How do Protestants and non-catholics alike believe they are in the New Covenant Jesus instituted by his body and blood, when most do not accept Jesus

[Gabriel_of_12]

Amen! In the Anglican body we believe that in some sense Christ is Present in the Blessed Sacrament and we treat it with high respect, we do not “define” what the Presence takes, we refer to it as a Great and Sacred mystery by which the children of God are fed and nourished.

In your Anglican tradition, can your laity and or religious confect this sacrament? Do you believe this sacrament feeds and nourishes God’s children in life or after life? Do claim to follow the Apostolic Tradition of the Eucharist as instituted by Jesus and taught by the apostles?

 

[stbruderklaus]

That’s an oddly phrased questions, but I’ll attempt a Lutheran answer.

The Kingdom of God is, in a certain sense, all of creation. All creatures either exist in a state of grace with God, or under His condemnation.

The Christian enters into the grace of God through the means by which He brings it to us-- by faith in the Son of God. We receive that grace through Baptism, the Eucharist, Confession/Absolution, and the continuing life of the Church He established, in which the Scriptures are preached and the Sacraments administered. Faith and repentance keep us in a disposition to receive the grace of God, which justifies us before the Father, on account of the finished work of Christ at Calvary.

This, I believe, is a reasonable explanation of how we would approach the question you raise.

Peace be with you.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I agree that the discussion of valid orders is likely best suited to another thread… however, as it touches on the Eucharist, it must be teased out at least a little.

Validity, from both a Roman and Orthodox position, speaks of proper form, material, and intent. Whether Romans recognize Protestant orders or not, there are ample arguments that non-Roman Christians ordain their pastors/priests/bishops with all three. Even in a strict sense, the Roman criteria for validity are maintained in a number of non-Roman communions… many of those in Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican communions.

For example, my consecration as a priest included validly consecrated bishops who are recognized as such by both Rome and the East, by Anglicans and a couple other jurisdictions. We are Lutheran in our confession of the faith, and I assure you, when we confect the Sacraments, they are quite valid… though they may not be licit for the Romans.

Even with this, I do not hold my ordination as superior to other Christian pastors who do not have the benefit of Apostolic Succession through the Historic Episcopate. Most of my other Lutheran counterparts have been ordained by other pastors… and as such, the hands placed on them in the context of the Church has been unbroken back to the Apostles as well. Let us not forget that even Rome has acknowledged the potential validity of presbyterial ordination, though it is not the licit practice today… even St. Jerome contended that the powers of the office of the priest and the bishop differ in no way other than jurisdiction. If I were to be really radical, I’d offer that no Christian becomes a Christian without the hands of other Christians applied to them in both Baptism and Confirmation… which might even make valid the consecration of a pastor by nothing more than the assembly of the saints who intended to ordain him.

Anyway, for Christians of non-Roman communions, with valid pastors and the faith / intent to confect the Sacraments, one must be very careful before declaring them invalid. Pope Benedict, being a much more careful theologian and pastor, was not so brazen as the claims made here… good fellow, that Pope. I would think it one of the greatest honors of my life to take communion with him… but if not in this world, then in the next.

By the way… a contention was made above that if Roman catholics could live the faith better, perhaps non-Romans would be drawn to them. Perhaps the better challenge is to work to reflect Christ in each of our communions, and then look for the marks of Christ among ourselves and each other. Perhaps then we will find our unity in Christ, rather than in our man-made social structures. Frankly, the fact that so many Christians have refused each other Eucharistic fellowship is staggering to my mind… especially when we note that we are all part of the same Christ and the same Church by our Baptism-- thus we impose division where the Spirit of God has created unity.

Grace and peace.

Very well stated thank you. Would you agree then; The first step towards unity is to begin to speak about the differences so as to understand each other?

Personally I dont like the Validity Issue, for I desire that all recieve Holy Communion with God. Can agreement be found if it is proven what Jesus instituted in the Eucharist cannot be changed by anyone society, or religious affiliation or human interpretation?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

That’s an oddly phrased questions, but I’ll attempt a Lutheran answer.

The Kingdom of God is, in a certain sense, all of creation. All creatures either exist in a state of grace with God, or under His condemnation.

The Christian enters into the grace of God through the means by which He brings it to us-- by faith in the Son of God. We receive that grace through Baptism, the Eucharist, Confession/Absolution, and the continuing life of the Church He established, in which the Scriptures are preached and the Sacraments administered. Faith and repentance keep us in a disposition to receive the grace of God, which justifies us before the Father, on account of the finished work of Christ at Calvary.

This, I believe, is a reasonable explanation of how we would approach the question you raise.

Peace be with you.

Beautifully stated; if you did not reveal your Lutheran Tradition, upon reading your comment, I would of confused you easily as a Catholic.

What is your definition of the New Covenant from the Kingdom of God? or is there a difference?

 

[stbruderklaus]

Gabriel,

I would certainly agree, that our first steps toward unity include a rigorous understanding of each other-- our commonality, and our differences.

Or, perhaps differently stated, we can reflect on those areas of the faith in which we already have unity, where we do not, and what to make of the differences.

Of course, I think the real first step is that we respect and love each other, as fellow children of God and as brother and sisters in Christ. That, to my mind, is the real first step. If we start there, we can examine our differences and similarities with an eye toward reconcilliation, rather than attempting to justify our rationalize our continued separation.

Peace to you.

 

[stbruderklaus]

I might be on shakey ground, without consorting with a couple good dogmatics works, but here’s my late Sunday evening understanding.

The New Covenant is through Christ, His grace mediated to us through faith, the Sacraments, and His Church. We enter the New Covenant, which is the gratuitous forgiveness of sins for the sake of Jesus’ death in our stead, which is how we say that we are justified by grace through faith. Our faith works itself out in acts of love toward God and neighbor, thus showing itself alive.

All of us exist within the Kingdom of God-- though not all people have benefited from the wonders of the New Covenant. This becomes the evangelical call to all Christians, to spread the Gospel of Christ to everyone, that the Spirit of God might enliven them through faith, and they be brought under the New Covenent of grace in Christ Jesus.

Peace be with you.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Gabriel,

You asked a question I failed to answer earlier… regarding how Christ established the Eucharist. This one is tough.

I would agree that we can find common ground, in recognizing the simplicity of how Christ established the Eucharist, and acknowledging that no one has authority to change it. What you might find in a Lutheran Mass (at least among the more catholic of us…) is something very similar to the Novus Ordo. We, too, relish our ties to antiquity and the early Fathers, as well as the Sacred Scriptures.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel,

I would certainly agree, that our first steps toward unity include a rigorous understanding of each other-- our commonality, and our differences.

Or, perhaps differently stated, we can reflect on those areas of the faith in which we already have unity, where we do not, and what to make of the differences.

Of course, I think the real first step is that we respect and love each other, as fellow children of God and as brother and sisters in Christ. That, to my mind, is the real first step. If we start there, we can examine our differences and similarities with an eye toward reconcilliation, rather than attempting to justify our rationalize our continued separation.

Peace to you.

I agree with you. One must first understand ones position inorder to see the differences, then with hope find unity, and in Love walk in this unity.

My position is very hard, for one I hold to the Rock, on the surface it alludes to a negative mindset from one viewing this comment from the outside. By Rock I mean Jesus, as Paul refers to him “and the Rock was Christ”.

I dont see how man can change what Jesus Christ instituted in the New covenant and Eucharist. This is very Hard for the Catholic to change this, because she will not and cannot seperate what God has joined together. This is why my position is very hard.

Many Protestants are not far from Catholicism, I pray for reconciliation in my life time or the commencment of unity, yet many splinters from protestantism have removed themselves from the Holy Sacramental lifestyle.

It is difficult to blanket all different traditions outside of Catholicism. Each one has to be taken one at a time. The Pope and magesterium have their hands full. But for God nothing is impossible.

Peace and charity

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I might be on shakey ground, without consorting with a couple good dogmatics works, but here’s my late Sunday evening understanding.

The New Covenant is through Christ, His grace mediated to us through faith, the Sacraments, and His Church. We enter the New Covenant, which is the gratuitous forgiveness of sins for the sake of Jesus’ death in our stead, which is how we say that we are justified by grace through faith. Our faith works itself out in acts of love toward God and neighbor, thus showing itself alive.

All of us exist within the Kingdom of God-- though not all people have benefited from the wonders of the New Covenant. This becomes the evangelical call to all Christians, to spread the Gospel of Christ to everyone, that the Spirit of God might enliven them through faith, and they be brought under the New Covenent of grace in Christ Jesus.

Peace be with you.

When Jesus began the fulfilment in his body and blood of the old covenant, he did it by instituting the Eucharist in the New Covenant, then the “do this in rememberance of me” commandment. Do we agree that Jesus was fulfilling more than the Passover meal at the last supper?

True in the new covenant is God’s grace and mercy, but Jesus instituted the Eucharist in the new covenant, just as Moses instituted the Passover meal as a perpetual law in the Old Covenant.

Peace be with you

 

[stbruderklaus]

Thank you for your kind exchange. I appreciate the conversation.

One suggestion-- the difficulty we often have in understanding each other, sometimes come from an imprecise use of terms. In another forum, we plumbed the depths a bit on the use of the terms “catholic” and “protestant.” In short, they are tricky at best… and more often than not, misapplied.

Perhaps for our exchange, we can suggest for each other the terms Roman and Lutheran-- then at least we can distinguish Lutheran confession theology from the vast array of non-Roman circles, and we can distinguish Roman theology from other catholic movements including the Orthodox.

As a Lutheran, I applaud you for your unwillingness to change what Christ has instituted. I think this speaks to our common catholicity in this matter. I concur that Christ instituted the Eucharist in a way that the Mosaic Passover forshadowed-- I do not think they were perfectly analogous. Christ is the fulfilment of much, if not all of the OT forms, the Eucharist being a very sublime example. But there is something peculiar to the Eucharist that is unknown to the Passover meal, in that God Himself, in the Person of His Son, gives Himself to His people in this most holy Sacrament. Moses and the people of Israel had no real corrolary to this, in my understanding.

Peace to you.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel,

You asked a question I failed to answer earlier… regarding how Christ established the Eucharist. This one is tough.

I would agree that we can find common ground, in recognizing the simplicity of how Christ established the Eucharist, and acknowledging that no one has authority to change it. What you might find in a Lutheran Mass (at least among the more catholic of us…) is something very similar to the Novus Ordo. We, too, relish our ties to antiquity and the early Fathers, as well as the Sacred Scriptures.

Grace and peace to you.

What do you think the Catholic church has to do unite your Lutheran church into the Eucharist celebration with her? Without having to change what Jesus instituted?

 

[stbruderklaus]

With the early Lutheran and Roman theologians of the Reformation era, the Eucharist wasn’t really a point of contention. Lutherans were generally uneasy with the new definition of Transubstantiation, not because they thought it was wrong, but because it was an attempt to describe part of the mystery that seemed beyond explanation. Lutherans have traditionally been content with the Scriptural witness, that in the Eucharist we have bread and wine, as well as the Body and Blood of Christ… we tend not to try and explain it. Most of the Lutherans, however, were willing to embrace the theory of Transubstantiation, just out of Christian charity.

Restoring Lutherans to the Roman communion, to my mind, is less about theology and more about ecclesiology-- particularly, the role of the Bishop of Rome. Many Lutherans of the 16th century were willing to refer to the Pope as the Patriarch of the West with a universal jurisdiction, but they were not willing to cede the point that the Pope had universal authority to declare new dogma. Luther, with his contemporaries, continued to appeal to an Ecumenical Council to settle the theological differences. Since Trent was difficult to describe as an Ecumenical Council (the East was not invited, and Christians outside the Roman communion could only come under the gravest of risk to life and limb) to some extent, Lutherans are still waiting for it.

When the Bishop of Rome is willing to invite east and west, as well as the bishops of the Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran Churches, to discuss and resolve theological issues, we might just see the day dawn that Lutherans are brought back into the fold of Rome… who is, after all, our elder brother. We will, however, probably have to seek our unity in simpler expressions of the faith (such as those known in the first 7 truly ecumenical councils) and be willing to accept as “pious opinion” those developments that occurred in both our communions since then.

Perhaps this will occur in our lifetime. The Roman synod on Scripture just concluded this week, with the address of the Orthodox Ecumenical Primate in the Sistene Chapel… great day for unity, indeed. What a day it will be, when the Bishop of Rome convokes the 8th truly ecumenical council off all the Church, after which, in a spirit of love, repentance, and faith, we all are enabled by God to walk in Christian unity and brotherhood. This will take all of us swallowing our pride, our fear, and our self serving sectarianism, and being willing to let the Holy Spirit guide us into the next millenium together.

I hope I live to see it.

Cheers.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thank you for your kind exchange. I appreciate the conversation.

One suggestion-- the difficulty we often have in understanding each other, sometimes come from an imprecise use of terms. In another forum, we plumbed the depths a bit on the use of the terms “catholic” and “protestant.” In short, they are tricky at best… and more often than not, misapplied.

Perhaps for our exchange, we can suggest for each other the terms Roman and Lutheran-- then at least we can distinguish Lutheran confession theology from the vast array of non-Roman circles, and we can distinguish Roman theology from other catholic movements including the Orthodox.

As a Lutheran, I applaud you for your unwillingness to change what Christ has instituted. I think this speaks to our common catholicity in this matter. I concur that Christ instituted the Eucharist in a way that the Mosaic Passover forshadowed-- I do not think they were perfectly analogous. Christ is the fulfilment of much, if not all of the OT forms, the Eucharist being a very sublime example. But there is something peculiar to the Eucharist that is unknown to the Passover meal, in that God Himself, in the Person of His Son, gives Himself to His people in this most holy Sacrament. Moses and the people of Israel had no real corrolary to this, in my understanding.

Peace to you.

That is very wise of you to make the identification mark as Roman or Lutheran. At the surface it rings a tone of unity in the body of Christ by a difference in “Rite”.

Of course when I pray my Rosary in the mysteries, I see Jesus fulifilling the law and the prophets in a mystical way. Jesus is the prophet like unto Moses to come, and it is He (Jesus) we are to listen too, Just as God announces at the Transfiguration, and our blessed virgin Mary who states in scripture to “do what ever he (Jesus) tells you”.

Peace

 

[stbruderklaus]

I have much the same experience, as I pray the Rosary, too.

(Yep, there are Lutherans who pray the Rosary… just as Luther did, for that matter. Though I will say, there are Lutherans who still can’t quite bring themselves to it…)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

With the early Lutheran and Roman theologians of the Reformation era, the Eucharist wasn’t really a point of contention. Lutherans were generally uneasy with the new definition of Transubstantiation, not because they thought it was wrong, but because it was an attempt to describe part of the mystery that seemed beyond explanation. Lutherans have traditionally been content with the Scriptural witness, that in the Eucharist we have bread and wine, as well as the Body and Blood of Christ… we tend not to try and explain it. Most of the Lutherans, however, were willing to embrace the theory of Transubstantiation, just out of Christian charity.

If unity can be sought, it can be achieved in the body of Jesus Christ.

Gabriel
Transubstantiation, for me should not be a word of division. For one it explains to the freethinkers or unbelievers who challenge the true presence and gives meaning inorder for the unbeliever to understand what takes place to a worldly minset. Transubstantiation does not change anything about the Eucharist, Transubstantiation defeats those who attack the true presence in a new age. The problem with relying on the scriptures to interpret the true presence, leaves every different interpreter believing different from the apostles and early church fathers on the subject of the true presence not to mention denying the true presence.

Restoring Lutherans to the Roman communion, to my mind, is less about theology and more about ecclesiology-- particularly, the role of the Bishop of Rome. Many Lutherans of the 16th century were willing to refer to the Pope as the Patriarch of the West with a universal jurisdiction, but they were not willing to cede the point that the Pope had universal authority to declare new dogma. Luther, with his contemporaries, continued to appeal to an Ecumenical Council to settle the theological differences. Since Trent was difficult to describe as an Ecumenical Council (the East was not invited, and Christians outside the Roman communion could only come under the gravest of risk to life and limb) to some extent, Lutherans are still waiting for it.

Gabriel
There are many topic of discussion from the 16th century dealing with authority. Where do we differ in Jesus building his church upon Peter present day Pope?, who was given the keys to the kingdom of God, and the authority to bind and loose on earth. See what I mean about Jesus being the Rock, How can the Pope change what God has given him (Mathew 16:16…) The Pope cannot change what Jesus instituted upon his teaching authority on earth, when Jesus told Peter to feed and teach his flock on earth from John 22;15-17.
The Lutherans and Roman Church can have countless councils, as long as it does not change what Jesus founded upon the apostles. The Pope does not have the authority to invent new dogma, but define what has been handed down from apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scripture in every age and changing languages especially when the teachings come under attack such as the belief in the Eucharist, thus Transubstantiation resulted. Transubstantiation is not a new dogma for example, Transubstantiation defines the Eucharist against a scientific attack in the modern world. The gates of hell will come against her as Jesus prophecised but will never prevail.

When the Bishop of Rome is willing to invite east and west, as well as the bishops of the Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran Churches, to discuss and resolve theological issues, we might just see the day dawn that Lutherans are brought back into the fold of Rome… who is, after all, our elder brother. We will, however, probably have to seek our unity in simpler expressions of the faith (such as those known in the first 7 truly ecumenical councils) and be willing to accept as “pious opinion” those developments that occurred in both our communions since then.

Gabriel
Could it be the invitation is not because Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran are not recognized as Sole entities outside the body of Jeus Christ, but as brothers of the Roman family in rebellion? How do you convince a younger brother who belongs to your blood line, he is no longer a brother who wants to be recognized as independent and seperated from his Mother’s milk and table?

Perhaps this will occur in our lifetime. The Roman synod on Scripture just concluded this week, with the address of the Orthodox Ecumenical Primate in the Sistene Chapel… great day for unity, indeed. What a day it will be, when the Bishop of Rome convokes the 8th truly ecumenical council off all the Church, after which, in a spirit of love, repentance, and faith, we all are enabled by God to walk in Christian unity and brotherhood. This will take all of us swallowing our pride, our fear, and our self serving sectarianism, and being willing to let the Holy Spirit guide us into the next millenium together.

I hope I live to see it.

Cheers.

You know Catholic saints and theologians have always had their differences, opinions and debates. But at the end of the day, they all held to the authority of Jesus Christ, Peter and the apostles, present day Pope and magesterium. So having theological discussions are ok, as long as they dont change what Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition has given us. Now the Roman Church in times past has been open to enlightenment of what is already revealed by Jesus, or deeper understanding that causes faith to grow, but never change what is already believed and defined from outside attacks.

I think to heal our seperation, is a going back to basics that is what Jesus Christ himself instituted. Recognizing Jesus authority first, from all sides, then unity, theological discussions, councils can begin to reconcil or define definitively how unity can take place.

Peace

 

[stbruderklaus]

Gabriel,

I believe we are stumbling into waters that our respective theologians have swum for quite some time… and we both will likely do a poorer job articulating our positions than they did. So, please take with charity what I offer… and I will do the same.

I agree that we cannot change what Christ instituted-- we’re on the same page with that one. I would embrace no council, however ecumenical it was, that attempted to change the clearly established mandates of Christ and the Apostles. In this we are allies.

The sticky business begins with moving from the Scriptures to the post-Apostolic age, then through the Fathers, and the first 7 councils. There’s a lot of debate in there about a number of things, as they attempt to apply Christ’s and the Apostles’ witness to the “faith once for all delivered to the saints” to the age in which they lived… and against the heresies which confronted the Church in their time. One of these debates was authority in the Church.

St. Cyprian was an advocate of the supremacy of Rome, at least in the western context, as evidenced by his writings. The broader Church embraced 5 key Patriarchs in her first few centuries-- I believe they were Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople, Rome… and I forget the last one (Antioch, maybe?) The early councils recognized their historic bishoprics as equal in dignity and authority, periodically changing who held the top spot (Jerusalem and Constantinople are two examples that jump to mind.)

Even in this, however, there was a sense in which the individual Patriarchs performed a role of servant leadership, as first among equals with all the other bishops in their jurisdictions… thus the real seat of ecclesial authority in the early Church, up through her first 5 to 7 centuries, was the bishop and his diocese (I think we see reflections of this concept in contemporary Roman and Lutheran theology.) When councils were convoked, it was the bishops who were represented… and each bishop had a single vote, just like all the others. I think it is fair to offer that the early Church, through the first 7 councils, understood that ecclesial authority fundamentally rested in the bishops, but that in cases of differences between bishops, the bishops gathered together in ecumenical council held binding authority, particularly as they sought to interpret and apply the witness of Holy Scripture. Thus we have a council which excommunicated a Pope of Rome for the heresy of monothelitism (the infamous Honorious, I believe.)

In that historical context, Lutherans will argue that the Bishop of Rome may hold a special role as ecumenical Patriarch of the West (much how the Eastern Orthodox perceive him now) but are unwilling to ascribe to him the powers to override the collected bishops in ecumenical council-- from which, it may be argued, we establish and maintain our catholicity. To us, when we are charitable and not polemical, the Bishop of Rome is a brother bishop, with fundamental authority in his own diocese, and a place of ecumenical and pastoral honor among the bishops of the western Church.

As a bit of short background reading, I’d suggest Phillip Melancthon’s Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope-- it is one of the Lutheran confessions collected in the Book of Concord, and was unanimously subscribed to by the German theologians of the Reformation era as an addendum to the Augsburg Confession. That might help give you the Lutheran perspective on the bishop of Rome, and the Scriptural references that distinguish between what is given to Peter specifically versus what is given to the Apostles generally (cf. Gospel of St. John and St Matthew, with the two accounts of the giving of the Keys-- one in the singular, the other in the plural.)

Peace be with you.

 

[Contarini]

If you are a Protestant or non-catholic, how do you enter into the New Covenant with God if you dont eat Jesus body, and drink his blood in the Eucharist?

I do. So it’s a bad question.

Edwin

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel,

I believe we are stumbling into waters that our respective theologians have swum for quite some time… and we both will likely do a poorer job articulating our positions than they did. So, please take with charity what I offer… and I will do the same.

I agree that we cannot change what Christ instituted-- we’re on the same page with that one. I would embrace no council, however ecumenical it was, that attempted to change the clearly established mandates of Christ and the Apostles. In this we are allies.

The sticky business begins with moving from the Scriptures to the post-Apostolic age, then through the Fathers, and the first 7 councils. There’s a lot of debate in there about a number of things, as they attempt to apply Christ’s and the Apostles’ witness to the “faith once for all delivered to the saints” to the age in which they lived… and against the heresies which confronted the Church in their time. One of these debates was authority in the Church.

**Gabriel of 12

**I have to stop here and agree with you. There are two views to the history you are displaying. What I believe is noteworthy, to take What Jesus states in all this, and what the apostles taught and handed down to us. This overrides all post apostolic period counciles and individualism, or competing factors of power.

For one the Catholic church was underground for the first 300 years. When she came up to the surface, is when we begin to see organization get settled in from underground. Which claimed the life of many Roman Popes, Catholic Martyrs.

The Successor of Peter of whom Jesus personally built his church upon, authority was never questioned from the early church fathers, including the Roman Pagan Emperor Constantine, and those pagan ruler before him and after him.

According to the early church fathers Eastern (not all) and Western followed the Pope. Sure Jesus told Peter himself, the gates of hell will come against him in body the Catholic church, but Hell will never prevail against her, this is a promise from Jesus himself. Some Eastern fathers vied with the power in Constantine the pagan ruler of the Roman Empire instead of Peter’s Chair.

So you see, others can bring all the bad laundry of the past, but the Catholic church believes and practices the ministery of reconciliation (forgivness) instituted by Jesus himself. That washes all of our sins away.

Now about the Eucharist being instituted by Jesus Christ cannot be changed. Jesus building his church upon Peter, gave him the keys to the kingdom of God, and the power to bind and loose. And yes to the apostles later; he gives them the authority to forgive sins and commisioned them to go to the ends of the earth (indicating apostolic succesion) till he returns for his Church. Now I hope we dont find disagreement in Jesus commanding Peter singularly again in Johns gospel to feed, teach his flock of sheep and lambs. No other individual is recorded in scripture recieving this command from Jesus other than Peter.

Again forget about what pride of men have done in history, what does Jesus say? I cant remove myself from the Rock, like others have by their Pride, power, money, authority outside of what Jesus instituted.

Now if you can show me that there has never been a successor of Peter to this day, whether good or bad, I follow Jesus in his Catholic church. Even Peter himself denied Jesus 3 times, any Pope successor of Peter could not have done much worse than deny Jesus to his face. Yet Jesus appeared to Peter in the ressurrection and commanded him to feed and teach his Church.

Peace****

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I do. So it’s a bad question.

Edwin

A moslem or a Christian heretic can make the same claim as you just did “I do”, but can you give a biblical belief, believed these 2000 years that you do?

 

[stbruderklaus]

Indeed-- there are at least two, and probably a myriad of perspectives on the history of the Church. Talk to your friends in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, and they have a very particular understanding… as do the Reformed, the Lutherans, and the Anglicans. The data of the history is the same for all of us to read and absorb, but as with any set of data, interpreting and applying it is where the variety starts.

As one becomes a student of ecclesiastical history, however, I think one begins to grow more aware of competing ideas that vie throughout the naratives. I am no scholar, but I will offer that my appreciation for catholicity increased enormously as a Lutheran, when I took time to walk through the writings of the early Church Fathers and councils. Not having started from a Roman perspective, I was not reading into that history a Roman interpretation of history… though it was likely colored by my Reformation heritage. I must confess, however, that I came away much more convinced of the Orthodox interpretation of early church history than my own tradition. Again, the data is the same, but the conclusions drawn from it can be significantly varied.

I would never council you to leave the Roman communion. In fact, I count it a great honor that God used me to reconcile a number of people back to the Roman communion, when they were hurting and distanced from their parish and vulnerable to be drawn into a Lutheran congregation. My wife and I have even chatted, from time to time, that if we found ourselves in a part of the world where there was no faithful Lutheran witness to the faith, we would likely partner with the local Roman parish. There is much good and light in the Roman communion, particularly in the modern era, that even a confessional Lutheran can appreciate.

Like Lutherans before me, I am less concerned about calling anyone out of their current communion, and much more interested in pointing them to Christ. In which communion is Christ most clearly seen and experienced? I would argue (quite unabashadly and parochially) that it is in a historic, confessional Lutheran parish, which embraces its historicity, orthodoxy, and catholicity within the western tradition. In any particular area or context, I think Roman or Orthodox or Anglican expressions might be the clearest witnesses to Christ, since the human variables in the Christian Church often work to either emphasize or obscure their Lord. No Christian communion in our day has a monopoly on sin or holiness, and so we continue to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, often waxing and waning in our service to God and neighbor.

Again, if you’re willing to countenance another perspective or two on the Roman Papacy, consider reading Melancthon’s Power and Primacy of the Pope. There are many quotes of the Fathers in there, including an insightful interpretation of Matthew from St. Chrysostom (one of my favorites of antiquity… right up there with Augustine, if you ask me.) You might find that history in the Christian Church is not quite so unilateral as you have come to believe… and that the Reformers of the Lutheran tradition were quite esconced in the theology of the early Fathers.

Your servant in Christ, our Lord,
Brad