Heresy Questions

[guanophore]

I would say that from the Catholic perspective, a Protestant baptism is not valid.

Can you explain why you think this? I think the opposite is true, and that the vast majority of Protestant Baptisms are considered valid.

I was baptized by a non-Catholic who is separated from the Catholic Church, and thus I was not baptized into the CC (nor was my baptism ever intended to do such). If it is true that the CC is the only true Church of Christ (or the only church that is fully such), then it is impossible for me to see how my baptism was my entrance into the Body of Christ, unless it was the “baptism by desire” but I did not think the definition of heresy extended to those who were baptized by desire and not by water as well.

A valid baptims requires proper form and matter, and intention. Even a non-Christian can adminsiter a valid baptism, so long as they intend to do what the Church does.

A valid baptism always joins the baptized person to the CC because it brings the person into the Body of Christ,and there is only One Body.

I care because I am trying to explore whether I can believe what the Catholic Church teaches. If the CC taught that Protestants were formal heretics who could not be in the state of grace, then I probably could not believe what the Church taught. Thanks to this thread, I think that this is one less barrier to me becoming Catholic:thumbsup:

Well, then you may be relieved to know that even a heretic can adminster a valid baptism.

… Unfortunately, the Creed does not tell us everything (i.e. the presence of Christ in the Eucharist). These differences are real and essential barriers to unity, but I would hesitate to ascribe any other belief the same category defining power that the Creed has. Does that make any sense?

Yes. You are right that there are many essentials that are not fully explained in the Scriptures or the creeds. Clearly, it is possible for a Christian of good faith to abandon the faith of the Apostles because they don;t see in the scriptures what was taught by them.

 

[guanophore]

 However, I am not convinced by Luther's central metaphor of Imputed Righteousness, and most other Protestants would agree with Luther.  But I think this metaphor makes little sense.  It teaches that Christ's righteousness is an alien entity through which God views the sinner;

What makes you think so? I have never heard or read anything like this.

I would have no problem with this except that this metaphor does not work in describing the saints in heaven. In heaven we are transformed and Christ’s Righteousness is somehow now their own. This seems like either imparted or infused righteousness. Well if that is how the saints are righteous, then why can’t righteousness be imparted and infused while on earth? Virtue ethics teaches that the theological virtues are infused into the soul (something many Protestants hold). Since I have no problem with infusion of virtue, I have no problem with infusion of righteousness. And once I realized this, it is only a short step to “justification by works.”
Thank the Lord for that

The Scriptures about imputed righteousness were written by Catholics, and the point is well made that it is not by our own (but rather from outside of us / “alien” grace that we are saved through faith. But the Apostles taught that the righteousness which was “reckoned” or accounted to us is actual. God did not just doctor the books in declaring us righteous, but in fact MADE us righteous.

 

[grandfather]

It is a redefinition only if one considers what Lutherans believed it was from the start is a redefinition. The understanding has always been that sola scriptura is a practice of holding teachings, doctrines and dogmas accountable to scripture is the original definition.
From the Formula of Concord:

The notion that the Lutheran reformers thought sola scriptura meant they could only appeal to scripture is just not the case. The Lutheran confessions are full of references to the early Church, the councils and creeds, and the ECF’s. In fact, the first section of the Book of Concord contains the 3 ecumenical Creeds, and this is not by accident.
It may not be the hermeunetics that the Catholic Church practices, but it also is not solo scriptura.

Jon

Is it scripture alone or scripture and the ECFs, etc. If it is the latter get rid of the sola. It can’t be both.

The practical effect, the thing the doctrine unleashed is evident. It commenced while Luther was still alive.

I sat next to a man on a plane this past Wednesday who was in his sixties. He seemed kind of odd. I noticed that in the seat pocket there was a black leather bound volume and guessed rightly it was his Bible. He spent his entire adult life, 41 years, working in Jehovahs Witness headquarters. He gets his meals, a room and $131 a month stipend. These well intentioned people are not even Christians. All of the bizarre things they believe, some of which he declared with total conviction to me, come directly from the Bible. I asked him how he knows his doctrines are true and he held up his Bible. It is all right there.

A friend is a “bishop” in the Church of the Firstborn. They let their kids die rather than seek medical treatment. They won’t go to the dentist, put salve on poison ivy, go to the emergency room in a car wreck. He is convnced his sect is the true Church, because the Bible tells him so. He was raised a Lutheran incidentally.

This is the result or consequence of sola scriptura. It is undeniable. And, it is no different than what Luther himself did. It does not matter that he quoted Church Fathers. Calvinists have tried to highjack Saint Augustine. They quote him all the time. When I show them quotes from Augustine that directly refute their doctrines they ignore it. It is the pick and choose mentality.

The early Church prayed for the dead and to the saints, especially Mary and did not despise her prayers. They recognized the pope as the successor of Peter. They believed there are seven sacraments.

Catholicism claims its doctrines are supported by scripture. So do Lutherans, Baptists, anabaptists, JWs, Mennonites, Calvinists, Methodists, ad infinitum. They all can not be accountable to scripture. There is no disagreement that doctrine and scripture must be in harmony, but obviously the doctrines of all these disparate groups are not in harmony and therefore they all can not be accountable to scripture.

If Catholics say doctrine is affirmed by scripture, what was the need for Luther to concoct sola scriptura, and why sola if Luther appealed to predecessors? The reason was he proposed new doctrine that contradicted that of the Church. He needed a means to defend his doctrines and appealed to scripture (alone), or he would not have named his doctrine sola.

Of course it was not Luther’s intention to unleash the hurricane of denominationalism, but he did. It is the fruit of his work, and clearly all this division and confusion is not the work of the Holy Spirit. He thought he would set up his separate Church based on his doctrines and it would end there, but the result of his rebellion is immense tragedy for Christendom, total religious chaos and such great confusion that people call it freedom.

 

[andrewstx]

I attended a Nazarene church with my parents as a child…Nazarenes aren’t of the “Reformed” tradition and do not embrace a “limited atonement”. They are Arminian instead of Calvinist…“Reformed” is more Calvinisht…and “limited atonement” is the “L” in TULIP…a Calvinist construct.

Exactly, my grandmother went to church of the Nazarene, and they were officially arminian.

The Nazarenes descended from the Methodists and Methodists are arminian. I was confused very much by the Nazarene “Handbook” thier version or the Methodist Discipline.

The handbook espouses such things as infant baptism and by aspersion keeling for Holy Communion. But they aparently had a major Bapist influence. All I saw was adult baptism by subbmersion. no infants baptised by any form at all,and communion sitting in the pews.

Perhaps the OP was raised with the more Baptist unfluence and Baptists are becomming more Calvinist by the day.

 

[grandfather]

Exactly, my grandmother went to church of the Nazarene, and they were officially arminian.

The Nazarenes descended from the Methodists and Methodists are arminian. I was confused very much by the Nazarene “Handbook” thier version or the Methodist Discipline.

The handbook espouses such things as infant baptism and by aspersion keeling for Holy Communion. But they aparently had a major Bapist influence. All I saw was adult baptism by subbmersion. no infants baptised by any form at all,and communion sitting in the pews.

Perhaps the OP was raised with the more Baptist unfluence and Baptists are becomming more Calvinist by the day.

I like that word, unfluence. Definitely needs to be included in the dictionary, but the meaning is self evident.

 

[Taestron]

What happened at your baptism (if it was in the Trinitarian form, utilizing correct matter) is that God claimed you as one of his. What you can “see” or “is impossible for you to see” is irrelevant to what occurred at your baptism (provided it was valid)

The universe was changed forever at your baptism, Taestron! What existed 30 seconds prior to this miraculous exorcism exists no more for posterity! An indelible mark was placed on your soul for eternity!

I guess I was under a false presupposition about what constitutes a valid baptism. Thank-you for the correction.

But this is because the Nicene Creed conforms to your already-held beliefs, no?

What of the Christian who rejects a certain doctrine proclaimed by the Creed? What do we say to him?

And aren’t you really saying that we should go to the “least common denominator” that you feel comfortable with?

You would not be willing to sacrifice certain dogmas for the sake of Christian unity, right?

So, with all due respect, why do you get to pick what’s the “least common denominator” but another entity doesn’t?

Oh boy. I really wasn’t trying to actually delineate what the “least common denominator” is among all Christians. I’m actually not sure such a thing is possible. What I was trying to do is illustrate that Protestants believe that Catholics hold to certain beliefs that are not necessary to be considered “Christian.” These “essential” beliefs need not be relativistically defined. For example if we define as essential the beliefs the ecumenical councils (which Protestants would say stopped after 1054) declared as valid. I am not actually arguing for this point of view merely trying to describe how I have heard the “essential” versus “unessential” debate described in Protestant circles.

We answer with the words of Christ, “Strive to enter”.

This is really all I am trying to do. I am not trying to put myself forward as who decides what truth is. But in my striving, I do need to evaluate what I perceive truth to be. I cannot believe something I do not consider to be truth; I have to be convinced of its truth before I can believe it. This does not excuse my ignorance of truth, I must continually evaluate my beliefs. If I discover that a certain belief does not seem true, I cannot justly sit idle. So this thread is born out of my striving.

I think a point of clarification is in order here. I am not actually concerned with the status of my soul. If this was the only factor, I think I would have joined the CC years ago. However, I am very concerned with the souls of my family and Protestant friends. Granted, my sample size is skewed, I have seen the best examples of God’s love through Protestants not Catholics. What would my decision to convert say about them and their souls? Many of you have pointed out the status of their souls is God’s territory. This is great news. They too are striving, and I was worried that if I decide to become a Catholic then my decision would require me to call them heretics and abandon hope for them. So my OP was worried that I would be required to do so. I still am unable to believe that my Protestant friends do not have the fulness of truth, but that is a discussion for another time.

From our Catechism:

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers … All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

This quote confuses me. We can be called Christians and we are essentially united with Catholics by baptism into the Body of Christ. However, we are not part of the Roman Catholic Church… is this similar to the belief that all Protestants are Christian even though they are not Nazarene? If it is, then I don’t see a difference between my “essential” versus “unessential” structure.

 

[Taestron]

If Catholics say doctrine is affirmed by scripture, what was the need for Luther to concoct sola scriptura, and why sola if Luther appealed to predecessors? The reason was he proposed new doctrine that contradicted that of the Church. He needed a means to defend his doctrines and appealed to scripture (alone), or he would not have named his doctrine sola.

Of course it was not Luther’s intention to unleash the hurricane of denominationalism, but he did. It is the fruit of his work, and clearly all this division and confusion is not the work of the Holy Spirit. He thought he would set up his separate Church based on his doctrines and it would end there, but the result of his rebellion is immense tragedy for Christendom, total religious chaos and such great confusion that people call it freedom.

I think your argument might cut both ways. Yes, Protestantism bears the lion’s share of the responsibility for the tragic state of Protestant denominationalism. However, one must be careful talking of fruit. I could talk of the filioque clause in the Creed and say that Rome’s position was the main instigator of the Schism in 1054. (I don’t btw) This does not mean that the filioque is false.

In the case of Martin Luther, it is one thing to say that Catholic doctrine is based on Scripture, it is another to actually be so. For example, Martin Luther thought that the system of penance contradicted Scripture. He might have been wrong but he needed to develop a system on why a particular Church teaching might be false. In his eyes, the Church was putting itself above Scripture. He responded by saying that the Church’s authority is beneath that of Scripture. And so it is not, that there were no other authorities to which he could appeal, but that Scripture is alone at the pinnacle. I do not see how this is inconsisestent.

 

[PRmerger]

I guess I was under a false presupposition about what constitutes a valid baptism. Thank-you for the correction.

At your service.

Oh boy. I really wasn’t trying to actually delineate what the “least common denominator” is among all Christians. I’m actually not sure such a thing is possible. What I was trying to do is illustrate that Protestants believe that Catholics hold to certain beliefs that are not necessary to be considered “Christian.” These “essential” beliefs need not be relativistically defined. For example if we define as essential the beliefs the ecumenical councils (which Protestants would say stopped after 1054) declared as valid. I am not actually arguing for this point of view merely trying to describe how I have heard the “essential” versus “unessential” debate described in Protestant circles.

Fair enough.

So you can see how this “we can agree on essentials” paradigm makes no sense without an authority to declare what these “essentials” are, yes?

This is really all I am trying to do. I am not trying to put myself forward as who decides what truth is. But in my striving, I do need to evaluate what I perceive truth to be. I cannot believe something I do not consider to be truth; I have to be convinced of its truth before I can believe it. This does not excuse my ignorance of truth, I must continually evaluate my beliefs. If I discover that a certain belief does not seem true, I cannot justly sit idle. So this thread is born out of my striving.

If you seek, you will find, friend.

My suggestion is for you to find the Church that Christ established, and then conform your beliefs to that Church.

Not find a church that conforms to all of your beliefs–for that would be the essence of creating a god in your own image, no?

 

[PRmerger]

This quote confuses me. We can be called Christians and we are essentially united with Catholics by baptism into the Body of Christ.

Yes. There is only one Body, and baptism joins you to this Body.

However, we are not part of the Roman Catholic Church…

The Catholic Church is not Roman. The term Roman Catholic, aka the Latin Rite, is one of 23 sui juris churches in the Catholic Church, all in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

When you worship in a Roman Catholic church, present yourself to receive the sacraments (via RCIA) and proclaim that you are in communion with this Church, you will then be a Roman Catholic.

Or, if you choose to worship in the Chaldean rite and worship in the traditions proferred in that church–and you would be Chaldean Catholic.

is this similar to the belief that all Protestants are Christian even though they are not Nazarene?

I don’t know the answer to that question.

If it is, then I don’t see a difference between my “essential” versus “unessential” structure.

It would require you to acknowledge that any defining of an “essential” vs “unessential” doctrine requires an authority outside of Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

For example, Martin Luther thought that the system of penance contradicted Scripture

Perhaps he forgot about David in the OT, while being forgiven of his sin, having to make reparation (or penance) for his mortal acts?

 

[andrewstx]

I like that word, unfluence. Definitely needs to be included in the dictionary, but the meaning is self evident.

LOL, it wass a typo, I had a stroke 8 years ago.

sorry

 

[packermann]

So I was reading the tract on heresy found herecatholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies, but I think I came away more confused than before. First (and perhaps the easier question), I wanted more information about Jansenism. As someone who describes himself as Reformed, I think the doctrine of limited atonement makes sense. Is this the same doctrine as Jansenism, and does anyone know the reasons for its condemnation?

Jansenism also believes that since we are all sinners, none of us are worthy to receive Holy Communion. But this is absurd. Why would our Lord institute the Lord’s Supper if He intended that no one should take it?

Limited Atonement is in conjunction with the Calvinistic view that the God predestines some to heaven and some to hell. It is a denial of free will. And Christ only died for the elect. The Catholic Church condemns Jansenism and Calvinism for not what they assert but what they deny. A Catholic is free to believe in predestination, but he cannot deny that God will that all people to be saved and every person has a free will to reject God. It is a mystery how both predestination and free will can both be true. But so are the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation are mysteries as well. Heresy is usually the rejection of one truth for another truth. But all truths must be held in a mysterious balance. St Augustine said “When we pray, we pray as if it all depends on God. And when we work, we work as if it all depends on us”.

Second, I wanted to know what is the state of Protestant souls since we hold to sola scriptura. I assume since most Protestants never received a valid baptism we aren’t technically committing heresy, but we do hold to a belief that the CC has condemned.

This is a wrong assumption. Anyone who are baptized under the Trinitarian formula is a Christian, according to the CC. There was a heresy called Donatism, which taught that a convert who had been baptized in a heretical sect would need to be baptized again. But the CC taught that as long as convert was baptized under the Trinitari8an formula, that baptism was valid.
Also, one can commit heresy without being baptized. According to Hillare Belloc, Islam is a heresy.

By this tract’s definition, I think we are committing some form of incredulity. But is this incredulity enough to keep us from being saved in the end, or can something akin to Rahner’s “Anonymous Christian” be in effect even though we know and reject the truth of the CC? I have heard so many contradictory things in this regard, that I would like to have some official answers.

I am not much into Rahner. I do not like “anonymous Christian” at all. But a more orthodox explanation is the Catholic teaching of the “invincibility of ignorance”. If you are sincerely ignorant that your teaching is heresy and offends God, then God would have mercy on you.
But the key is that one must be “sincerely ignorant” that it is heresy and offends God. The Bible teaches that the heart is deceitful. We can deceive ourselves into thinking that our heretical view is true but we can really have ulterior motives – such as pride, power, lust, or convenience. Deep down we may know that this is wrong, but we still cling to it. Since I cannot look into a person’s heart, cannot judge him. I cannot judge whether he is going to hell. I also cannot judge that he is going to heaven. Only God knows his heart. I can only judge whether his actions are objectively sinful or whether his beliefs are objectively heretical.

So it is better to not be in objective mortal sin, but God may still have mercy on his soul. Of course, even if God spares him from hell, that does not preclude the necessity of his soul spending some time in purgatory for that sin.

 

[guanophore]

This is really all I am trying to do. I am not trying to put myself forward as who decides what truth is. But in my striving, I do need to evaluate what I perceive truth to be. I cannot believe something I do not consider to be truth; I have to be convinced of its truth before I can believe it. This does not excuse my ignorance of truth, I must continually evaluate my beliefs. If I discover that a certain belief does not seem true, I cannot justly sit idle. So this thread is born out of my striving.

You are absolutely right. One must act in accordance with one’s conscience, for we will all be judged according to it.

James 4:17
17 Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

For a person to act against what their conscience is telling them is true would be a sin.

I think a point of clarification is in order here. I am not actually concerned with the status of my soul. If this was the only factor, I think I would have joined the CC years ago.

This is the only factor for which you will be held accountable to God. You may be able to help other souls get to heaven, but it is your own soul first for which you are responsible.

However, I am very concerned with the souls of my family and Protestant friends. Granted, my sample size is skewed, I have seen the best examples of God’s love through Protestants not Catholics. What would my decision to convert say about them and their souls?

It does not have to say anything! You must do what you know in your heart is right for you. If God is calling you to become Catholic, then he will work it all out with your loved ones. All things work for the good to those that love the Lord, and are called according to His purpose.

Many of you have pointed out the status of their souls is God's territory.  This is great news.  They too are striving, and I was worried that if I decide to become a Catholic then my decision would require me to call them heretics and abandon hope for them.

Certainly not! It will require you to recognize that they have embraced heretical views, as many of us all once did. But most faithful Protestants are acting in accordance with the faith that has been taught to them. They don’t even know how far modern Protestantism has drifted from the Apostolic faith. They are not held accountable for what they do not know. Be careful, though! The more you learn, the more you will be accountable for what you have learned.

So my OP was worried that I would be required to do so.  I still am unable to believe that my Protestant friends do not have the fulness of truth, but that is a discussion for another time.

I am sure they live fully in accordance with whatever amount of the truth they have received. They probably have no idea what they are missing.

This quote confuses me. We can be called Christians and we are essentially united with Catholics by baptism into the Body of Christ. However, we are not part of the Roman Catholic Church… is this similar to the belief that all Protestants are Christian even though they are not Nazarene? If it is, then I don’t see a difference between my “essential” versus “unessential” structure.

I think it is probably similar. The Apostles taught that the Church of Christ is both visible, and invisible. Persons can be members of the invisible Church, even though they are not recognizable as members of the visible Church. This principle even applies to non-Christians. While we profess that there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved but Christ the Lord, we also know that there are some who are mysteriously joined to Christ possibly without even recognizing Him.

 

[guanophore]

Jansenism also believes that since we are all sinners, none of us are worthy to receive Holy Communion. But this is absurd. Why would our Lord institute the Lord’s Supper if He intended that no one should take it?

There is actually truth to this, as there is a kernal of truth in all heresy. We are all sinners, and if we got what we deserved, we would all burn in the Pit. We only approach the Holy Table by His grace, and mercy to help in time of need. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. It is not by our own righteousness, but but who we are in Him that makes us worthy.

. Heresy is usually the rejection of one truth for another truth. But all truths must be held in a mysterious balance. St Augustine said “When we pray, we pray as if it all depends on God. And when we work, we work as if it all depends on us”.

History attests that this is true.

Bible teaches that the heart is deceitful. We can deceive ourselves into thinking that our heretical view is true but we can really have ulterior motives – such as pride, power, lust, or convenience. Deep down we may know that this is wrong, but we still cling to it. Since I cannot look into a person’s heart, cannot judge him. I cannot judge whether he is going to hell. I also cannot judge that he is going to heaven. Only God knows his heart. I can only judge whether his actions are objectively sinful or whether his beliefs are objectively heretical.

So it is better to not be in objective mortal sin, but God may still have mercy on his soul. Of course, even if God spares him from hell, that does not preclude the necessity of his soul spending some time in purgatory for that sin.

 

[guanophore]

You are absolutely right. One must act in accordance with one’s conscience, for we will all be judged according to it.

James 4:17
17 Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

For a person to act against what their conscience is telling them is true would be a sin.

This is the only factor for which you will be held accountable to God. You may be able to help other souls get to heaven, but it is your own soul first for which you are responsible.

It does not have to say anything! You must do what you know in your heart is right for you. If God is calling you to become Catholic, then he will work it all out with your loved ones. All things work for the good to those that love the Lord, and are called according to His purpose.

Certainly not! It will require you to recognize that they have embraced heretical views, as many of us all once did. But most faithful Protestants are acting in accordance with the faith that has been taught to them. They don’t even know how far modern Protestantism has drifted from the Apostolic faith. They are not held accountable for what they do not know. Be careful, though! The more you learn, the more you will be accountable for what you have learned.

I am sure they live fully in accordance with whatever amount of the truth they have received. They probably have no idea what they are missing.

I think it is probably similar. The Apostles taught that the Church of Christ is both visible, and invisible. Persons can be members of the invisible Church, even though they are not recognizable as members of the visible Church. This principle even applies to non-Christians. While we profess that there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved but Christ the Lord, we also know that there are some who are mysteriously joined to Christ possibly without even recognizing Him.

 

[guanophore]

I thought the Vatican II says that the magesterial statements are “changeable” and do not distinguish between “ordinary teachings” and “doctrine.” Can you show me in the document where it makes that distinction? I cannot find it.

That distinction long preceeded Vat ii. The Church has always understood that adding to, or subracting from the doctrines of the faith constitutes “a different gospel”, for which the Apostles counselled we would be “accursed”.

Also, is the “infallible” pronounment of a Pope considered to be Gods Word or equal to scripture?

Yes.

Sorry to question you on that but I like to know where it is actually written rather than take someones interpretation. Thanks for helping me on this.

Rob

I think what might help you is to understand the hierarchy of authority in the teachingso f the Church. Infallible statements and doctrine are at the very top, but there are many levels before that.

 

[JonNC]

=grandfather;9364856]Is it scripture alone or scripture and the ECFs, etc. If it is the latter get rid of the sola. It can’t be both.

It is scripture alone as the* final norm*, that which norms all teachings and teachers. It is not scripture alone as in nothing else matters or can be considered. My response, grandfather, was to your statement that what the other poster said was a “redefinition”. The Book of concord shows that is the original definition.

The practical effect, the thing the doctrine unleashed is evident. It commenced while Luther was still alive.

sure, there are those who took it and ran the wrong way with it. we see that today in those communities that have, indeed, redefined it as scripture only, and nothing else matters or counts, those who reject the creeds and early councils.

I sat next to a man on a plane this past Wednesday who was in his sixties. He seemed kind of odd. I noticed that in the seat pocket there was a black leather bound volume and guessed rightly it was his Bible. He spent his entire adult life, 41 years, working in Jehovahs Witness headquarters. He gets his meals, a room and $131 a month stipend. These well intentioned people are not even Christians. All of the bizarre things they believe, some of which he declared with total conviction to me, come directly from the Bible. I asked him how he knows his doctrines are true and he held up his Bible. It is all right there.

He isn’t willing to look at what the early Church said, is he? Yesterday we used the Athanasian Creed, as is the typical practice of Lutherans on Trinity Sunday. It speaks clearly to the nature of God in three persons, and the person of Christ.

A friend is a “bishop” in the Church of the Firstborn. They let their kids die rather than seek medical treatment. They won’t go to the dentist, put salve on poison ivy, go to the emergency room in a car wreck. He is convnced his sect is the true Church, because the Bible tells him so. He was raised a Lutheran incidentally.

I’m so sorry that he strayed.

This is the result or consequence of sola scriptura. It is undeniable. And, it is no different than what Luther himself did. It does not matter that he quoted Church Fathers. Calvinists have tried to highjack Saint Augustine. They quote him all the time. When I show them quotes from Augustine that directly refute their doctrines they ignore it. It is the pick and choose mentality.

No, it is a misinterpretation of sola scriptura.

continued

 

[JonNC]

The early Church prayed for the dead and to the saints, especially Mary and did not despise her prayers. They recognized the pope as the successor of Peter. They believed there are seven sacraments.

So do we pray for the dead, and we know thatthe saints pray for us. We do not despise their prayers. And ISTM that we as Lutherans need to be careful not to condemn forthrightly the practice of invocation. The confessions are very clear that the concern in that time was 2 fold, 1) there is no command, example, or promise of invocation, other than the dream in 2 Macc, 2) and the concern rearding the abuses of it.
The pope is certainly the bishop of Rome, with jurisdiction of the west. That’s indeed what Nicea says. On the numbering of the sacraments, it is not of great significance. the confessions are clear about this as well. I believe that the three great sacraments, where the means of grace are clear and obvious, are Baptism, confession/Absolution, and the Eucharist. It also appears evident that there is grace in marriage, unction, confirmation, and even ordination. Could it not also be said that there is the means of grace when one hears the word?

Catholicism claims its doctrines are supported by scripture. So do Lutherans, Baptists, anabaptists, JWs, Mennonites, Calvinists, Methodists, ad infinitum. They all can not be accountable to scripture. There is no disagreement that doctrine and scripture must be in harmony, but obviously the doctrines of all these disparate groups are not in harmony and therefore they all can not be accountable to scripture.

Agreed! There is a level of misinterpretation, the result of human sin.

If Catholics say doctrine is affirmed by scripture, what was the need for Luther to concoct sola scriptura, and why sola if Luther appealed to predecessors? The reason was he proposed new doctrine that contradicted that of the Church. He needed a means to defend his doctrines and appealed to scripture (alone), or he would not have named his doctrine sola.

You are attaching a motive, which needs a source, a source where he claims this to be the case. Consider, perhaps, that he looked at the contradiction between those who claimed Sacred Tradition (you mentioned the successor of Peter, and therein is a contradiction between east and west regarding his jurisdiction. Whom do we believe is right?).

Of course it was not Luther’s intention to unleash the hurricane of denominationalism, but he did.

Indeed. It is hard, however, to blaim him for what others did. That’s like blaming Rome for what the Old Catholics did in their break. None of these - Karlstadt, Zwingli, Calvin - were lemmings. They went off on their own.

It is the fruit of his work, and clearly all this division and confusion is not the work of the Holy Spirit.

The only fruit of his work is Lutheranism (him and many others), and Rome also says there was blame enough to go around. That said, you are right, it is not the work of the Holy Spirit.

He thought he would set up his separate Church based on his doctrines and it would end there, but the result of his rebellion is immense tragedy for Christendom, total religious chaos and such great confusion that people call it freedom

Are you in chaos, my friend? I’m not. I certainly want to see unity and pray for it all the time, but I’m not in chaos.

So, back to my original point, if we are to dialogue for unity (and we must because Christ calls for unity), we must first understand what each other believes and says, not what is said about us. For example, I do not in any way, shape or form believe that Catholics worship the Blessed Virgin, as some charge. And I ask you not to believe, for example, that Lutherans confess consubstantiation, as the Calvinists charge us.

Believe me when I tell you that the “sola” in sola scriptura means simply that the only final norm is scripture, which is a practice of holding all doctrines and teachers accountable. It does not mean that creeds and councils are ecluded, denied, ignored. When onedoes that, one gets the gentleman on the plane.

Jon

 

[grandfather]

QUOTE=JonNC;9370675]

So do we pray for the dead, and we know thatthe saints pray for us. We do not despise their prayers.

Jon,

Why is it that Lutherans deny this if it is as you say? They insist that praying for the dead is useless, that they are judged and in heaven or hell. I can think of several options.

1. Lutherans do not agree with one another on the matter, so some, most, say it should not be done.
2. Lutherans other than you and your branch have misineterpreted the founder of their religion’s doctrine.
3. You are wrong and in general Lutherans who disagree with you correctly understand the Lutheran position on the matter.

How would I find out? I have a Lutheran minister friend who has been a minister for over forty years. If I ask him what the Lutheran doctrine is would his answer be reliable? If Lutherans disagree among themselves on the doctrine in question how would anyone know what the Lutheran Church believes? I have relatives that are Lutheran. They believe praying for the dead and to the saints is a Catholic superstition? Are they right are are you right? Maybe it should be put to a vote. If the majority of Lutherans say X then X is the Lutheran rule of faith. If Lutherans disagree on the matter or another matter and they all appeal to the authority of the Bible for their doctrine how will it be resolved?

The pope is certainly the bishop of Rome, with jurisdiction of the west. That’s indeed what Nicea says.

That is very interesting Jon. Judging by your location on the globe, based on your statement above, you should recognize Benedict as your spiritual head since you also agree with Catholic dogma as opposed to the versions of Lutherans who refute it.

On the numbering of the sacraments, it is not of great significance. the confessions are clear about this as well. I believe that the three great sacraments, where the means of grace are clear and obvious, are Baptism, confession/Absolution, and the Eucharist.

So Catholics say seven, most Lutherans say two, Jon says three, but he also says it is not important in his personal theology which leans more Catholic than Lutheran on most counts.

It also appears evident that there is grace in marriage, unction, confirmation, and even ordination. Could it not also be said that there is the means of grace when one hears the word?

Grace can be found in many ways. I could make a long list and miss half of them. A sacrament is a unique means of grace. In marriage it is God who joins the couple. They make public vows invoking God. There is form, matter and intent. The couple meet God in their marriage. He joins them and makes them one and gives them grace to live out their vows as long as they cooperate with it.

The reason you do not have a valid Eucharist (from the Catholic perspective) is you don’t have Orders. You deny the sacrament.

The entire debate between Anglicans who claim to be Catholic, and Catholics who question their sacraments other than baptism, is over Orders. The Orthodox have the same udnerstanding of the ordained priesthood. Lutherans have ministers. I know a Lutheran minister in NYC who realized the truth of the matter and when he prints the handouts with prayers for his services he delineates the parts for responses, “people”. His parts are headed, “priest”. It drove his congregation crazy. They insisted they do not have priests.

The Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is that it is a sacrifice. At Mass we are present at Calvary. A priest is a person who offers sacrifice.

The same minister told me his synod is divided over Orders, the need for Orders in the Catholic sense of it, or to continue rejecting the Catholic position and keep their tradition. They do not know what to believe. Some say A. Others say B. Appeal to the Bible and vote. He is not happy that Catohlics might question the validity of his orders (ordination) when his own religion can’t decide A or B. How are Catholics supposed to know what Lutherans believe if Lutherans don’t know? If they all suddenly decide that Orders are neccesary in ministry what will they do about it? Where will they get some? Will they find some fringe illicit bishop somewhere to make them legit?

Then comes Lutheran Jon’s personal belief on confession and that what are or are not sacraments is not important. Are you trying to tell us that it is general Lutheran belief and practice to confess their sins to a person empowered to forgive them? Where does that empowerment come from if not Orders, sacramental Holy Orders?

 

[grandfather]

You are attaching a motive, which needs a source, a source where he claims this to be the case.

You are right. I am speculating. I could be right or wrong trying to play detective or psychologist.

Consider, perhaps, that he looked at the contradiction between those who claimed Sacred Tradition (you mentioned the successor of Peter, and therein is a contradiction between east and west regarding his jurisdiction. Whom do we believe is right?).

This is another question, but logic says A might be right, B might be right, neither is right. If A or B is right, Luther and his Reformation is wrong.

Indeed. It is hard, however, to blaim him for what others did. That’s like blaming Rome for what the Old Catholics did in their break. None of these - Karlstadt, Zwingli, Calvin - were lemmings. They went off on their own.

I blame Luther’s doctrine sola scriptura for smashing Christendom to bits. Well intentioned ignorant people today start Churches. It happens all the time. They believe they have the authority to do this as many others have done also and the authority that legitimizes them is the Bible. They do not see what they do as rebellion, or disobendience to God, or problematic in any way. They meet on Sundays, sing, preach, pray and shout amen brother and read and thump their Bibles.

Th

e only fruit of his work is Lutheranism (him and many others), and Rome also says there was blame enough to go around. That said, you are right, it is not the work of the Holy Spirit.

Jon. I blame myself for the crucifixion of Jesus. I am a wretch. Luther was rightly scandalized at the decadence and corruption he found in all over Italy and he was unaware of the worst of it. Denominationalism is punishment for sin, not a few small sins, outrageous wickedness. Alexander VI fathered seven bastards while he was pope. The Borgias were a disgrace. This is not a question of who are the bad guys and who are the good guys.

The question is what caused denominationalism. It is a false doctrine. The only way to fix it is to reveal the cause. The Bible does not give me authority to start a new Church and it does not give Luther that authority either.

Are you in chaos, my friend? I’m not. I certainly want to see unity and pray for it all the time, but I’m not in chaos.

Denominationalism is chaos.

So, back to my original point, if we are to dialogue for unity (and we must because Christ calls for unity), we must first understand what each other believes and says, not what is said about us. For example, I do not in any way, shape or form believe that Catholics worship the Blessed Virgin, as some charge. And I ask you not to believe, for example, that Lutherans confess consubstantiation, as the Calvinists charge us.

How can I find out, where can I go to ascertain what Lutherans believe about anything? Don’t tell me the Confessions. That is no different that saying the Bible. I have coffee usually weekly with a Lutheran minister good friend. He laments over what is going on in the Lutheran Church. He wants unity of all Christians, but says if there is a way to reunify with Catholics that would be fine with him, but then we would have to “kick ELCA out”. Does not the ELCA have the same confessions as the rest?

Believe me when I tell you that the “sola” in sola scriptura means simply that the only final norm is scripture, which is a practice of holding all doctrines and teachers accountable. It does not mean that creeds and councils are ecluded, denied, ignored. When onedoes that, one gets the gentleman on the plane.

I repeat. Get rid of the sola if it is not sola. Beyond that all doctrines etc. are accountable to the majesterium. Holding all doctrines accountable to scripture does exactly get you the guy on the plane. The Councils WERE the majesterium in their day. How do you accept it then if you don’t accept it now? If you do accept it now who is it? Is it ELCA, Is Rowan Williams a bishop, Gene Robinson, Katherine Shorri, Martin Luther, John Calvin?

You always make me laugh at myself Jon. God bless you.