M
MaryT777
Guest
Well said.
- Status
It was not a personal attack. Its a fact. It is the same thing in reverse. No Catholic should care how I interpret Catholic doctrine. It isn’t my place to do so, and it isn’t your place to interpret for us our doctrines.
Further, it seems to me that the very foundational starting point of dialogue is a willingness to listen to and accept what one’s dialogue partner says. See my post to Randy. I don’t particularly care for the Catholic teaching regarding “invincible ignorance”. It seems to assumes that salvation is connected to being in communion (“albeit imperfectly”) with the Bishop of Rome. But I do not deny that that is the Catholic teaching. When I’ve thrown Unam Sanctam in, it is in direct response to your uncharitable attempts to claim to tell me and other Lutherans what we believe, which you have done in post and post after post since you have arrived at CAF.
I know full well that Catholic teaching as gone through a “positive reformulation” regarding the teaching. I’ve read enough of the CCC to know that. Randy called me on it, because he knows I know it.
And I do not intend to.
And as I predicted, you have no intention of dialogue, but simply your polemics. I informed you that I will not participate in it.
Actually, the bolded is the false statement, and I’m going to heed Church Militant’s, a poster I respect and admire, recommendation.
Jon
And that actually speaks to the viewpoint of the reformers, that the papacy in its doctrine sets up the Pope in place of Christ. That’s obviously not what Catholics believe.
Jon
M
MaryT777
Guest
I don’t think Catholics are intending to interpret Lutheran teachings for Lutheran but what appears to be a contradiction in what we read.
We read this
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.)
and then what must be a clarification in the LCMS official site regarding such:
No individual Pope is the antichrist.
It seems contradictory and I can’t pull up the official LCMS answer but you’ve posted it.
Must be development of doctrine in some way.
Or so it seems to me.
Mary.
This is just one more example of you trying to tell us what we believe. So, here is Unam Sanctam again:
Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
It is clear sophistry to now claim that Pope Boniface actually meant was “unless one has invincible ignorance”, or “join to the Church, albeit imperfectly”. He says “altogether necessary”!
Altogether! Not grace, not Christ, not baptism or the other sacraments, not faith, not works. Altogether subject to the Roman Pontiff. Altogether mean everything!
The very sophistry of this thread is when one tries to tell others what they believe.
I have stated what I “own” regarding this topic, your sophistry notwithstanding.
Jon
They can be. Remember, the charge is not a doctrine, but a historical judgement, historically conditional. I know of no Lutheran that accepts the claims of universal jurisdiction, and the others. If they accept them, I see no reason not to be Catholic.
Jon
C
clem456
Guest
As long as we are talking about what “he said”…
Are you familiar with the context from which this sentence came?
Context is everything. Reading in context protects us from fundamentalist and individualist readings of Scripture and/or Tradition.
I don’t pretend to have authoritative expertise in this area, but there is context available for this Bull if you search. Here is one informative post on the matter:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7791369&postcount=6
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
The smalcald articles are a set of suggestions to an intended ecemunical council that never took place, it is not universally accepted as a confession , there are only four confessions, but for some reason you keep saying that we accept more:shrug:
M
MaryT777
Guest
I don’t intend to say you accept more. It appears not all Lutherans subscribe to the AntiChrist teachings then. Now I understand. Thanks for the info on the Smalcald articles .
When you read it on the LCMS official site it appears as official doctrine to me but then I’m not Lutheran.
Mary.
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
Your welcome .
M
Michael68
Guest
It doesn’t clear anything up. They are just shifting from the person to the office. Slick!
J
JustaServant
Guest
Why do you insist on trolling this forum?
Hi Clem,
That’s an excellent post, ISTM. But for the purposes of responding in kind, which is all that I am doing, no more, no less, Unam sanctam fits the bill. What’s interesting from the post you linked to, is this comment:
The poster speaks to the position of the CC, and even if Pope Boniface was responding to a different situation, though its interesting that he says one must be subject to the pope to be saved, then excommunicates Phillip (
), the message contained in Unam Sanctam is the same message. It is the message that the Reformers took umbrage at, because, in their view, it is neither scriptural, nor consistent with the early Church.Jon
Mary,
Would it be appropriate for Lutherans to say to Catholics, on any number of teachings, that the Catholic Church has the power to “develop doctrine”, as they deem it necessary?
If so, would it be appropriate for Catholics to say to Lutherans, on any number of teachings, that the Lutheran Church has the power to “develop doctrine”, as they deem it necessary?
IOW, are we on each side willing to listen to what the other says, and accept that as what we believe, even if we don’t like it? Is it not our responsibility to say, we disagree with what you actually believe?
Can we mutually apply Archbishop Sheen’s quote, “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be,” to both sides?
If not, if we cannot do as anonymous posters what even our respective leadership can do, then the hope of lively, charitable dialogue, once the hallmark of this forum, is done.
Jon
J
JustaServant
Guest
When I searched through what the early Church fathers believed about the anti-Christ, it appeared they believed this figure to be more of a secular, perhaps pagan ruler who would persecute the Church. “Replacing” Christ with his own authority. They never made any attempt at identifying him as modern “prophecy experts” try to do. It’s really fruitless to waste time like that. The Church has had and will have many anti-christs who will persecute the Church.
To the reformers, in that historic context, filled with passion and religious fervor, I suppose it made sense to them. Like those nasty things your relatives said about other relatives.
Time and wisdom evens out old grudges.Looking at it today, it’s a relic of another time and place.
Anyway, to answer the OPs question, I don’t think most modern Protestants believe the Pope is the anti-Christ, outside of a few wide-eyed fundamentalists.
Couldn’t agree more.When I searched through what the early Church fathers believed about the anti-Christ, it appeared they believed this figure to be more of a secular, perhaps pagan ruler who would persecute the Church. “Replacing” Christ with his own authority. They never made any attempt at identifying him as modern “prophecy experts” try to do. It’s really fruitless to waste time like that. The Church has had and will have many anti-christs who will persecute the Church.
To the reformers, in that historic context, filled with passion and religious fervor, I suppose it made sense to them. Like those nasty things your relatives said about other relatives.
Looking at it today, it’s a relic of another time and place.
Anyway, to answer the OPs question, I don’t think most modern Protestants believe the Pope is the anti-Christ, outside of a few wide-eyed fundamentalists.
Jon
PS How did you know about those nasty things my relatives say about me? :hey_bud:
C
clem456
Guest
Who are you subject to in your faith?Hi Clem,
That’s an excellent post, ISTM. But for the purposes of responding in kind, which is all that I am doing, no more, no less, Unam sanctam fits the bill. What’s interesting from the post you linked to, is this comment:
The poster speaks to the position of the CC, and even if Pope Boniface was responding to a different situation, though its interesting that he says one must be subject to the pope to be saved, then excommunicates Phillip (
Jon
We could all say we are subject to Christ, and we would get a big amen. But you run into a huge problem if you then dispute the continuous charism of authority. You run into the Incarnation, which is central Christian belief.
Christ chose to “come down here”, and that changes everything.
Christ made himself subject to humanity. That might seem like heresy but it is the unavoidable central truth of Christianity. You cannot avoid this as a Christian.
God needs nothing.
Yet:
God became flesh in the person of Christ. He didn’t have to do this.
He interacted intimately with other human beings. He didn’t have to do this.
Scripture testifies to the gifts that he passed on. You know the verses, there is no sense me repeating. He didn’t have to gift anyone with anything. God needs absolutely nothing to accomplish his will, yet he condescended to give human beings gifts we are probably not worthy of. Unique authority is one of those. You know the passages. Jesus did not have to this.
Jesus died. Jesus rose, Jesus ascended. He does not sit on a throne. He entrusted the Gospel to human beings. The Gospel cannot die by nature of who Jesus is. It cannot die. And that-which-cannot-die was entrusted to human beings. Think about the implications.
He didn’t have to do this. He could be sitting in DC right now making sure things go smoothly without any help from anyone.
If God-who-needs-nothing didn’t have to do this, maybe the question is, “why did he do it”?
Why would he subject himself to the full human condition, including obedience to the death at the hands of humans?
Who are you subject to? And what does it mean to be subject?
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Stars,
Thanks for your response.
“Luther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as the agents of Satan.” Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 36
I think it is obvious, and this is no slam on you, but Edwards knows a whole lot more about Luther than you or I do, having written 4 books on him.
If that number doesn’t work, try (617) 495-1000. If you would like, I will call and get Mark’s number tomorrow.
I would be very interested in hearing a summary of your conversation with Dr. Edwards. But again, I would suggest that you read “Luther’s Last Battles” first before you call. The information that Edwards presents in this book is NOT the kind of thing that you or I learned in our Protestant Sunday Schools about Martin Luther. Thankfully, modern Lutheran Academic Scholarship has done a great deal to correct the standard “Legend” of Luther in their books and articles.
Please let us know how your conversation with Edwards goes.
God Bless You Star, Topper
Thanks for your response.
I am glad to hear that you don’t subscribe to that dribble and I find it interesting that it seems that only a small portion of Lutheranism does. Still, it would be good to get a handle on who does and who doesn’t. From what I can tell it is ONLY the WELS and the LCMS that are required to believe in the teachings in the FofC.
First of all, there have been a LOT of people in history who hated others with a mightily passion, just like Luther. They were CERTAIN that they were right also and they also did tremendous damage to humanity. They also ‘cared enough to tell others of their abhorrent views, and they used harsh language also. As for Luther’s hatred, you don’t seem to agree with one of Lutheranism’s most accomplished and respected Luther experts, who, again, stated:
“Luther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as the agents of Satan.” Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 36
I think it is obvious, and this is no slam on you, but Edwards knows a whole lot more about Luther than you or I do, having written 4 books on him.
That is understood. Dr. Edwards was the President of (Lutheran) St. Olaf College in Minnesota. He is now back teaching at the Harvard Divinity School. His phone number is (617) 495-4514 and his e mail is: medwards@hds.harvard.edu
- If I’m going to call Edwards , I’m going to Need his number first
If that number doesn’t work, try (617) 495-1000. If you would like, I will call and get Mark’s number tomorrow.
I would be very interested in hearing a summary of your conversation with Dr. Edwards. But again, I would suggest that you read “Luther’s Last Battles” first before you call. The information that Edwards presents in this book is NOT the kind of thing that you or I learned in our Protestant Sunday Schools about Martin Luther. Thankfully, modern Lutheran Academic Scholarship has done a great deal to correct the standard “Legend” of Luther in their books and articles.
Please let us know how your conversation with Edwards goes.
God Bless You Star, Topper
C
clem456
Guest
Is it appropriate to put phone numbers in a piblic post?
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Michael,
Daniel Preus, then the 1st VP of the LCMS has made some rather interesting ‘suggestions’ about how the Mass should be understood.
mtio.com/articles/bissar92.htm
Luther and the Mass
Daniel Preus
"Luther did not equate the office of priest with that of pastor. Luther perceived that the pope possesses his own priesthood. He spoke of a “holy popish priesthood,” a “papal priesthood,” and “the pope’s pseudo-priesthood.” In his assessment of the papal mass, Luther did speak about priests, but he viewed them as “mass priests.” They are “godless priests” and the “devil’s priesthood.” Never did Luther refer to them as priests of Christ, much less as pastors….
Luther often denied that the popish priests hold any Christian office, but his challenge to their possession of a Christian priestly office is most often found in his writings that deal with the mass. The sacrifice of the mass is an attack on the only priestly sacrifice that can ever have any merit before God, that of the great High Priest himself. The very term “priest” replaced that of “minister” in order that the concept of sacrifice might be reinforced in the papal mass. The title “priest” is not an appropriate one to describe him who holds the pastoral office and should be used only in reference to a Christian.
(Topper: Wow, that’s pretty ‘direct’. There nothing to suggest that Preus disagrees.)
Luther saw the pope’s priesthood as completely inimical to the Christian priesthood of believers. So you see that Christ’s priesthood has less chance of existing with the pope’s pseudo-priesthood than death has with life or heaven with hell. Verily, verily, the pope is a regent of Christ: he has driven out Christ and expelled him and put himself in Christ’s place as a ruler, and instead of the priesthood of the Spirit, he has set up a childish and grotesque priesthood.
Since the pope’s priesthood has nothing to do with Christ, much less with the office of a Christian minister, Luther denied that the consecration or ordination of such priests has any validity in the church of Christ…….
"They do not preach. They do not baptize. They do not administer the sacrament. They do not absolve. They do not pray (except to intone badly and hiss the words of the Psalter). They do not exercise the office of the care of souls, nor do they do anything with the dying; rather, they are a useless, lazy, idle crowd…. "
Luther wondered what kind of priesthood it is that performs none of the duties of a pastor and even “forbids public preaching in the church and parish ministry . . . without a special new order and call.” As far as Luther was concerned, consecration to such a priesthood has nothing in common with “ordination or a call to the public Christian office of preaching and the parish ministry.” Such a priesthood has no authorization from the Scriptures and is therefore a perverted priesthood, instituted not by Christ, but by antichrist. Wissløff summarizes Luther’s view of this papal “ministry.”
(Topper: There we go with that inoffensive ‘antichrist language’ again. Here in this article, we can see EXACTLY what “Confessional Lutheranism” thinks about the Catholic Church and its “mass”.)
‘The sacrifice of the mass is viewed from the standpoint of preaching. It does not speak of grace and faith, but of works and merit. The only priestly ministry the New Testament knows anything about is the ministry of the Spirit. But the ministry of the priest in the mass has to be characterized as one of the letter, of the law, of works. Therefore it is a “ministerium perditionis.” “Therefore as the priesthood is, so is the sacrifice, so is the ministering. The priest, the law, the work - all are nothing but the laws of Satan.” ……
Luther was convinced that the use of the terms “mass” and “sacrament” interchangeably has resulted in great confusion, and that the only way to provide a clear understanding of the nature of the Lord’s Supper is to stop calling it the mass. “Indeed, I wish and would very much like to see and hear that the two words ‘mass’ and ‘sacrament’ would be understood as being as different as darkness and light, yes, as different as devil and God.” …
Lutherans tempted to use “mass” as a synonym for the Lord’s Supper should take seriously Luther’s observations on the difference between “mass” and “sacrament.” The same confusion may very well result today when a term frequently used in reference to a sacrificial act performed by a priest is used carelessly by Lutherans in reference to the Lord’s Supper. It is not without justification that a charge of “Roman Catholic” is brought against those who refer to the Lord’s Supper as “the mass.” ……It is ill advised for Lutherans to do so today. Confusion will almost necessarily result unless Rome reforms its doctrine on the mass, which is hardly likely.”
(Topper Again: I think that these comments place the ‘antichrist’ accusations into context, and ALSO, give us a better understanding of the current and official ‘attitude’ of Confessional Lutheranism towards the Catholic Church. Apparently we should reform our doctrine such that the Mass is not the Mass, and that it is not a sacrifice.)
And for the record, it’s true, it is hardly likely that we are going to 'reform our doctrine of the mass on the “recommendation” of the LCMS.
God Bless You Michael, Topper
PS, Michael, do see this recent official statement as being ‘charitable’?
Are you saying that you are not open to changing the concept of the Mass? That seems awfully ‘rigid’ to me.Amen!!! Don’t mess with the Mass!
Daniel Preus, then the 1st VP of the LCMS has made some rather interesting ‘suggestions’ about how the Mass should be understood.
mtio.com/articles/bissar92.htm
Luther and the Mass
Daniel Preus
"Luther did not equate the office of priest with that of pastor. Luther perceived that the pope possesses his own priesthood. He spoke of a “holy popish priesthood,” a “papal priesthood,” and “the pope’s pseudo-priesthood.” In his assessment of the papal mass, Luther did speak about priests, but he viewed them as “mass priests.” They are “godless priests” and the “devil’s priesthood.” Never did Luther refer to them as priests of Christ, much less as pastors….
Luther often denied that the popish priests hold any Christian office, but his challenge to their possession of a Christian priestly office is most often found in his writings that deal with the mass. The sacrifice of the mass is an attack on the only priestly sacrifice that can ever have any merit before God, that of the great High Priest himself. The very term “priest” replaced that of “minister” in order that the concept of sacrifice might be reinforced in the papal mass. The title “priest” is not an appropriate one to describe him who holds the pastoral office and should be used only in reference to a Christian.
(Topper: Wow, that’s pretty ‘direct’. There nothing to suggest that Preus disagrees.)
Luther saw the pope’s priesthood as completely inimical to the Christian priesthood of believers. So you see that Christ’s priesthood has less chance of existing with the pope’s pseudo-priesthood than death has with life or heaven with hell. Verily, verily, the pope is a regent of Christ: he has driven out Christ and expelled him and put himself in Christ’s place as a ruler, and instead of the priesthood of the Spirit, he has set up a childish and grotesque priesthood.
Since the pope’s priesthood has nothing to do with Christ, much less with the office of a Christian minister, Luther denied that the consecration or ordination of such priests has any validity in the church of Christ…….
"They do not preach. They do not baptize. They do not administer the sacrament. They do not absolve. They do not pray (except to intone badly and hiss the words of the Psalter). They do not exercise the office of the care of souls, nor do they do anything with the dying; rather, they are a useless, lazy, idle crowd…. "
Luther wondered what kind of priesthood it is that performs none of the duties of a pastor and even “forbids public preaching in the church and parish ministry . . . without a special new order and call.” As far as Luther was concerned, consecration to such a priesthood has nothing in common with “ordination or a call to the public Christian office of preaching and the parish ministry.” Such a priesthood has no authorization from the Scriptures and is therefore a perverted priesthood, instituted not by Christ, but by antichrist. Wissløff summarizes Luther’s view of this papal “ministry.”
(Topper: There we go with that inoffensive ‘antichrist language’ again. Here in this article, we can see EXACTLY what “Confessional Lutheranism” thinks about the Catholic Church and its “mass”.)
‘The sacrifice of the mass is viewed from the standpoint of preaching. It does not speak of grace and faith, but of works and merit. The only priestly ministry the New Testament knows anything about is the ministry of the Spirit. But the ministry of the priest in the mass has to be characterized as one of the letter, of the law, of works. Therefore it is a “ministerium perditionis.” “Therefore as the priesthood is, so is the sacrifice, so is the ministering. The priest, the law, the work - all are nothing but the laws of Satan.” ……
Luther was convinced that the use of the terms “mass” and “sacrament” interchangeably has resulted in great confusion, and that the only way to provide a clear understanding of the nature of the Lord’s Supper is to stop calling it the mass. “Indeed, I wish and would very much like to see and hear that the two words ‘mass’ and ‘sacrament’ would be understood as being as different as darkness and light, yes, as different as devil and God.” …
Lutherans tempted to use “mass” as a synonym for the Lord’s Supper should take seriously Luther’s observations on the difference between “mass” and “sacrament.” The same confusion may very well result today when a term frequently used in reference to a sacrificial act performed by a priest is used carelessly by Lutherans in reference to the Lord’s Supper. It is not without justification that a charge of “Roman Catholic” is brought against those who refer to the Lord’s Supper as “the mass.” ……It is ill advised for Lutherans to do so today. Confusion will almost necessarily result unless Rome reforms its doctrine on the mass, which is hardly likely.”
(Topper Again: I think that these comments place the ‘antichrist’ accusations into context, and ALSO, give us a better understanding of the current and official ‘attitude’ of Confessional Lutheranism towards the Catholic Church. Apparently we should reform our doctrine such that the Mass is not the Mass, and that it is not a sacrifice.)
And for the record, it’s true, it is hardly likely that we are going to 'reform our doctrine of the mass on the “recommendation” of the LCMS.
God Bless You Michael, Topper
PS, Michael, do see this recent official statement as being ‘charitable’?
- Status