Error Begets Error

[Daniel_Stinson]

Agreed. So, within Lutheranism, essentially, it is OK to refer to the Eucharist as a sacrifice (albeit re-presented) offered up to the Father?

A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod as preapared by its Social Concerns Committee
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/mosynod/web/sup-03.html

(The Small Catechism of Martin Luther) Part Six: The Sacrament of the Altar Translated by Robert E. Smith
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/little.book/book-6.txt

 

[Daniel_Stinson]

Thank you for all of that Daniel. I know those writings well.
What I am asking is if Lutherans believe that there was a Church prior to the Catholic Church that compiled a Bible?
I know that the Scriptures (scrolls) that Jesus stood up and read from
in the Temple were the Old Testament…this has been fulfilled this day…
I just don’t understand when a Lutheran says something like “the Church”, what Church are they referring to if not the Catholic Church?

Speaking for this Lutheran, the one holy, catholic and apostolic church received the books of the bible. And for that we give thanks. Suffice to say, Lutherans would be silly to not give thanks to our Catholic brothers in Christ for receiving and protecting the Word. And as an American Lutheran, I give thank to Catholics now for whacking us over the head with the Deuterocanonical books and making us take notice.

The Smalcald Articles.
THE THIRD PART OF THE ARTICLES
Article XII: Of the Church
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/smc-03l.html

 

[Daniel_Stinson]

Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences
by Dr. Martin Luther (1517)
Luther’s Ninety-five Theses
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html

 

[benjohnson]

Do you believe that these men, Catholic bishops, who received the books of the Bible, did so infallibly?

I can’t really answer that properly, but we would we tend to say the Word is inerrent to focus more on the Gospel and not on the people receiving it.

 

[benjohnson]

The Smalcald Articles.
THE THIRD PART OF THE ARTICLES
Article XII: Of the Church

I was being sneaky… Don’t give it away.

(Lutherans claim that were a valid continuation of the western church, so when a Lutheran tells starts saying nice things about the OHCAC , our Catholic friends should be on their toes)

 

[PRmerger]

I was being sneaky… Don’t give it away.

(Lutherans claim that were a valid continuation of the western church, so when a Lutheran tells starts saying nice things about the OHCAC , our Catholic friends should be on their toes)

Duly noted!

 

[benjohnson]

Agreed. So, within Lutheranism, essentially, it is OK to refer to the Eucharist as a sacrifice (albeit re-presented) offered up to the Father?

You’ll probably get weird looks if you say that - most Lutherans would assume your talking about a new sacrifice. I would recomend saying “a re-presentation of the sacrifice of our lord” - you’d guerentee to start a conversation, but it would quickly end in agreement if the Lutherans you were taking to were familier with the Angus Dei in their liturgy.

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t really answer that properly, but we would we tend to say the Word is inerrent to focus more on the Gospel and not on the people receiving it.

But you must acknowledge, logically, that if there were no errors in the decisions made–on multiple occasions–by these Catholic bishops, that they were given the charism by the Holy Spirit to proclaim this canon without error? That is, they did so infallibly? Yes?

 

[benjohnson]

But you must acknowledge, logically, that if there were no errors in the decisions made–on multiple occasions–by these Catholic bishops, that they were given the charism by the Holy Spirit to proclaim this canon without error? That is, they did so infallibly? Yes?

I’d like to say yes, but I’m a little afraid your setting a trap that will lead me to RCIA.



My gut reaction is that the Holy Spirit would certainly be a part of the process.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I’d like to say yes, but I’m a little afraid your setting a trap that will lead me to RCIA.



My gut reaction is that the Holy Spirit would certainly be a part of the process.

Lol

 

[allhers]

Speaking for this Lutheran, the one holy, catholic and apostolic church received the books of the bible. And for that we give thanks. Suffice to say, Lutherans would be silly to not give thanks to our Catholic brothers in Christ for receiving and protecting the Word. And as an American Lutheran, I give thank to Catholics now for whacking us over the head with the Deuterocanonical books and making us take notice.

Aww, you’re welcome, (wish I had done it myself, it must have been pain staking and an honor for those that did.)
We love you guys, it just makes us nuts sometimes is all. :banghead:

 

[allhers]

The Smalcald Articles.
THE THIRD PART OF THE ARTICLES
Article XII: Of the Church
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/smc-03l.html

Thank you Daniel. So I’m guessing you disagree with benjohnson, right?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Biblically, Moses and Aaron served together and as equals to 70-Elders of the Church, all anointed under the oil of the Holy Spirit. The 12-Apostles were required by Jesus to go out 2-by-2 to rebuke the other if one should sin against the Word of God; and they established 72-Elders of their equal, who also grew the Church. David served with, not apart from Nathan. Elijah served with Elisha. The Angle of the Lord (Jesus) is seen directly accompanying Abraham. All 12-Apostles equally shared and partook in the Holy Spirit, the responsibility of growing Jesus’ Church. The 1st one true Church of St. Peter was in Antioch (Turkish boarder with Syria), and known as the Center of Christendom for centuries, long before Rome. A pope was assigned to Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Rome at one point under the Ecumenical Council of Bishops. The Western Catholic Church had three popes at Avignon, Rome, and Constantinople. Not until the conciliarism was abolished in 1517, was it officially doctrinal to restrict the number of popes a Ecumenical Council of Bishops could restrict to only one. The 1st Vatican Council had to make a public ruling that the Pope of 1854 had the authority to declare himself the 1st to have infallibility.

I’ve heard this argument before…

God made Adam then Eve as his helper.

God talked to Noah as the leader and gave him helpers.

God talked to Abraham as the leader and gave him helpers.

God talked to Moses as the leader, only after he kept complaining that he didn’t have an articulated speech did God put Aaron to help him.

God talked to Joshua as the leader and gave him helpers.

God chose Saul as King and gave him helpers.

God chose David as King and gave him helpers.

God chose Solomon as King and gave him helpers.

Moving forward in the same pattern.

God chose Peter as the leader (the rock) and gave him helpers.

The Pope, Peter’s successor, is not alone. He has thousands upon thousands of helpers.

The type of logic and argument you presented is flawed. Yes they served together but one was the leader.

Why do I hear Highlander in the distance… There can only be one

 

[PRmerger]

I’d like to say yes, but I’m a little afraid your setting a trap that will lead me to RCIA.

This would be my reaction:

My gut reaction is that the Holy Spirit would certainly be a part of the process.

'zactly. And that’s nothing more and nothing less than what the Catholic Church claims is involved in the charism of infallibility.

 

[allhers]

Do you believe that these men, Catholic bishops, who received the books of the Bible, did so infallibly?

Ohhh, good question,

 

[benjohnson]

PRmerger:

'zactly. And that’s nothing more and nothing less than what the Catholic Church claims is involved in the charism of infallibility.

We have no problems with saying the Catholic church has been guided by the Holy Ghost. In fact, we pray that it is so - Your church was in our intentions this last week as we prayed for discernment for your archbishops during the upcoming conclave even dispite our reservations.

Where we balk, is that we don’t think it a unique charism. God has been good to our church and we are in awe of the Grace he has shown us, we repsond as best we can.

 

[PRmerger]

We have no problems with saying the Catholic church has been guided by the Holy Ghost. In fact, we pray that it is so - Your church was in our intentions this last week as we prayed for discernment for your archbishops during the upcoming conclave even dispite our reservations.

Where we balk, is that we don’t think it a unique charism. God has been good to our church and we are in awe of the Grace he has shown us, we repsond as best we can.

So here’s the thing, ben. For some reason, even though you acknowledge everything that the CC proclaims regarding the charism of infallibility (that it is a gift of the Holy Spirit given to guide the Church from proclaiming error), you cannot seem to bring yourself to actually say this: men are capable of being infallible.

What is the barrier to proclaiming these words, while you actually profess to its spirit?

 

[benjohnson]

So here’s the thing, ben. For some reason, even though you acknowledge everything that the CC proclaims regarding the charism of infallibility (that it is a gift of the Holy Spirit given to guide the Church from proclaiming error), you cannot seem to bring yourself to actually say this: men are capable of being infallible.

What is the barrier to proclaiming these words, while you actually profess to its spirit?

Ah ha! This really is the rub… We would never ever say that man are capable of being infallible alone. For that we would need the Holy Spirit, and even then men often rebel against God. And certainly we would not accept a man telling us that the Holy Spirit has told him that he is infallible for this would be new revelation above the revleation of the Gospel.

Remember we Lutherans keep pointing each other to the Gospel over and over, so when someone claims to have something new to say, we tend to ignore them as our understanding is that we already have Salvation though the Sacrements and the Gospel.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah ha! This really is the rub… We would never ever say that man are capable of being infallible alone. For that we would need the Holy Spirit, and even then men often rebel against God.

Indeed.

And this is exactly the teaching of the CC. Because men are rebellious against the Creator they must be prevented from teaching error by this charism of infallibility.

You do believe that men have been able to discern the canon of the NT, under the guidance of the HS, without proclaiming any error. That is infallibility.

And certainly we would not accept a man telling us that the Holy Spirit has told him that he is infallible for this would be new revelation above the revleation of the Gospel.

And yet you believe that men have been infallible, yes?

To wit: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul…:yup:

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Indeed.

And yet you believe that men have been infallible, yes?

To wit: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul…:yup:

You walked right into that one, Ben. lol