I don’t know how you do it. It has to be a gift! Such well spoken! Hard to argue your logic. However, I think that the Lutherans are waiting for Rome to come home to us, rather than we go to them. And, we would welcome them with much rejoicing!

Thank you, sincerely.

I think its been a case of both waiting for the other, frankly. I thank God that recent popes have made those initial steps with Vatican II.

My suggestion is that we both reach to each other, and at those times we can’t take each other’s hand, we both take the hand of the Holy Spirit for guidance.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

So… may I ask how Lutheranism differs on the view of Sola Fide from the “radical Protestants”?

well, the first thing that pops into my head is the Calvinist TULIP, and OSAS. Even as early as the confessions, the Lutheran reformers made it clear that works are very important, that they are necessary of the regenerate.

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

Ironically, not wanting to enter the Catholic Church because of the pontiff is tragic.

It is the work of the papacy, besides communicating the living revelation of the Church through Jesus Christ, the papacy’s work is communion in union with the bishops of the world.

 

[rfournier103]

Wasn’t the Reformation a means to an end? A movement to REFORM the Church; not “leave and never come back”?

Also, if there is nothing in Lutheranism in conflict with Catholic teaching, then wouldn’t Lutherans accept the “Roman Pontiff” as the Vicar of Christ on Earth? St. Peter and his successors have been “minding the store” to the best of their individual abilities for almost 2,000 years; and that’s kind of a big deal.

How can various Protestant denominations see themselves as a valid continuation of the Roman/Latin/Western Church, when Luther thumbed his nose at the valid successor to St. Peter (who Christ Himself left in charge)?

A MAJOR block to reconciliation is the office of the Pope (as established by Jesus). Do Lutherans see this as a gross misinterpretation of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture by Catholics? (Matt 16:18) and (John 21:15-17)

Lastly… I know it was said in jest, but how could Lutherans expect Rome to come to them, when Luther left us?

(Sorry I was so curt. In a hurry and have to get going. Thanks for the discussion! Will BBL)

 

[batman1973]

Wasn’t the Reformation a means to an end? A movement to REFORM the Church; not “leave and never come back”?

Also, if there is nothing in Lutheranism in conflict with Catholic teaching, then wouldn’t Lutherans accept the “Roman Pontiff” as the Vicar of Christ on Earth? St. Peter and his successors have been “minding the store” to the best of their individual abilities for almost 2,000 years; and that’s kind of a big deal.

How can various Protestant denominations see themselves as a valid continuation of the Roman/Latin/Western Church, when Luther thumbed his nose at the valid successor to St. Peter (who Christ Himself left in charge)?

A MAJOR block to reconciliation is the office of the Pope (as established by Jesus). Do Lutherans see this as a gross misinterpretation of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture by Catholics? (Matt 16:18) and (John 21:15-17)

Lastly… I know it was said in jest, but how could Lutherans expect Rome to come to them, when Luther left us?

(Sorry I was so curt. In a hurry and have to get going. Thanks for the discussion! Will BBL)

No apology nessacary. First off, Luther did not “thumb his nose” at the Church. Rather the Church ex-communicated him for refusing to recant what he felt that God was calling him to do. Luther would have much rather stayed a Catholic. So, in that sense the Roman Church left us. But, as JonNC has pointed out, both groups need to meet in the middle. I for one, don’t see the LCMS Church abandoning her three cores and submitting to the Roman Authority. For Lutherans (and most Protestants) the deposit of faith is The Sacred Scripture. Jesus is the head of the church. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus alone, and that good works are a natural outshowing of our salvation. And lastly, and this is my own personal opinion The Catholic Church reminds me too much of Mormonism for me to be happy there.

 

[JonNC]

=rfournier103;10136705]Wasn’t the Reformation a means to an end? A movement to REFORM the Church; not “leave and never come back”?

Agreed

Also, if there is nothing in Lutheranism in conflict with Catholic teaching, then wouldn’t Lutherans accept the “Roman Pontiff” as the Vicar of Christ on Earth? St. Peter and his successors have been “minding the store” to the best of their individual abilities for almost 2,000 years; and that’s kind of a big deal.

Not based on the teaching that developed just prior to the Schism and following.

How can various Protestant denominations see themselves as a valid continuation of the Roman/Latin/Western Church, when Luther thumbed his nose at the valid successor to St. Peter (who Christ Himself left in charge)?

“Thumbed his nose” is a bit put-offish, but none the less, if one views the Bishop of Rome as the patriarch of the western Church, as was taught in Nicea canon 6, then rejection of the universal jurisdiction seems appropriate.

A MAJOR block to reconciliation is the office of the Pope (as established by Jesus). Do Lutherans see this as a gross misinterpretation of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture by Catholics? (Matt 16:18) and (John 21:15-17)

Without getting specific, yes to both.

Lastly… I know it was said in jest, but how could Lutherans expect Rome to come to them, when Luther left us?

Well, kind of mutual considering his excommunication, but I stated myposition before.

Jon

 

[rfournier103]

Wasn’t the Reformation a means to an end? A movement to REFORM the Church; not “leave and never come back”?

Also, if there is nothing in Lutheranism in conflict with Catholic teaching, then wouldn’t Lutherans accept the “Roman Pontiff” as the Vicar of Christ on Earth? St. Peter and his successors have been “minding the store” to the best of their individual abilities for almost 2,000 years; and that’s kind of a big deal.

How can various Protestant denominations see themselves as a valid continuation of the Roman/Latin/Western Church, when Luther thumbed his nose at the valid successor to St. Peter (who Christ Himself left in charge)?

A MAJOR block to reconciliation is the office of the Pope (as established by Jesus). Do Lutherans see this as a gross misinterpretation of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture by Catholics? (Matt 16:18) and (John 21:15-17)

Lastly… I know it was said in jest, but how could Lutherans expect Rome to come to them, when Luther left us?

(Sorry I was so curt. In a hurry and have to get going. Thanks for the discussion! Will BBL)

No apology nessacary. First off, Luther did not “thumb his nose” at the Church. Rather the Church ex-communicated him for refusing to recant what he felt that God was calling him to do. Luther would have much rather stayed a Catholic. So, in that sense the Roman Church left us. But, as JonNC has pointed out, both groups need to meet in the middle. I for one, don’t see the LCMS Church abandoning her three cores and submitting to the Roman Authority. For Lutherans (and most Protestants) the deposit of faith is The Sacred Scripture. Jesus is the head of the church. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus alone, and that good works are a natural outshowing of our salvation. And lastly, and this is my own personal opinion The Catholic Church reminds me too much of Mormonism for me to be happy there.

Mormonism??? Wow. Not sure what to think of that. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Agreed

Not based on the teaching that developed just prior to the Schism and following.

“Thumbed his nose” is a bit put-offish, but none the less, if one views the Bishop of Rome as the patriarch of the western Church, as was taught in Nicea canon 6, then rejection of the universal jurisdiction seems appropriate.

Without getting specific, yes to both.

Well, kind of mutual considering his excommunication, but I stated myposition before.

Jon

I came across this thread and post again Jon.

As I said in another thread, I am utterly confused how you might have access to truths such as the Bible, Solas etc without first verifying the authority of those who give it to you, in this case, the Lutheran Church. If the Lutheran Church cannot show a transfer of authority to itself from Christ, it cannot unfortunately teach anything. Do you understand this very important point?

The Lutheran Church would just be an arbitrary claimant to be able to teach but not worthy of assent.

So I honestly think that your idea that “Lutherans are Catholic apart from the Papacy” is a very weak argument. Lutherans are a group of people who assent to an authority that is unworthy of assent. Hence, a unreasonable religion.

Lutheranism has truths that it shares with Catholicism. BUT, it cannot ask for assent nor be assented to if one is reasonable. So for you, its either you become Catholic or continue to be unreasonable and give assent to the Lutheran church. Do you see the issue?

Also, by unreasonable here, I do not mean my opinion. I am referring to practical reason. You must be able to explain to a unbeliever as to how you went from Christ died and rose from the dead, to Lutheran Church has the authority to teach regarding Christ and his teaching. Unless you can do that, the Lutheran Church is not worthy of assent.

 

[JonNC]

I came across this thread and post again Jon.

As I said in another thread, I am utterly confused how you might have access to truths such as the Bible, Solas etc without first verifying the authority of those who give it to you, in this case, the Lutheran Church. If the Lutheran Church cannot show a transfer of authority to itself from Christ, it cannot unfortunately teach anything. Do you understand this very important point?

The Lutheran Church would just be an arbitrary claimant to be able to teach but not worthy of assent.

So I honestly think that your idea that “Lutherans are Catholic apart from the Papacy” is a very weak argument. Lutherans are a group of people who assent to an authority that is unworthy of assent. Hence, a unreasonable religion.

Lutheranism has truths that it shares with Catholicism. BUT, it cannot ask for assent nor be assented to if one is reasonable. So for you, its either you become Catholic or continue to be unreasonable and give assent to the Lutheran church. Do you see the issue?

Also, by unreasonable here, I do not mean my opinion. I am referring to practical reason. You must be able to explain to a unbeliever as to how you went from Christ died and rose from the dead, to Lutheran Church has the authority to teach regarding Christ and his teaching. Unless you can do that, the Lutheran Church is not worthy of assent.

Yeah, we went through this before. Part of it is you see a transfer in terms of Apostolic Succession, and we see no reason to believe that this is the only way the Authority of Church, or even that it this was the meaning of the Apostles.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

Jon, good find on the Joint Deceleration in regards to Trent. I missed that entirely.

You probably know this but here’s the Catholic ‘clarification’ on the Joint Deceleration.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

I would say that from reading the response (from a Catholic perspective), we’re not there yet. Our good Catholic friends haven’t quite abandoned the idea that man plays a part in his salvation - it’s been diminished but it’s still there. Reluctantly, I would say the LCMS leadership is correct when the Joint Deceleration is strictly examined.

That won’t keep me from being happy about the Joint Deceleration - the beginning of any reconciliation is often the hardest part.

 

[batman1973]

Mormonism??? Wow. Not sure what to think of that. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Think on this: Both Mormons and Catholics teach that they alone hold authority.
Both Catholics and Mormons teach that there is no salvation outside their churches.
Both Catholics and Mormons have an arm that determines how to interpret scripture and Church teachings (Church Educational System for Mormons, Magestrarium for the Catholics)
Both groups say that other churches are heretical.
Both teach that good works and faith are needed for salvation, and that “faith alone” is false.

The main difference, however, is that Catholics believe in the real Trinity, (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. These are one God, not multiple gods) and reject “extra biblical” works (like the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants.)

 

[JonNC]

No apology nessacary. First off, Luther did not “thumb his nose” at the Church. Rather the Church ex-communicated him for refusing to recant what he felt that God was calling him to do. Luther would have much rather stayed a Catholic. So, in that sense the Roman Church left us. But, as JonNC has pointed out, both groups need to meet in the middle. I for one, don’t see the LCMS Church abandoning her three cores and submitting to the Roman Authority. For Lutherans (and most Protestants) the deposit of faith is The Sacred Scripture. Jesus is the head of the church. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus alone, and that good works are a natural outshowing of our salvation. And lastly, and this is my own personal opinion The Catholic Church reminds me too much of Mormonism for me to be happy there.

Jut a couple of thoughts:

1. Meeting in the middle isn’t quite what I mean, as that would imply a compromise of sorts, and I don’t see that as how reconciliation can occur.
2. I think it unhelpful to compare the Catholic Church to Mormonism, even in terms of ecclesiology. I understand your feelings, based on what you relay is your history, but I would offer what Luther said about the Catholic Church:

• “… we concede—as we must—that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them? Therefore faith, the Christian Church, Christ, and the Holy Spirit must also be found among them.”*
  He would never say any such thing about the LDS.

Jon

 

[rfournier103]

Our good Catholic friends haven’t quite abandoned the idea that man plays a part in his salvation.

Didn’t Jesus say in Matt 16:19; “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

I was going to abandon the thread after the Mormon quip, but but I have to ask: where does THIS fit in? This seems to have a role for MEN in salvation. Or is this another gross misunderstanding like the Vicar of Christ?

 

[KathleenGee]

If only the Trinitarian Christians would take one step into the Catholic Church, they would be so much more blessed and so would we…and what a testament to the world…

Please come home.

There is such a thing as Biblical Studies in the Catholic Church, where you can apply your own personal interpretations and gather with others who hold them in prayer and reflection, as long as you can also acknowledge Orthodoxy and its place in Scriptural and ecclesial interpretation.

Please come home and experience the Eucharist…Holy Communion…participate in the communion of saints and the liturgical year, share in praying with us.

You will be so blessed, and we as well, and when understanding comes, I can see many providing good bible fellowship to live out the Word Made Flesh.

 

[JonNC]

Didn’t Jesus say in Matt 16:19; “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

I was going to abandon the thread after the Mormon quip, but but I have to ask: where does THIS fit in? This seems to have a role for MEN in salvation. Or is this another gross misunderstanding like the Vicar of Christ?

The keys, given to the entire Church, but I’m not sure how this enters the into a discussion of the role of works. Lutherans recognize the necessity of works, as a command of God for the regenerate, but we recognize too that the possibility of salvation is won for us by Christ’s all availing sacrifice on the cross. We can add nothing to that. Therefore, we are justified by grace, a free gift, through faith in Christ. Can we lose that salvation by persisting in sin (not doing good works)? Indeed.

On the Mormon quip, and not speaking for Batman, I have often encountered Catholics who have a view of all protestants based on their local, personal experience with certain groups. Perhaps Batman can elaborate, though its his choice.

Jon

 

[batman1973]

Jut a couple of thoughts:

1. Meeting in the middle isn’t quite what I mean, as that would imply a compromise of sorts, and I don’t see that as how reconciliation can occur.
2. I think it unhelpful to compare the Catholic Church to Mormonism, even in terms of ecclesiology. I understand your feelings, based on what you relay is your history, but I would offer what Luther said about the Catholic Church:

• “… we concede—as we must—that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them? Therefore faith, the Christian Church, Christ, and the Holy Spirit must also be found among them.”*
  He would never say any such thing about the LDS.

Jon

Agreed. I humbly apologize and retract my comparisson. Again, thank you for “keeping the peace” as it were. I am a new Lutheran, and still have much to learn.

 

[batman1973]

On the Mormon quip, and not speaking for Batman, I have often encountered Catholics who have a view of all protestants based on their local, personal experience with certain groups. Perhaps Batman can elaborate, though its his choice.

Jon

Post #306.

 

[rfournier103]

Think on this: Both Mormons and Catholics teach that they alone hold authority.
Both Catholics and Mormons teach that there is no salvation outside their churches.
Both Catholics and Mormons have an arm that determines how to interpret scripture and Church teachings (Church Educational System for Mormons, Magestrarium for the Catholics)
Both groups say that other churches are heretical.
Both teach that good works and faith are needed for salvation, and that “faith alone” is false.

The main difference, however, is that Catholics believe in the real Trinity, (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. These are one God, not multiple gods) and reject “extra biblical” works (like the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants.)

Now you’ve got my dander up.

Rev 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds.” Didn’t Jesus say that to John? Isn’t THAT in the Bible? (underscore mine)

2 Thess 2:15 " Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." Sounds like there can be TWO Deposits of Faith… (underscore mine)

1 Tim 3:15 “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth”. What church is that? What church (or Church) was around that long ago? (underscore mine)

Acts 8:30-31 “Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.” So… the reader is literate, but requires interpetation? Shouldn’t the reader draw his own conclusions? (underscore mine)

Lastly… from 33 AD (Crucifixion) and 397 AD where was the “sole deposit of faith” (Bible)? How did Christians know what to do and how to worship? And I would LOVE to know where in the Bible Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura may be found. Does salvation TRULY come from faith ALONE? Is scripture the ONLY authority to guide us? Are these doctrines in the Bible?

 

[rfournier103]

The keys, given to the entire Church, but I’m not sure how this enters the into a discussion of the role of works. Lutherans recognize the necessity of works, as a command of God for the regenerate, but we recognize too that the possibility of salvation is won for us by Christ’s all availing sacrifice on the cross. We can add nothing to that. Therefore, we are justified by grace, a free gift, through faith in Christ. Can we lose that salvation by persisting in sin (not doing good works)? Indeed.

On the Mormon quip, and not speaking for Batman, I have often encountered Catholics who have a view of all protestants based on their local, personal experience with certain groups. Perhaps Batman can elaborate, though its his choice.

Jon

Thank you for posting that. As for the Keys and binding and loosing, we can take this outside (to another thread ) I’m reading a great book by John Salza called “The Biblical Basis for the Papacy”. It’s a great book, and extremely informative. A real eye-opener for me.