Follow up on SS

[spina1953]

I kind of doubt it Jon just from reading this. Some
things aren’t changeable for the Church and unfortunately
those particular things MUST be believed and
professed on penalty of ex communication.

Such as Purgatory. Purgatory did not begin with
the Catholic Church. Belief In an intermediate
stage between heaven and hell in which prayer
assisted existed thousands of years before Christ
in the Jewish religious life.
And we have ample archeological evidence that
the first Christians continued right on with it.

The problem Jon as I see it is saying something
should not be done that was akways done religiously
in the Judeo Christian spectrum because it is barely
mentioned is in the vagaries of history.

In other words, we have plenty of documentation discovered
during archeological digs, or historical research, that
we know is valid but not necessarily pertinent, but
expands knowledge of God.
You also know many many different accounts existed
that were considered for inclusion in the Testament
equally valid as the Gospels chosen but were either
not quite clear, or were redundant, or could not
be authenticated.

The bottom line Jon is this- Purgatory being in different
forms such an ancient practice among the Jews, and
the early Christians coupled with the fact that the
Jews to this day and Catholics continue the belief,
indicates it is worthy of consideration along with
significant fact of it’s bare mention in the Bible.

We can’t know how it came about as there is no
record of it and the mention of the practice in the
Bible does not refer to the beginning of the belief.
Quite possibly it came forth directly from God but
the means lost at least for now to history.

So if we throw out an ancient belief like that that
does have mention in the Bible, based on our own
determination that what WE all assembled thousands
of years later and based only on what was available
in 397 Ad as being the ONLY
authority? That could be a real problem.

Those types of dogmas that are based almost entirely
on ancient Jewish and early Christianity that have
a sentence or two in OUR modern creation of
what is Holy Scripture, must be maintained and believed
until they are either verified or can factually be proven
as NOT from God but man made entirely.

See what I mean? The reason the Bible should not
be considered the ONLY authority for Christians is
that it was assembled/created hundreds and in some
cases thousands of years after the fact. We need
tradition to balance out those not quite understandable
to us.

And on another point- authoritatively- if praying for
the dead is not to be done- why in the Bible were
they doing it? Haha.
That’s the Church’s point: We don’t know how it came
about, or when, it is not a contradiction of Christian doctrine
Jesus Mary and Joseph as observant Jews probably
observed it, it’s unbroken in practice, it does have a
couple mentions in practice so oh yeah we had
better keep it you bet.

And again that is why we are called Judeo-Christians
and our faiths Judeo Christianity.
We, you and me are Christian Jews so to speak.
And we can’t throw out our Jewishishness on
a whim or on the suggestion of an obvious anti
Semite.

Hi marywarfield: I thought that I’d add this to what you wrote: The Second Book of Maccabees of theological importance are the authors teachings on the resurrection of the just on the last day (7,9,11,14,23:14,46), the intercession of the saints in heaven for people living on earth(15,11-16), and the power of the living to offer prayers and sacrifices for the dead (12, 39-46) is where we have the doctrine of purgatory.

 

[JonNC]

Hi marywarfield: I thought that I’d add this to what you wrote: The Second Book of Maccabees of theological importance are the authors teachings on the resurrection of the just on the last day (7,9,11,14,23:14,46), the intercession of the saints in heaven for people living on earth(15,11-16), and the power of the living to offer prayers and sacrifices for the dead (12, 39-46) is where we have the doctrine of purgatory.

By the following day it was urgent that they gather up the bodies of the men who had been killed in battle and bury them in their family tombs. 40 But on each of the dead, hidden under their clothes, they found small images of the gods worshiped in Jamnia, which the Law forbids Jews to wear. Everyone then knew why these men had been killed. 41 So they praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge, who reveals what is hidden, 42 and they begged him that this sin might be completely blotted out. Then, Judas, that great man, urged the people to keep away from sin, because they had seen for themselves what had happened to those men who had sinned. 43 He also took up a collection from all his men, totaling about four pounds of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. Judas did this noble thing because he believed in the resurrection of the dead. 44 If he had not believed that the dead would be raised, it would have been foolish and useless to pray for them. 45 In his firm and devout conviction that all of God’s faithful people would receive a wonderful reward, Judas made provision for a sin offering to set free from their sin those who had died.

Yes, we can pray for the dead.
Yes, the saints pray (intercede) for us constantly (no mention here if we are to ask them to)
Yes, the justified are purged/cleansed when they die (no mention here again of an intermediate state/place.

Jon

 

[marywarfield]

Yes, we can pray for the dead.
Yes, the saints pray (intercede) for us constantly (no mention here if we are to ask them to)
Yes, the justified are purged/cleansed when they die (no mention here again of an intermediate state/place.

Jon

So Jon which dogma(s) exactly do Lutherans dispute?
Why are Lutherans Lutheran?

This is where the whole ecumenical thing fails for me.
In people of different religions rushing to reassure
me that we don’t have differences- we agree on all the
important stuff.

I had the Mormons last year telling me there was
no difference between LDS and Catholic belief
because we all have the same family values and if
Catholics would just give up this and that we could
be one religion.

Two days ago here on CAF the Bahai were telling me
“if Christians like me would just entertain alternate
views of Jesus Christ then Christians would be
compatible with Islam and we would have world peace.”

In every ecumenical effort somehow all the religions
seem to think that if Catholics just gave up this
or that in views held and practiced long before the churches
and religions were even conceived.
It gets tiresome to have ecumenical efforts in which
the ultimate goal is the same as ever- if those Catholics
would just convert their beliefs hey world peace
and brotherly love. And like I told the Baha’i the odds
are better if they pray for whirled peas.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

How we use the practice of sola scriptura is outlined under the heading of:
**Comprehensive Summary, Rule and Norm According to which all dogmas should be judged, and the erroneous teachings [controversies]that have occurred should be decided and explained in a Christian way. ** in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord.

If others reject the creeds, for example, they have changed the practice. If others do not recognize the Church’s role in determining doctrine and dogma, they have changed the practice. Rejecting these is not the practice of sola scriptura, by our definition.

Jon, this is not at all a response to my question, which was again:

“I would be interested to hear about how you can justify the claim that ‘they do it wrong’, using of course, language that they could not turn back on you by simply replacing the names of your respective communions.”

As you know, the reason that I asked the question the way that I did was to make the point that Protestants don’t have a compelling answer. In order to claim, as they all do, that those ‘other Protestants’ don’t interpret correctly, they need to have a compelling argument that supports ONLY their own method of interpretation. The generalized ‘we do it better because we say we do’ is not exactly convincing. By failing to even attempt to answer the question as it was posed, it appears that you have helped prove my point - that is unless you would like to take another shot at it.

In fact, I read your response to this question more than a couple of times, and in fact, there is nothing in that text that you provided or your comments that could not be used to (non) answer the my question from the perspective of another non-Lutheran communion.

Example, from usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

Jon, as much as I appreciate your posting an actual quote from the dialogue, this particular quote does not even remotely address the point that I made, which was:

“I have read documents of the Dialogue and have not seen any evidence other than generalized statements as to the causes of the Protestant separation from the Church. Again, from my experience, discussing Luther’s ‘role’ in doctrinal dissention is the third rail, and I cannot imagine that the Lutheran Scholars who are participating in the Dialogue are any different. If you know differently then please post the information.”

Nothing in that quote from the dialogue addresses my point, which again proves my point – the discussion of Luther’s role in doctrinal dissention as the ‘third rail’, both here on CA and in the Dialogue. Mentioning Luther’s “typically extreme language” as the Dialogue does, is not exactly digging deeply into the matter.

Do you think it is possible for the Catholic Church to accept the Augsburg Confession as a Catholic confession, as Cardinal Ratzinger once pondered?
The answer to both is, the dialogue and the issues are not so simple. But if Lutherans and Catholics can come to agreements such as the document I referenced here, and the JDDJ, and numerous others over the last 50 to 60 years, my sense is that the Spirit can guide us closer together, and even perhaps to unity.

As is my habit in this post, I have to point out that this was not a response the question that I asked, which was:

“Do you think that it is possible for even a small portion of Lutheranism, or a specific Lutheran denomination to someday be reunited with the Catholic Church and the Bishop of Rome, without renouncing the Lutheran Confessions?”

It seems to me that we have discussed Ratzinger’s comment before and if memory serves me, it is a 40+ year old non-official statement, which nobody, including Ratzinger, ever took seriously enough to follow-up on in the slightest. My guess is that that statement if portrayed in it’s actual context doesn’t mean anything close to what you infer. If you would like to take exception to this comment, then please post the whole of his text.

That being said, to answer your question about whether the Catholic Church could ever accept the Augsburg Confession as a ‘Catholic Confession’, directly and honestly, which is always my goal, I don’t think there is a chance in a million. This is not to say that I do not pray (and work) for reunification, but I do so with out of a sense of realism. Plus as we have discussed, the Augsburg Confession was not exactly an honest representation of Lutheran belief at the time.

As I have posted on other threads, it is very clear from the Lutheran Confessions and from the article from your LCMS 1st VP, that reunification will take place when the RCC has accepted Lutheran teachings and rejected it’s own. To underscore this point, and because you seem to have forgotten it, the following is a quote from the then 1st VP of the LCMS:

“It is difficult to look seriously at the official teachings of the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church and come to the conclusion that the formulators of the Joint Declaration have attempted to be honest with their respective churches. To declare convergence on the article of justification when there are “diverse understandings of merit, reward, purgatory, and indulgences, Marian devotion and the assistance of the saints in the life of salvation, and the possibility of salvation for those who have not been evangelized” is indeed nonsense. To speak of consensus on the doctrine of justification and ignore the soteriological conflict between the Roman mass and the Lord’s Supper is to make a mockery of the meaning of consensus.

Part 2 to follow:

 

[Topper17]

First VP Preus of the LCMS continues: “One can hardly escape the conclusion that the signers of the Joint Declaration are more interested in the illusion of peace and harmony than they are in the truth. In his Preface to the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Philip Melanchthon stated that he wrote it to testify to all nations that we hold to the Gospel of Christ correctly and faithfully. We take no pleasure in discord, nor are we indifferent to our danger, its extent is evident from the bitter hatred inflaming our opponents. But we cannot surrender truth that is so clear and necessary for the church (AC Pref. 15 - 16; Tappert, 99).

True Lutherans will never take pleasure in discord. But neither will they surrender truth that is so clear and necessary for the church. If the Lutheran Church today wishes to hold to the gospel of Christ correctly and faithfully, she cannot afford to ignore actual differences in doctrine, especially when those differences impinge so directly on the gospel itself. The Roman and Lutheran teachings on the Lord’s Supper not only divide us in our understanding of the sacrament of the altar. They represent two differing soteriologies, and no less in our day than in Luther’s. It is difficult to know what long-term effect the Joint Declaration will have on Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches. One thing is sure we have no consensus now on the doctrine of justification, nor will there ever be consensus as long as the Roman mass remains a sacrifice.” Daniel Preus,

Daniel Preus is a contributing editor for Logia. Formerly director of the Concordia Historical Institute, he is First Vice President of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod.

As I have pointed out before. It is obvious that the LCMS is NOT interested in reunion UNLESS the RCC caves in doctrinally. This is exactly the same position that Luther took.

Jon, while I very much appreciate your apparent interest in a true reunion, it is obvious that your position is at odds with that of the LCMS. If people like you were responsible for working towards reunification in an official capacity, I would have some hope, but sadly you are not. Maybe the fact is that you are much more interested in reunification than your communion, which might mean that you are in a communion which does not ‘represent’ you as you might wish to be represented. I think that leaves you in a difficult position.

Sure.
Other communions are responsible for what they do. Whether or not they follow the Lutheran model of the practice of sola scriptura or some derivative, they make their own choice. They also have the choice of following the Catholic / Orthodox model. It is a matter of choice and free will. Luther holds a gun to no one’s head.

Jon, your position presumes that everybody has the interest, time, intellectual capacity, and level of commitment necessary to sort all of these things out for themselves. Especially now, with the uncountable number of competing and conflicting Protestant communions, you can’t expect people to wade through all of that and make a totally ‘informed decision’.

The fact of the matter is that until Luther, Sola Scriptura did not exist. He provided the means by which Christian doctrine could become so corrupted. Until Luther, Christian doctrine was relatively unified, even including the differences between the EOC and the RCC. Luther’s SS changed all of that, and not for the better. Now – you can claim, and many people do, that the Church’s doctrines were corrupted by heresy, but you would have to admit that Luther’s SS has not exactly been ‘the answer’.

Topper, I’m not requiring Catholics to do or believe anything. The vast amount of what Catholics believe I believe. All I said was that I don’t believe there is taught explicitly or even implicitly universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome in the ecumenical councils of the early undivided Church. My friend Nicea325 here and I have discussed this often. His point, as I recall, is that there was no need for the councils to be explicit about something already assumed. My point is that if it were something already assumed, why did it a millennium ago to the present day play such a large role in the Schism of the Church.

If it had been an issue that was going to impact the unity of the Church it would have been handled in Council. Obviously it wasn’t.

But I see your point, if the practice of sola scriptura is not explicit in the councils, why do I accept it, while not accepting supremacy (universal jurisdiction) of the Bishop of Rome? In part, because the CC considers universal jurisdictions doctrine (my understanding), where sola scriptura is a praxis, and not a article of faith that binds the conscience of the believer. But from my perspective, I have often said that regardless of the terms, if Orthodoxy and the CC were to come to agreement about the nature of the pope’s primacy, and come to full unity, I would gladly enter the unified Church.

As for your repeated claim that you would enter the unified Church if the EO and CC were to come to agreement, I see that as being extremely easy to say at this point. It seems to me that you are saying that either one should be considered to be teaching the Gospel more accurately than does Lutheranism. After all, you seem rather committed (but possibly in theory only) to leaving the Lutheranism. Which forces me to ask a very important question:

Jon, just exactly how important is Doctrine to you? I ask because of the statement that you would leave Lutheranism IF “something” happens which has absolutely nothing to do with Lutheranism? Obviously I do not understand the logic or motives behind your claim.

Part 3 to follow

 

[Topper17]

Question: why was the Bishop of Rome unable to overcome this simple German Augustinian friar’ new and innovative practice?

Would you like me to spend the next month or so writing about the social, economic and political situation in Germany and in Europe prior to the Reformation, at the expense of our conversation about SS and Luther’s ‘role’ in Protestantism’s doctrinal dissensions? I would like to ask you what particular books you have read about the period. Maybe once I know I could make a few suggestions that might ‘round out’ your understanding of the period and the various challenges that the Church faced at the time. I will make one general comment though. The “Legend” of Luther would have us believe that the people correctly understood his teachings and flocked to his side because they believed in what he taught. Nothing could be further from the truth. Various groups followed him but only until they realized better what he was really all about. If it had not been for the support of the Princes, many of whom wanted the authority of the Church destroyed, Luther would be little more than a footnote in history. In fact, most people misunderstood Luther (including Luther actually), and by the time they figured out what he was really all about, the control of the Evangelical movement had been, to a large degree, come under Secular leaders. If you would like to know more about this I would be happy to recommend an excellent book.

Regardless of the level of Luther’s responsibility for the practice of sola scriptura, others are responsible for their own choices. Even within Lutheranism, the Epitome of the Formula of Concord was written by the second generation Lutherans. Lutherans of today are responsible for our continued practice of sola scriptura. Not Luther.

To a limited degree I agree. It would seem that Lutherans would be required to abandon SS once they realized that it was not and could not be a teaching found in the Scriptures, nor of the Apostles, nor of the Fathers. That of course and an actual understanding of the ‘results’ of SS. I would suggest to you that one of the reasons that so many Lutheran Theologians have become ‘swimmers’ involves this realization. Which brings up a question in regards to those ‘swimmers’. Are you aware of any RCC Theologians who have swum in the other direction, from Catholicism to one of the various forms of Lutheranism? I am not.

As for the Lutheran Confessions, I am not sure why Lutherans consider them to be authoritative. Could you explain how these various groups of men are considered to have written authoritatively? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit was present to preclude them from teaching error?

I do have to say though that the thread that runs through your responses is that you hold various individuals responsible for what they believe, which seems to presume that they should know better, but also that you are very reluctant to hold Luther responsible for what he taught, as a Christian leader. It seems like a double standard to me. That being said, I do appreciate your apparent willingness to assign ‘some’ responsibility for SS to Luther.

The way I see it Jon, if Luther was teaching error, then HE is responsible for that. If you look at the teachings of the Church Fathers, they blame the heretics that they were writing against. They did presume that the average Joe was capable of sorting through the various heretical beliefs and coming to the correct version of the Truth. The role of the Church has been for almost 2000 years now to protect Christianity from the damage done by heretical belief.

Obviously I don’t agree with your position whatsoever, and I would bet that the difference between us goes to the Lutheran belief in the perspicuity of Scripture. Is that it? Do you believe that Scripture is clear enough in it’s doctrinal teachings that anyone (or almost anyone) can read it and understand it, and therefore – as you say – they are ‘are responsible for their own choices’ as you put it?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11959391]

“I would be interested to hear about how you can justify the claim that ‘they do it wrong’, using of course, language that they could not turn back on you by simply replacing the names of your respective communions.”

I already answered this. If, as you claim, Luther invented SS, then the Lutheran practice is the default model.

“I have read documents of the Dialogue and have not seen any evidence other than generalized statements as to the causes of the Protestant separation from the Church. Again, from my experience, discussing Luther’s ‘role’ in doctrinal dissention is the third rail, and I cannot imagine that the Lutheran Scholars who are participating in the Dialogue are any different. If you know differently then please post the information.”

Already answered. Look, if a Catholic has so little confidence in their dialogue leaders, not to explore the history of the Reformation, I’m not sure I can help. The Lutherans, from everything I’ve read, have been honest partners (and some maybe too willing to find common ground.

Nothing in that quote from the dialogue addresses my point, which again proves my point – the discussion of Luther’s role in doctrinal dissention as the ‘third rail’, both here on CA and in the Dialogue. Mentioning Luther’s “typically extreme language” as the Dialogue does, is not exactly digging deeply into the matter.

If you have evidence from a Catholic dialogue participant, either on the national level or otherwise, that the Lutheran theologians have been somehow disingenuous or uncooperative in talking about Luther’s role, perhaps you can share it.

“Do you think that it is possible for even a small portion of Lutheranism, or a specific Lutheran denomination to someday be reunited with the Catholic Church and the Bishop of Rome, without renouncing the Lutheran Confessions?”

It seems to me that we have discussed Ratzinger’s comment before and if memory serves me, it is a 40+ year old non-official statement, which nobody, including Ratzinger, ever took seriously enough to follow-up on in the slightest.

And you have a statement from him stating he wasn’t serious, I would hope.

That being said, to answer your question about whether the Catholic Church could ever accept the Augsburg Confession as a ‘Catholic Confession’, directly and honestly, which is always my goal, I don’t think there is a chance in a million.

If that is the case, why would you expect confessional Lutherans to give up our confessions, without dialogue that brings to convergence the doctrinal issues that divide us? Topper, we expect the CC to stand by its doctrines in dialogue, as we will. Any other approach or expectation isn’t true dialogue,

This is not to say that I do not pray (and work) for reunification, but I do so with out of a sense of realism. Plus as we have discussed, the Augsburg Confession was not exactly an honest representation of Lutheran belief at the time.

Well, since the dialogue isn’t taking place 500 years ago, and Lutherans today consider it an honest representation of our beliefs, then the impressions of a Catholic apologist about the views of the Reformers of 500 years ago is, honestly, irrelevant. What is relevant is what is happening now.

As I have posted on other threads, it is very clear from the Lutheran Confessions and from the article from your LCMS 1st VP, that reunification will take place when the RCC has accepted Lutheran teachings and rejected it’s own.

And I have often heard the same from good Catholics here, that the opposite is true. It seems naïve, frankly, to expect either side to simply cave, or to say that they are willing to compromise. Compromise will solve nothing. Compromise is not the intent of ecumenical dialogue. Prayerfully finding convergence is.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11959402] Jon, while I very much appreciate your apparent interest in a true reunion, it is obvious that your position is at odds with that of the LCMS. If people like you were responsible for working towards reunification in an official capacity, I would have some hope, but sadly you are not. Maybe the fact is that you are much more interested in reunification than your communion, which might mean that you are in a communion which does not ‘represent’ you as you might wish to be represented. I think that leaves you in a difficult position.

I appreciate your kind words and concern.

Jon, your position presumes that everybody has the interest, time, intellectual capacity, and level of commitment necessary to sort all of these things out for themselves. Especially now, with the uncountable number of competing and conflicting Protestant communions, you can’t expect people to wade through all of that and make a totally ‘informed decision’.

Actually, I can. I do, and have, and continue to evaluate my faith tradition.

The fact of the matter is that until Luther, Sola Scriptura did not exist.

Curiously, I read on another thread yesterday a Catholic trying to link protestant groups to one of the ancient heresies by claiming it, too, used sola scriptura.

Until Luther, Christian doctrine was relatively unified, even including the differences between the EOC and the RCC.

And the OO. As for relatively unified, by Luther’s time the EO /CC split was 500 years old, and the CC /OO split far older than that. EO members here do not, AFAIK, consider the doctrinal differences as minor.

If it had been an issue that was going to impact the unity of the Church it would have been handled in Council. Obviously it wasn’t.

It wasn’t an issue because the Catholic understanding of papal universal jurisdiction, as outlines in Vat I wasn’t heard of then.

As for your repeated claim that you would enter the unified Church if the EO and CC were to come to agreement, I see that as being extremely easy to say at this point. It seems to me that you are saying that either one should be considered to be teaching the Gospel more accurately than does Lutheranism.

No. I’ve explained that before as well. I would consider it such an undeniable, irresistible evidence of the Spirit moving in His Church.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11959422]Would you like me to spend the next month or so writing about the social, economic and political situation in Germany and in Europe prior to the Reformation, at the expense of our conversation about SS…

You can’t write a brief, concise, post on the matter?

I do have to say though that the thread that runs through your responses is that you hold various individuals responsible for what they believe, which seems to presume that they should know better, but also that you are very reluctant to hold Luther responsible for what he taught, as a Christian leader. It seems like a double standard to me. That being said, I do appreciate your apparent willingness to assign ‘some’ responsibility for SS to Luther.

Actually, I’ve said quite the opposite about Luther. He is, indeed, responsible for his writing, despite the corruption he saw in the Church at that time, despite the influences of folks like Gabriel Biel, even despite whatever family issues may have effected his thinking. But he is not responsible for what others decide and do. They are. I was born and raised Lutheran, but I today am responsible for where I am. Not my parents, not Luther.

The way I see it Jon, if Luther was teaching error, then HE is responsible for that.

Yep.

Obviously I don’t agree with your position whatsoever, and I would bet that the difference between us goes to the Lutheran belief in the perspicuity of Scripture. Is that it? Do you believe that Scripture is clear enough in it’s doctrinal teachings that anyone (or almost anyone) can read it and understand it, and therefore – as you say – they are ‘are responsible for their own choices’ as you put it?

Actually, I don’t. I depend on the Church, as Lutherans are responsible to do. It is the Church that interprets for doctrine. Hermeneutics is the responsibility of the Church.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

It seems to me that we have discussed Ratzinger’s comment before and if memory serves me, it is a 40+ year old non-official statement, which nobody, including Ratzinger, ever took seriously enough to follow-up on in the slightest.

Because Pope Benedict XVI was known for flippant off-the-cuff remarks of no substance?

 

[spina1953]

Yes, we can pray for the dead.
Yes, the saints pray (intercede) for us constantly (no mention here if we are to ask them to)
Yes, the justified are purged/cleansed when they die (no mention here again of an intermediate state/place.

Jon

Hi Jon: It seems to me that while there is no mention in the Second Book of Maccabees that we are to ask the saints to pray for us, although as you said they pray (intercede for us constantly, there is nothing that points to not asking the saints to intercede for us (praying for us) I see no reason why one can not ask the saints in heaven to pray for us. There is nothing that says that the dead who sinned were actually justified, purged/cleansed or an intermediate state/place as in a purgatory, yet what purpose would it serve to pray for them as Maccabees asked if those who sinned by wearing small images of gods that were worshiped in Jamnia that they be forgiven. How are they justified or purged or cleansed, Does God just say well because someone prayed for you because of your sin I will just forgive you and into heaven you go? Does God say because of someone praying for you because you had sinned there is no punishment or any need to be cleansed or purged because of the sin committed? It really does not make any sense yet, God can forgive anyone any sin He wants to forgive as He wills. So in the end who does anyone really know with any certainty that purgatory does not exist? or exists? Just because it does not say clearly one way or the other or is vague mean that it is not so. Sometimes it takes a very long time before the meaning of what was written is understood and made clear as to how one is to believe or understand before the doctrine is developed.

 

[Nicea325]

Sure.
Other communions are responsible for what they do. Whether or not they follow the Lutheran model of the practice of sola scriptura or some derivative, they make their own choice. They also have the choice of following the Catholic / Orthodox model. It is a matter of choice and free will. Luther holds a gun to no one’s head.

Topper, I’m not requiring Catholics to do or believe anything. The vast amount of what Catholics believe I believe. All I said was that I don’t believe there is taught explicitly or even implicitly universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome in the ecumenical councils of the early undivided Church. My friend Nicea325 here and I have discussed this often. His point, as I recall, is that there was no need for the councils to be explicit about something already assumed. **My point is that if it were something already assumed, why did it a millennium ago to the present day play such a large role in the Schism of the Church. **

But I see your point, if the practice of sola scriptura is not explicit in the councils, why do I accept it, while not accepting supremacy (universal jurisdiction) of the Bishop of Rome? In part, because the CC considers universal jurisdictions doctrine (my understanding), where sola scriptura is a praxis, and not a article of faith that binds the conscience of the believer. But from my perspective, I have often said that regardless of the terms, if Orthodoxy and the CC were to come to agreement about the nature of the pope’s primacy, and come to full unity, I would gladly enter the unified Church.

And yet it has lasted a thousand years, twice as long as the Reformation.

Question: why was the Bishop of Rome unable to overcome this simple German Augustinian friar’ new and innovative practice?

Regardless of the level of Luther’s responsibility for the practice of sola scriptura, others are responsible for their own choices. Even within Lutheranism, the Epitome of the Formula of Concord was written by the second generation Lutherans. Lutherans of today are responsible for our continued practice of sola scriptura. Not Luther.

Jon

Blessings Jon.

I might add because of many reasons: geography,politics, language, culture,etc the Schism took place. Blame? Both sides. The fact papal infallibility was ratified in 1870 does not negate its existence. As I have stated before, if the universal jurisdiction of the pope was novel or out of the normal practicing tradition of the ancient church, why in the world would any patriarch from another See feel compelled to take an internal matter to Rome? If “all” are equals, why not settle it at home or go to another major See? Why Rome? There are numerous historical cases of such incidents occurring and Rome was “the” See making the final decision,not suggestion or mere “my two-cents” approach. I am more than happy to provide you several cases of such incidents.

God bless my brother

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper, just a couple of thoughts.

I’m sorry that you spent time on two posts based in part on a misunderstanding. Here is what I said: And that is the clear issue. ISTM we depend on grace. We would agree that those who reject the real presence are, sadly, wrong. Scripture and the historic Church provide evidence that they are. But as long as the Catholic Church, The Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans provide testimony to the of His real and substantial presence, His Spirit is working to lead us to truth. A lot depends on how we do it.

When I said “A lot depends on how we do it”, it was immediately following, “But as long as the Catholic Church, The Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans **provide testimony **to the of His real and substantial presence, His Spirit is working to lead us to truth”.

Therefore, I was referring to how we provide that testimony. Do we provide it with Christian love and charity, being willing to give testimony to the particular truth? If so, ISTM that this provides the Spirit the means to turn hearts and minds on this issue.

I agree Jon, up to a point, and we should remember that this is a thread about SS. Sola Scriptura provided Christians with the ‘opportunity’ to NOT believe in the Real Presence. Until Luther developed SS, the Real Presence was taught by ALL of Christianity (except for possibly a few small groups that you would also agree were heretical.) Thus, with the Real Presence and a whole lot of other issues, SS provided the method by which people could attach themselves to false beliefs. Since Luther is responsible for the development of SS, logic demands that we hold him to a large degree responsible for the results of SS, which are among other things, a false belief regarding the Eucharist by the majority of SS Christians.

Now, to be sure, I am in no way saying the Spirit is not guiding those who reject the real presence (given here as simply an example). Paragraph 819 of the Catholic Catechism also appears to hold this position; "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

"Understanding that it comes from a Catholic POV, I generally agree with this.

As far as this goes, I agree. The question then goes to how the Holy Spirit leads individual Christians. Luther believed that, and initially taught that individual Christians are led by the Holy Spirit to correctly understand Scripture. Protestantism is proof that this is not true.

No more than it should cause you to wonder about the validity of Tradition when it comes to, for example, the IC.

I’m sure I should know what the term ‘IC’ refers to, but I don’t.

And this is the point; regardless of the methods used, human Christians have come to disagreements regarding doctrine. This was true long before the Reformation. It is the history of the Church. Scripture isn’t flawed. The Holy Spirit isn’t flawed. We are. All of us.

Nobody is saying that Scripture is flawed. What I am saying is that SS is flawed and that it that has been proven so by the sorted doctrinal history of Protestantism. You can say (as you must) that there were doctrinal disagreements within Christianity before Luther invented Sola Scripture but this ignores the scale of that disagreement. If you argument forces you to ignore the scale of the disagreement that SS caused, it is an indication of the strength of your position.

Not according to Luther. Luther sites not only scripture but the Fathers

It appears that you are not aware of Luther’s rather ‘tense’ relationship with the Fathers. At least I hope that you were not aware. Marius points this out:

“…here I sit, here I remain, here I glory, here I triumph, here I condemn Papists, Thomists, Henricians, sophists, and all the gates of hell all the more in that they are led astray by the sayings of holy men or customs. God’s word is over all. The divine majesty works with me, and I do not care if a thousand Augustines, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand churches of Henry stand against me. God cannot error or fail; Augustine and Cyprian like all the elects can err, and they did err.’ Martin Luther

The issue, as any Catholic (of the time) knew, was not whether the fathers could err as individuals; it was whether they had reached consensus on the core of doctrines necessary to be believed. Luther’s furious language indicates a willingness to attack that ancient consensus in the name of the gospel and to elevate his own understanding above the agreements of centuries. None of the fathers was exempt from his strictures, and that attitude remained all his life and is significant for his development.” Marius, pg. 342-3

Marius goes on to quote one of Luther’s arrogant criticisms of Saint Augustine and then comments:

Part two to follow

 

[Topper17]

Part 2:

“Luther’s bravado in such statements barely conceals a troubled soul. He had posed the question to himself in his treatise on abrogating private masses: “Are you alone wise?” Has everyone else been mistaken? Have so many ages dwelled in ignorance? What if you are wrong and in your error draw so many into eternal damnation. The question came back to him early and late. It seems that one of his ways of combatting it was to assert his calling with all the more vehemence. His words to (King) Henry about the fathers were picked up and flung back at him as an example of his insufferable arrogance.” Marius, pg. 343

Jon – did you know about Luther’s statement about “a thousand Augustines or Cyprians” before you said that “Luther sites the Fathers” inferring that he was respectful towards them and honored them?

How many more quotes would you like to see regarding Luther’s ‘honoring’ of the Fathers?

Marius mentions Luther’s ‘insufferable arrogance, his ‘troubled soul’, and points to the fact that for all of that arrogance and self-assurance, he did suffer from self-doubts. We too should have our doubts about him and we also should know the truth about the man who developed the doctrine (SS) which has caused so much damage to Christian Unity.

What I think is interesting is Luther’s claim to be able to refute the Fathers, because they err, while at the same time, inferring that he could not err. In the above quote about ‘a thousand Augustines’ we see just one example of the astonishing degree of Authority that Luther professed for himself.

And Melanchthon, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, further sites the historic Church, both East and West.

And all, to use Marius’s term, refuted and denied the ‘ancient consensus’, which is not exactly a sign of orthodoxy.

Jon – everybody quotes the Fathers the same way that everybody quotes Scripture. SS was and still is a denial of the Traditions and Authority of the Ancient Church and the consensus of the Fathers, replacing all of that with Private and Denominational Interpretations.

Scripture, the Church, the Fathers. You asked earlier how we practice SS differently. Now, I don’t know if Zwingli referenced the Fathers in defense of a symbolic presence, but what I’ve read of the Fathers, and of the Church Catholic, it seems to me the real presence has be the doctrine of the Church for, essentially, 2 millennia.

Yes, but SS made it ‘acceptable’ and in fact inevitable that the Real Presence would be denied, as have the majority of SS Christians. Luther is responsible for the damage that SS has done to belief. If Scripture is so clear on the matter, how do you explain how most SS Christians have gotten the Eucharist wrong?

Perhaps, and apparently Chemnitz did, too. See my signature.

Perhaps? Let’s be honest, Chemnitz didn’t ‘foresee’ anything. By the time Chemnitz arrived on the scene, the results of Luther’s SS were extremely obvious. Even Luther understood how disastrous his SS was by about 1525. But as I have said repeatedly, by that time, the SS cow was too far out of the barn to be brought back. Christianity would be FAR more unified if Luther had listened to the many wiser and better Theologians like Eck who warned Luther of exactly what was going to happen.

Furthermore, this is not about the second generation of Lutherans like Chemnitz and it is not about your Confessions. It is about Sola Scriptura and Luther’s responsibility for Protestantism’s doctrinal dissention and confusion.

As you clearly here acknowledge, confessional Lutherans are not part of the relativist movement. But you comment leads to another question:
Why is the Catholic Church the only logical alternative? Why not the EO, or the OO, or the PNCC, or the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht? Perhaps you can provide a spirited, positive, reason why you say this!

I recognize that you would very much prefer to have me post about the CC vs the EO, vs. the OO and all the others. But then that would mean that I wouldn’t be revealing the Truth about Luther wouldn’t it? It would mean that comments inferring that Luther honored the Fathers would go unanswered wouldn’t it?

Speaking of Luther’s attitude towards history:

“In Luther’s exegesis, the modern scholar learns much about Luther but little about a historical or philogical approach to the Bible. Luther calls on history when it suits his purposes. But he is not interested in history as an encompassing, interconnected web of smaller truths, each joined to the whole and changing the whole whenever one is reinterpreted or called into question, as when an anachronism is discovered… What drove him? Luther’s rhetoric is on the surface one of certainty. He has no room for scholarly ambiguity, for doubt, for tolerant consideration of views not his own.” Marius, pg. 99-100

Clearly, Luther was not exactly ‘a follower’ of the Fathers, but expected everyone to be his.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=spina1953;11961013]Hi Jon: It seems to me that while there is no mention in the Second Book of Maccabees that we are to ask the saints to pray for us, although as you said they pray (intercede for us constantly, there is nothing that points to not asking the saints to intercede for us (praying for us) I see no reason why one can not ask the saints in heaven to pray for us.

I agree with everything here up to the bolded, and even in that, I am reticent to disagree. The Lutheran position is that, without a command promise or example, there is doubt as to whether or not we should invoke the saints. My personal opinion is that we should look at the history of the Church, where invocation has been employed both in the West and in the East. I am reluctant to condemn the practice on that point alone. If one is confident that the saints in Heaven hear one’s prayers, I trust in grace that God will hear your prayers and theirs.

There is nothing that says that the dead who sinned were actually justified, purged/cleansed or an intermediate state/place as in a purgatory, yet what purpose would it serve to pray for them as Maccabees asked if those who sinned by wearing small images of gods that were worshiped in Jamnia that they be forgiven. How are they justified or purged or cleansed, Does God just say well because someone prayed for you because of your sin I will just forgive you and into heaven you go? Does God say because of someone praying for you because you had sinned there is no punishment or any need to be cleansed or purged because of the sin committed? It really does not make any sense yet, God can forgive anyone any sin He wants to forgive as He wills. So in the end who does anyone really know with any certainty that purgatory does not exist? or exists? Just because it does not say clearly one way or the other or is vague mean that it is not so. Sometimes it takes a very long time before the meaning of what was written is understood and made clear as to how one is to believe or understand before the doctrine is developed.

ISTM, Spina, that Judas Maccabees tells us why we should pray for the dead: Then, Judas, that great man, urged the people to keep away from sin, because they had seen for themselves what had happened to those men who had sinned. 43 He also took up a collection from all his men, totaling about four pounds of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. Judas did this noble thing because he believed in the resurrection of the dead

He did it because he believed in the resurrection of the dead.
Whether or not Purgatory exists as an intermediate state/place, ISTM from the dialogue between our communions, isn’t as important as the understanding that we are cleaned/ purged by the Christ Himself.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Blessings Jon.

I might add because of many reasons: geography,politics, language, culture,etc the Schism took place. Blame? Both sides. The fact papal infallibility was ratified in 1870 does not negate its existence. As I have stated before,** if the universal jurisdiction of the pope was novel or out of the normal practicing tradition of the ancient church, why in the world would any patriarch from another See feel compelled to take an internal matter to Rome? If “all” are equals, why not settle it at home or go to another major See? Why Rome?** There are numerous historical cases of such incidents occurring and Rome was “the” See making the final decision,not suggestion or mere “my two-cents” approach. I am more than happy to provide you several cases of such incidents.

God bless my brother

I think that’s what is meant by a primacy of honors. I think even from a Lutheran perspective, we can see, accept, and even rejoice in (especially when we have doctrinal agreement) the idea of primacy in the Bishop of Rome. Even though they did this, that doesn’t imply a universal jurisdiction. It does, however, imply a universal admiration, respect, and honoring of the Roman See, because of its historic place in the Church.

God’s blessing also with you,
Jon

 

[JonNC]

I’m sure I should know what the term ‘IC’ refers to, but I don’t.

Immaculate Conception.



Jon

 

[spina1953]

I agree with everything here up to the bolded, and even in that, I am reticent to disagree. The Lutheran position is that, without a command promise or example, there is doubt as to whether or not we should invoke the saints. My personal opinion is that we should look at the history of the Church, where invocation has been employed both in the West and in the East. I am reluctant to condemn the practice on that point alone. If one is confident that the saints in Heaven hear one’s prayers, I trust in grace that God will hear your prayers and theirs.

ISTM, Spina, that Judas Maccabees tells us why we should pray for the dead: Then, Judas, that great man, urged the people to keep away from sin, because they had seen for themselves what had happened to those men who had sinned. 43 He also took up a collection from all his men, totaling about four pounds of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. Judas did this noble thing because he believed in the resurrection of the dead

He did it because he believed in the resurrection of the dead.
Whether or not Purgatory exists as an intermediate state/place, ISTM from the dialogue between our communions, isn’t as important as the understanding that we are cleaned/ purged by the Christ Himself.

Jon

Hi Jon: Why does one need a command promise to invoke the saints to pray for us and to intercede for us? I suppose from a Protestant standpoint that there can be doubt due to how one wants to understand it, but I do not see it as a bad thing since one is only asking the saints to intercede for us to God who already knows what we want to ask. if one believes one has guardian angels to help us why not saints to intercede for us? God does hears all prayers yours mine and everyone else’s it is up to God to decide whether or not to answer them or answer them in whatever way or manor he chooses.
I agree Judas Maccabees believed in the resurrection of the dead, and took up an collection for a sin offering as per Jewish custom; an atonement if you will, yes he also did not want others to sin as those who died did, but forgiveness is always a very powerful thing to do and to ask for, even for another. How God cleanses us when we die is something we do not know since God has His own ways. All we can do is try to understand that He does cleanse or purge us , take away our sins, but in what manor He does is not something we can know in how God does it. We understand that there is a heaven and that there is a hell when those who refuse to repent go to, but since we are not perfect and there can be sins in which we have not atoned for or acknowledged in some way, purgatory it seems to me to be a way for us to be cleansed of what ever sins we still have. As Catholic’s we believe that those who are in purgatory will be in heaven at whatever time God chooses, as they will not be going to hell. Also we do not know with certainty who gets into heaven or hell or for that matter into purgatory if it exists. Guess it all boils down to whether or not one wants to believe.

 

[Nicea325]

I think that’s what is meant by a primacy of honors. I think even from a Lutheran perspective, we can see, accept, and even rejoice in (especially when we have doctrinal agreement) the idea of primacy in the Bishop of Rome. Even though they did this, that doesn’t imply a universal jurisdiction. It does, however, imply a universal admiration, respect, and honoring of the Roman See, because of its historic place in the Church.

God’s blessing also with you,
Jon

I am sorry my good friend,but it does imply universal jurisdiction and not mere universal admiration. If it is solely admiration, I find it rather odd Rome had so much luck receiving case after case the first 450 years based on pure admiration. Why couldn’t the other Sees receive such honors too? They too were ancient Sees. Pure luck or pure admiration? Here are a few cases.

Case 1: The famous letter from Clement to the Corinthians (circa 96 AD)

          Comment: Why is a distant See (diocese) correcting another church in Greece? Did Clement advise them or was it more of a command? Where are the slighest signs of objection to this jurisdiction? Jurisdiction,not admiration. Were his legates rejected,denied or rebuked?

Case 2:Victor I (189-199). Issue at hand? The Quartodecimans who Victor wants to excommunicate.

Comment: Where are the complaints Victor cannot do such a thing nor has the power to do it?

Case 3: Cyprian is dealing with Basilides and Marcial, he begs Pope Cornelius (251-253) not to accept their appeal. St.Cyprian asks Pope Stephen I (254-257) to intervene in the affair of Marcian, bishop of Arles, who was a Novatian; he urges the Pope to excommunicate this heretic and replace him with a Catholic bishop.

Comment: Where did Cyprian get the idea the Bishop of Rome has such a power or duty?

Case 4: When Denis of Alexandria was suspect of false doctrine,some members of his diocese went to Rome and denounced him to Denis of Rome (259-269). The pope wrote to his namesake to hear his side of the case; Denis of Alexandria cleared his name and matter resolved.

Comment: The second patriarch in Christedom, suspect and accused. Where was he accused? At Rome; he defends himself to the one bishop who was supposedly his own equal? Why Rome and not another See?

Case 5: For over 40 years the name of Anthanasius was the rallying point against Arianism. Anthanasius also submitted to papal jurisdiction. He was denounced to Pope Julius I (337-352). Socrates exclaimed:

*When they (Anthanasius and four other bishops accused with him) had explained their cause to Julius, Bishop of the city of Rome, he sent them back to the East strenghthened by free letters, restored to each his See, as is the right of the Roman Church.
*

And the voice of Sozomenus:

Since the care of all was his affair, because of the rank of his See, he gave back to each his own church.

Pope Julius I wrote to an Eastern bishop:

Do you not know that this the custom,that first you must write to us (See of Rome), and that here what is just shall be decreed…

Again:

It is not right to make laws for the Churches apart from the knowledge of the Bishop of Rome.

Comment:

Does one really read and study such historical cases and truly consider it as pure universal admiration?

 

[JonNC]

I am sorry my good friend,but it does imply universal jurisdiction and not mere universal admiration. If it is solely admiration, I find it rather odd Rome had so much luck receiving case after case the first 450 years based on pure admiration. Why couldn’t the other Sees receive such honors too? They too were ancient Sees. Pure luck or pure admiration? Here are a few cases.

Case 1: The famous letter from Clement to the Corinthians (circa 96 AD)

          Comment: Why is a distant See (diocese) correcting another church in Greece? Did Clement advise them or was it more of a command? Where are the slighest signs of objection to this jurisdiction? Jurisdiction,not admiration. Were his legates rejected,denied or rebuked?

Case 2:Victor I (189-199). Issue at hand? The Quartodecimans who Victor wants to excommunicate.

Comment: Where are the complaints Victor cannot do such a thing nor has the power to do it?

Case 3: Cyprian is dealing with Basilides and Marcial, he begs Pope Cornelius (251-253) not to accept their appeal. St.Cyprian asks Pope Stephen I (254-257) to intervene in the affair of Marcian, bishop of Arles, who was a Novatian; he urges the Pope to excommunicate this heretic and replace him with a Catholic bishop.

Comment: Where did Cyprian get the idea the Bishop of Rome has such a power or duty?

Case 4: When Denis of Alexandria was suspect of false doctrine,some members of his diocese went to Rome and denounced him to Denis of Rome (259-269). The pope wrote to his namesake to hear his side of the case; Denis of Alexandria cleared his name and matter resolved.

Comment: The second patriarch in Christedom, suspect and accused. Where was he accused? At Rome; he defends himself to the one bishop who was supposedly his own equal? Why Rome and not another See?

Case 5: For over 40 years the name of Anthanasius was the rallying point against Arianism. Anthanasius also submitted to papal jurisdiction. He was denounced to Pope Julius I (337-352). Socrates exclaimed:

*When they (Anthanasius and four other bishops accused with him) had explained their cause to Julius, Bishop of the city of Rome, he sent them back to the East strenghthened by free letters, restored to each his See, as is the right of the Roman Church.
*

And the voice of Sozomenus:

Since the care of all was his affair, because of the rank of his See, he gave back to each his own church.

Pope Julius I wrote to an Eastern bishop:

Do you not know that this the custom,that first you must write to us (See of Rome), and that here what is just shall be decreed…

Again:

It is not right to make laws for the Churches apart from the knowledge of the Bishop of Rome.

Comment:

Does one really read and study such historical cases and truly consider it as pure universal admiration?

Hi Nicea,
I certainly think its more than simply admiration. Reading recently from an Orthodox POV, this excerpt:

… Based on Christian Tradition, it is possible to affirm the validity of the church of Rome’s claims of universal primacy. Orthodox theology, however, objects to the identification of this primacy as “supreme power” transforming Rome into the principium radix et origio of the unity of the Church and of the Church itself.[41] The Church from the first days of its existence undeniably possessed an ecumenical centre of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and Judaeo‑Christian period this centre was first the church of Jerusalem and later the church of Rome ‑ “presiding in agape” according to St Ignatios of Antioch.[42] For the Orthodox, the essence and the purpose of this primacy is to express and preserve the unity of the Church in faith and life; to express and preserve the unanimity of all churches; to keep them from isolating themselves into ecclesiastical provincialism, losing the catholicity, separating themselves from the unity of life. It means ultimately to assume the care, the sollicitudo of the churches so that each one of them can abide in that fullness which is always the whole of the Catholic tradition and not any one “part” of it. The idea of primacy thus excludes the idea of jurisdiction but implies that of an “order” of Church which does not subordinate one church to another, but which makes it possible for all churches to live together this life of all in each and of each in all.[43]

In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God’s Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25‑27)

Now, I don’t know if this, exactly, rejects your well placed quotes and your insightful thoughts on them. What it does do, however, is shine a perspective, outside the western Church and our built-in debate on this issue.

continued