Former Lutherans, now Catholic?

[StillWondering]

Hello Jon,

In one of our private discussions, I brought up the issues of those who worship Mary and also those who combine ancestral worship with the Communion of Saints to create a pseudo-Christian polytheistic religion. I can tell you that this reiteration of the teaching on the level of dogma woke up a lot of heretical Catholics in rural areas to realize that they are following idol worship.

On top of this, there is a key point about Mary’s Assumption, it is that she was assumed into Heaven. She did not ascended as Christ did, but she was assumed. This is a verb that requires a source of action not found in the object of action. In other words, God brought her up to Heaven. It tells us that it is only by God’s power and grace, not our own that we can enter Heaven. I think that’s a great lesson.

All reasons why I have no problem with [Assumption of Mary], except my belief that the pope cannot do this on his own, without ecumenical council, which also dates from the early Church.

Jon

This is key. There are only a few significant differences between Catholic teaching and Orthodox. This one is one of the key ones, can the Successor of Peter, dogmatically define a teaching independent of the other bishops? The colloary of this is can an Ecumenical Council exist without the Pope’s expressed approval?

As a Catholic, I believe he can. My question is why do you think he cannot and do you think a council can be ecumenical without him.

 

[ralphinal]

Yeah, I think we would disagree that the pope has this power, either based on “binding and loosing”, or the early Church.

I’m speculating here, but I think he would say that it is not explicit in scripture, and moreso that is not necessary for salvation.

All reasons why I have no problem with it, except my belief that the pope cannot do this on his own, without ecumenical council, which also dates from the early Church.

Jon

You do realize that this conversation should move you more towards Orthodoxy

 

[qui_est_ce]

Really enjoying this thread. Threads between Lutherans and Catholics on CAF seem to be the most charitable and enlightening. Unfortunately, I always walk away from these with the nagging thought that the Lutheran Church is failing her body. I don’t know if it’s because this is an inheritant flaw in Protestantism, or if it’s the Lutheran Church giving in to modernism. I have a great deal of respect for the Orthodox (WELS and old LCMS) traditions. LCMS has lost my respect under its present leadership and over the sale of Classic 99. ELCA …

Having said the above, could you answer the following Jon?

Yeah, I think we would disagree that the pope has this power, either based on “binding and loosing”, or the early Church.

Could you elaborate on how “binding and loosing” is not relevant here?

I’m speculating here, but I think he would say that it is not explicit in scripture, and moreso that is not necessary for salvation.

Whether the dogma itself is necessary for salvation is irrelevant. We are to believe all Truths revealed by God, otherwise we are no better than the so-called “Cafeteria” Catholics. We are to be obedient to Authority. It’s the disobedience which is the sin.

All reasons why I have no problem with it, except my belief that the pope cannot do this on his own, without ecumenical council, which also dates from the early Church.
Jon

Throughout all the Old Testament, God appointed Authority over the Israelites, Moses, the Prophets, the Pharisees, the Apostles.[BIBLEDRB]matt 23:1-3[/BIBLEDRB] [BIBLEDRB]acts 1:15-26[/BIBLEDRB]PETER stood up, a successor was required.

God bless, and looking forward to your reply.

 

[IowaJay]

Really enjoying this thread. Threads between Lutherans and Catholics on CAF seem to be the most charitable and enlightening. Unfortunately, I always walk away from these with the nagging thought that the Lutheran Church is failing her body. I don’t know if it’s because this is an inheritant flaw in Protestantism, or if it’s the Lutheran Church giving in to modernism.

I’m current reading “Catholic Matters” by Richard John Neuhaus, where he describes his move from Lutheranism to Catholicism in detail.

I got the distinct impression that if Lutheranism did not make the shift to modernism and sectarianism that it did, he may have very well stayed within Lutheranism a lot longer than he did in order to work toward corporate reunion from the Lutheran side. It was not until his conclusion that a corporate reunion in his lifetime was virtually impossible that he made the move.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’m current reading “Catholic Matters” by Richard John Neuhaus, where he describes his move from Lutheranism to Catholicism in detail.

I got the distinct impression that if Lutheranism did not make the shift to modernism and sectarianism that it did, he may have very well stayed within Lutheranism a lot longer than he did in order to work toward corporate reunion from the Lutheran side. It was not until his conclusion that a corporate reunion in his lifetime was virtually impossible that he made the move.

I don’t see a corporate reunion at all. The Lutheran Church would have to convert to Catholicism, IMHO. I don’t see anyone submitting themselves to the Vicar or Rome as possibly remaining Lutheran.

I did have a former choir director who converted from ELCA to Catholic and claimed she could be both. But she was into Womenpriests, etc.

 

[StillWondering]

I’m current reading “Catholic Matters” by Richard John Neuhaus, where he describes his move from Lutheranism to Catholicism in detail.

I got the distinct impression that if Lutheranism did not make the shift to modernism and sectarianism that it did, he may have very well stayed within Lutheranism a lot longer than he did in order to work toward corporate reunion from the Lutheran side. It was not until his conclusion that a corporate reunion in his lifetime was virtually impossible that he made the move.

I added the bold for emphasis. Whether he would have stayed longer or not in Lutheranism–the issue is still, would he convert? From what you wrote above, I do see that he would convert, but would convert as a group. This is what Cardinal John Newman wanted for years. Read this article from a Catholic Priest who converted from Anglicanism and quoted Cardinal Newman.

However, in the end, Cardinal Newman realized that the chance of a cooperate merge would not be possible. All he was seeing was a ghost. He and his fellow like minded Anglicans friends converted together and never been happier.

---

I also wanted to bring in an aside inspired by what qui que ce said. For the longest time I did not believe reality exists. I believe God exists. And that’s how I physically continued to exists but just trusting that the world is good and exists just because God made it. (Unusual yes, but I have mental difficulties that makes me a little cautious of reality.)

Now, I am pretty sure I can still be saved without believing that reality exists. But you know what, this is taught in the Scriptures at Genesis. So for everyone else, maybe it is part of their salvation; but there is the real possibility that I could still be saved without understand that the physical universe is real.

So I present this as food for thought on the topic of what we do or not need to believe for salvation. I definitely do not subscript to Gnosticism or those pagan heresies that says Jesus is not real or is not corporal. But if Jesus was corporal the world would logically exists so that Jesus could come and be physically with us. Thus the belief that the world physical exists must be part of our belief in salvation. However, in my heart I know that me believing the world could not exist would not invalidate my trust in God and my own salvation.

 

[IowaJay]

I don’t see a corporate reunion at all. The Lutheran Church would have to convert to Catholicism, IMHO. I don’t see anyone submitting themselves to the Vicar or Rome as possibly remaining Lutheran.

Agreed - a Lutheran who follows the current teachings of the ELCA, LCMS, or WELS could not submit themself to the Vicar of Rome. The ELCA is too liberal, the LCMS is too anti-heirarchical, and WELS too isolationist.

If instead, you limit your definition of a “Lutheran” as someone who follows the Augsburg Confession, then it is theoretically possible to submit to the Vicar of Rome and be a “Lutheran.” In the 1970s, a group of Catholic theologians (not just the liberal ones - Cardinal Ratzinger was a part of the group) indicated that it might be possible to recognize the A.C. as an authentic expression of the Catholic faith. For one, many of the concerns addressed in the A.C. were addressed by Vatican II, and two, the statement in the A.C. regarding justification does not delve into the minute details of salvation, thus providing for the kind of common ground that was finally realized in 1999’s Joint Doctrine on Justification.

 

[qui_est_ce]

If instead, you limit your definition of a “Lutheran” as someone who follows the Augsburg Confession, then it is theoretically possible to submit to the Vicar of Rome and be a “Lutheran.” In the 1970s, a group of Catholic theologians (not just the liberal ones - Cardinal Ratzinger was a part of the group) indicated that it might be possible to recognize the A.C. as an authentic expression of the Catholic faith. For one, many of the concerns addressed in the A.C. were addressed by Vatican II, and two, the statement in the A.C. regarding justification does not delve into the minute details of salvation, thus providing for the kind of common ground that was finally realized in 1999’s Joint Doctrine on Justification.

I only just recently learned of the AC Lutherans. I’m still not very well educated on them. They actually seem to be Catholic.

I really was referring to “Lutherans.” Well, that seems to be a fluid term nowadays, one must identify to which branch of Lutheran teaching one adheres.

 

[JonNC]

You do realize that this conversation should move you more towards Orthodoxy

Yeah, I know. But I’m a western Christian, too.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Having said the above, could you answer the following Jon?
Could you elaborate on how “binding and loosing” is not relevant here?

 

[JonNC]

=StillWondering;6020472]Hello Jon,

On top of this, there is a key point about Mary’s Assumption, it is that she was assumed into Heaven. She did not ascended as Christ did, but she was assumed. This is a verb that requires a source of action not found in the object of action. In other words, God brought her up to Heaven. It tells us that it is only by God’s power and grace, not our own that we can enter Heaven. I think that’s a great lesson.

Yes. Agreed.

This is key. There are only a few significant differences between Catholic teaching and Orthodox. This one is one of the key ones, can the Successor of Peter, dogmatically define a teaching independent of the other bishops? The colloary of this is can an Ecumenical Council exist without the Pope’s expressed approval?

As a Catholic, I believe he can. My question is why do you think he cannot and do you think a council can be ecumenical without him.

Because he, to my knowledge, do not do so prior to the Schism.
On the second, I would think he would necessarily need to be involved, as would the other patriarchs.

Jon

 

[qui_est_ce]

It was in response to Ralphinal, who mentioned the pope’s power to bind and loose.

I know, but I don’t understand your position on the Pope’s power to bind and looose.

Ok, I get that.
**As for Peter, I get that, too. ** .

Sorry about that, must have been spending too much time on the fundie threads.

And I understand that even the early Church placed a great emphasis on the position of the Bishp of Rome, but nothing like we have seen since the end of the first millenium

His peace with you,
Jon

I’m not sure I agree with you. I think the Pope’s of yore had much greater influence and power than the Popes today.

The question is, why declare it dogma in the first place, if the belief is not necessary for salvation. IOW, I am perfectly capable of being obedient to the Lutheran Confessions and believe in the Assumption. My fellow Lutheran who does not, is also obedient.

Would you dismiss the OT as not necessary for salvation? Why bother reading it? Why bother declaring it inspired?

Not trying to be flip. You’re bringing up an interesting angle.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yeah, I know. But I’m a western Christian, too.

Jon

That’s the ultimate problem with the EO - it’s too ethnic.

I went to a Maronite mass a few months ago. Maronites submit to the Pope, but retain their Eastern roots. The mass was in Arabic. The liturgy was different. I didn’t understand a thing. It was very beautiful, but foreign to my Western self.

 

[JonNC]

=qui est ce;6024520]I know, but I don’t understand your position on the Pope’s power to bind and looose.
Sorry about that, must have been spending too much time on the fundie threads.

Sorry, not sure what you are asking me. The Church was given, through the apostles, the power to bind and loose. The pope is certainly part of the Church.

I’m not sure I agree with you. I think the Pope’s of yore had much greater influence and power than the Popes today.

Ok. Influence, perhaps. Power, I would tend to disagree.

Would you dismiss the OT as not necessary for salvation? Why bother reading it? Why bother declaring it inspired?

Clearly, God expects us to follow the law. Gospel fulfills the law, but doesn’t eliminate it.

Not trying to be flip. You’re bringing up an interesting angle.

Never thought you were being flip. I’m enjoying the conversation.

Jon

 

[ralphinal]

Yeah, I know. But I’m a western Christian, too.

Jon

I feel ya, dog.

First, there are generations of folks from both sides of this issue that would roll over in their graves if they saw how polite we are being, let alone the level of discussion.

Second, this topic is one that should be visited by several non-CAtholic groups.

Finally, these dogmas are to be accepted as dogmatic because the Church says so. IT is about Faith and understanding why we are to trust God.

However, I do find things within these dogmas that I can use to help my faith and my salvation. I see a love and mercy in the Immaculate Conception from God. Jesus would be without sin anyway. It is not possible that the Pure Son could be sinful. However, in keeping Mary free from the stain of Original Sin, she did not have to deal with concupiscence, the natural drifting from God that fallen man has to deal with. She could better serve God, and Jesus, because she would have faith the size of the mustard seed without doubt. It shows the wisdom of God as well. It keeps Mary from being to “Motherly” and doing more to stop what was to come. She could also not dispare standing at the foot of the cross. It shows a God that understands why Mary would need to be free from Original Sin because God understood the hearts of men.

The Assumption is the same way. It gives me a glimpse into the heart of God.

 

[JonNC]

I feel ya, dog.

First, there are generations of folks from both sides of this issue that would roll over in their graves if they saw how polite we are being, let alone the level of discussion.

Second, this topic is one that should be visited by several non-CAtholic groups.

Finally, these dogmas are to be accepted as dogmatic because the Church says so. IT is about Faith and understanding why we are to trust God.

However, I do find things within these dogmas that I can use to help my faith and my salvation. I see a love and mercy in the Immaculate Conception from God. Jesus would be without sin anyway. It is not possible that the Pure Son could be sinful. However, in keeping Mary free from the stain of Original Sin, she did not have to deal with concupiscence, the natural drifting from God that fallen man has to deal with. She could better serve God, and Jesus, because she would have faith the size of the mustard seed without doubt. It shows the wisdom of God as well. It keeps Mary from being to “Motherly” and doing more to stop what was to come. She could also not dispare standing at the foot of the cross. It shows a God that understands why Mary would need to be free from Original Sin because God understood the hearts of men.

The Assumption is the same way. It gives me a glimpse into the heart of God.

I enjoyed this post very much. Well said.
Jon

 

[ralphinal]

I enjoyed this post very much. Well said.
Jon

Thanks

 

[ralphinal]

I wonder if the Lutherans, or Anglicans for that matter, could actually reconcile as a church with the Orthodox, creating a German Orthodox or Anglican Orthodox Church…

 

[qui_est_ce]

Sorry, not sure what you are asking me. The Church was given, through the apostles, the power to bind and loose. The pope is certainly part of the Church.

Do you agree the Pope has the power to loose and to bind?

Ok. Influence, perhaps. Power, I would tend to disagree.

The Popes had a lot of power under the Holy Roman Empire. Popes went to war, sent troops to the Crusades, etc.

Clearly, God expects us to follow the law. Gospel fulfills the law, but doesn’t eliminate it.

The old law is fulfilled. We now have the new law. Love. We don’t do the handwashing and the old rituals. We can eat pork.

Never thought you were being flip. I’m enjoying the conversation.

Jon

Me too!

First, there are generations of folks from both sides of this issue that would roll over in their graves if they saw how polite we are being, let alone the level of discussion.

Second, this topic is one that should be visited by several non-CAtholic groups.

:bigyikes:

Finally, these dogmas are to be accepted as dogmatic because the Church says so. ** IT is about Faith and understanding why we are to trust God**.

However, I do find things within these dogmas that I can use to help my faith and my salvation. I see a love and mercy in the Immaculate Conception from God. Jesus would be without sin anyway. It is not possible that the Pure Son could be sinful. However, in keeping Mary free from the stain of Original Sin, she did not have to deal with concupiscence, the natural drifting from God that fallen man has to deal with. She could better serve God, and Jesus, because she would have faith the size of the mustard seed without doubt. It shows the wisdom of God as well. It keeps Mary from being to “Motherly” and doing more to stop what was to come. She could also not dispare standing at the foot of the cross. It shows a God that understands why Mary would need to be free from Original Sin because God understood the hearts of men.

The Assumption is the same way. It gives me a glimpse into the heart of God.

Very well put.

I think the Western Church had to fight heresy, especially after the Reformation, whereas the Orthodox did not, hence the many doctrinal statements put out by the Western Church. The Western Church, being more diverse than the Orthodox or Eastern Churches, was/is more prone to dissent. There was no anti-Catholic attack on the Orthodox Church.

The Western Church, especially in America, has been is being viciously attacked. She has had to defend herself against the KKK, the No-names, Nativism, Protestants (Loraine Boettner types, sorry Jon, but it’s true). Today we are really being attacked. For example, Anti-Catholic groups are rallying around our Cathedral during the Sundays in Advent to protest our Archbishop’s outspoken stand against gay “marriage.”

When heretical statements are made, the Church needs to clarify her position, therefore, doctrine.

I feel very blessed that my Church has an Authority that speaks out against the sins of our society. More than ever she is being attacked today, even from within. I think Satan is working overtime to apostate the Catholic Church. He has won many souls, but he will not win the Church.

I think, contrary to what was said in an earlier post that Lutherans should go Orthodox, many Lutherans and many Episcopalians are beginning to see the problem of no or weak Authority, no trust in God, no obedience. Unfortunately, many Catholics are now Protestants dressed as Catholics.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I wonder if the Lutherans, or Anglicans for that matter, could actually reconcile as a church with the Orthodox, creating a German Orthodox or Anglican Orthodox Church…

Your post beat mine.

No, I think Lutherans and Anglicans are longing for Authority. They’re tired of the splits and the rehashing of what’s really necessary for salvation. Many of them can’t admit it yet, or even realize that’s what they’re longing for.

The Archbishop of Canterbury really has no authority any more. Episcopals in the US have Gay Bishops, as does the ELCA (pastors). Is being gay really an obstacle to Salvation? Isn’t all one really needs for Salvation is faith in Christ Jesus? These are subjects that are constantly being rehashed in these churches. I think their orthodox members are tired of reinventing theology for the thousandth time.