How Old is Your Church?

[JonNC]

=pocohombre;11172499] Well,if you are a follower of “Luther”, a Lutheran, can you not be a follower of Christ, anymore than you being a follower of the Blessed Pope are a follower of Christ?.. As far as adding words, I would say not to add an “s”,but we do know of one word added, the infamous"alone". Don’t recall any other added words, and then again, it is a “translation”…

He didn’t even add “alone”. He used the word “allein”. The important distinction here is that alone is an English word. This English word “alone” does not appear in any English translation that I am aware of , because in English it is not needed to make sense of the text. As Luther said, he wanted it to be German, not Greek.

Subtracting is not the same as not including. Catholics also “subtracted” some books from the original Septuagint. Jerome preferred not to include them initially but was somewhat pressured to do so. The Jews do not include such books either in their Hebrew bible. But yes, Luther went against a 1000 year old tradition of not including them…For sure Luther was at odds with his current leadership and some of it’s positions.

If I understand you correctly, I disagree. Luther, by including the deuterocanonical books was consistent with the history of the western Church. Where he broke with the western Church is by adding the Prayer of Manasseh.
You make a good point about the Septuagint, in that it included 3 and 4 Macc.

Jon

 

[pocohombre]

]He didn’t even add “alone”. He used the word “allein”. The important distinction here is that alone is an English word. This English word “alone” does not appear in any English translation that I am aware of , because in English it is not needed to make sense of the text. As Luther said, he wanted it to be German, not Greek.

Howdy. I liked your response above as some of our answers were similar and encouraged me. As far as alone, you might be nitpicking in justification for it, but we agree it is a translation (and a very good one).bible-researcher.com/luther02.html kind of like what this site said about it. Anyways, sometimes I feel like Luther and say, “Yeah, put it in there(allein) , the pendelum had swung to far towards works”. I admire Luther very much, and like David was a man after God’s heart and was a man like you and me -with flaws,which I can easily forgive. What he was used to do was monumental for the time.

If I understand you correctly, I disagree. Luther, by including the deuterocanonical books was consistent with the history of the western Church. Where he broke with the western Church is by adding the Prayer of Manasseh.
You make a good point about the Septuagint, in that it included 3 and 4 Macc.

Thanks for correction.The site above clarified it also. He included all the books(apocraphyl). A lot of inaccurate hoopla against poor Luther. Actually, he was not "poor’ for he could dish it back as good as any other. Blessings

 

[AmbroseSJ]

1. He rejected the leadership of the One Church started by Jesus Christ that was pretty much united for 1500 years.

No. He rejected what he and others considered the innovations that the Roman see had claimed for itself.

I know you have no need to read up on the Donatist heresy/schism, but it is so applicable to Protestants with pretensions to Catholicism.

You have refuted the above claim by using different words. Semantics. In fact Luther and his followers had NO illusions of being Catholic. They were now Christians. (as opposed to CAtholics who weren’t.) The Pope was the anti-Christ remember. He is STILL today, although currently they wrap this unchanging doctrine in obfuscation.

As you said, the innovations of Rome had caused Christianity to veer off course. That is why Luther and his followers boldly separated from the Catholic Church. There is no way to whitewash this. It is historical fact, which remains true today. They separated in every way it is possible to separate. Separate leadership, separate doctrine and separate churches. They rejected everything which (in their judgement) was not genuine Christianity.

For Lutherans to claim Catholicity today is hypocritical and counter to Luther’s avowed intentions, as described by you yourself!

Now of course, I know you don’t mean Catholic in the sense of “Roman Catholic” but rather in the sense of Universal or the one true Church. But it is an UNREAL separation. (The Donatists, and many others affected this separation as well.) The Roman Catholic Church == The Universal Church. You can’t separate the Universal Church from the Roman Catholic Church. It is a legal fiction, nothing more. To say you are Catholic yet not in communion with the See of Rome is impossible. You may as well claim you are Orthodox Lutherans. (although they have already rejected that possibility) But in any event. Lutherans ARE Christians, just as any baptized believer would be. You are members of the Mystical Body of Christ’s Church. But you are NOT Catholic.

 

[pocohombre]

I know you have no need to read up on the Donatist heresy/schism, but it is so applicable to Protestants with pretensions to Catholicism.

You have refuted the above claim by using different words. Semantics. In fact Luther and his followers had NO illusions of being Catholic. They were now Christians. (as opposed to CAtholics who weren’t.) The Pope was the anti-Christ remember. He is STILL today, although currently they wrap this unchanging doctrine in obfuscation.

As you said, the innovations of Rome had caused Christianity to veer off course. That is why Luther and his followers boldly separated from the Catholic Church. There is no way to whitewash this. It is historical fact, which remains true today. They separated in every way it is possible to separate. Separate leadership, separate doctrine and separate churches. They rejected everything which (in their judgement) was not genuine Christianity.

For Lutherans to claim Catholicity today is hypocritical and counter to Luther’s avowed intentions, as described by you yourself!

Now of course, I know you don’t mean Catholic in the sense of “Roman Catholic” but rather in the sense of Universal or the one true Church. But it is an UNREAL separation. (The Donatists, and many others affected this separation as well.) The Roman Catholic Church == The Universal Church. You can’t separate the Universal Church from the Roman Catholic Church. It is a legal fiction, nothing more. To say you are Catholic yet not in communion with the See of Rome is impossible. You may as well claim you are Orthodox Lutherans. (although they have already rejected that possibility) But in any event. Lutherans ARE Christians, just as any baptized believer would be. You are members of the Mystical Body of Christ’s Church. But you are NOT Catholic.

Yes of course they are separate. As far as history, I guess much has been said as to what and how things went down. There was also a beginning, middle and end each with their own thoughts and intentions, and an escalation of division. Don’t think they separated every way possible, certainly not doctrinally. I keep hearing from Catholics how Luther held on to so many Catholic doctrines and practices so why don’t I…Anyways you show up the enigma, the irony, of semantics and much more.The Mystical Body of Christ as opposed to the real heirarchal Church ? Their is one True Church yet different churches, different bodies of Christians ? It points to a universality which is not ignored but said to be truer more for one than another, which contradicts the term “universal”. If it is not universal it is not “catholic”…Anyways, I know the CC addresses this conundrum and any true Christian is really indebted and part of the true Roman Catholic church by Her say so in doctrines and decrees and catechisms.It should not need such extrapolations and somewhat circular reasoning in my humble opinion.The body is the church and the church is the body.

 

[JonNC]

=AmbroseSJ;11177263]I know you have no need to read up on the Donatist heresy/schism, but it is so applicable to Protestants with pretensions to Catholicism.

Not that I can see. The Donatist heresy had to do with whether the moral character of a priest effected the sacraments. Lutherans join with Catholics in rejecting this.

You have refuted the above claim by using different words. Semantics. In fact Luther and his followers had NO illusions of being Catholic. They were now Christians. (as opposed to CAtholics who weren’t.) The Pope was the anti-Christ remember. He is STILL today, although currently they wrap this unchanging doctrine in obfuscation.

No. the papacy is anti (as in opposed to)-Christ. There is no obfuscation here. The belief, as outlined in the Treatise, spells it out. Pope Francis is NOT the Anti-Christ. Popes B XVI and JP II were/are not the Anti-Christ.
Again, my suggestion is that you ask what we believe, not tell us. And I will do all I can to return the favor.

As you said, the innovations of Rome had caused Christianity to veer off course. That is why Luther and his followers boldly separated from the Catholic Church. There is no way to whitewash this. It is historical fact, which remains true today. They separated in every way it is possible to separate. Separate leadership, separate doctrine and separate churches. They rejected everything which (in their judgement) was not genuine Christianity.

No. Those innovations are errors in the western Church, and when the Luther brought forward his concerns, he was boldly excommunicated before his concerns hurt the revenue stream. There is no way to whitewash that fact.
The 1530 Augsburg Confession is clear the intention to remain Catholic:

Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.

For Lutherans to claim Catholicity today is hypocritical and counter to Luther’s avowed intentions, as described by you yourself!

Not in the least.

Now of course, I know you don’t mean Catholic in the sense of “Roman Catholic” but rather in the sense of Universal or the one true Church. But it is an UNREAL separation. (The Donatists, and many others affected this separation as well.) The Roman Catholic Church == The Universal Church. You can’t separate the Universal Church from the Roman Catholic Church. It is a legal fiction, nothing more. To say you are Catholic yet not in communion with the See of Rome is impossible. You may as well claim you are Orthodox Lutherans. (although they have already rejected that possibility) But in any event. Lutherans ARE Christians, just as any baptized believer would be. You are members of the Mystical Body of Christ’s Church. But you are NOT Catholic.

What you believe about what I consider myself is irrelevant, frankly. Catholicity is not dependent on the statements of online posters, you or me. If Cardinal Ratzinger can muse about the catholicity of Augustana, it seems there are no black and white positions on the matter, even among Catholics.

Jon

 

[Memaw]

JONNC you said. “Again, my suggestion is that you ask what we believe, not tell us. And I will do all I can to return the favor.”

Oh how I wish most protestants I have met would not try to “TELL: us Catholics what we believe. They tell us we worship statures, pay for Sacraments, talk to dead people, worship Mary, the Pope and many other silly things. I have talked to so many of them and they just won’t believe me that these things are NOT true. I ask them if they believe in the 8th Commandment. I have read some of the most vile tracts ever printed against the Catholic Church. Do they not have a conscience?? Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said,” Millions of people hate what they “believe” the Catholic Church teaches but only a few hate what the Church really teaches. God Bless, Memaw

 

[ChurchSoldier]

My goodness it amazes me sometimes how we can rationalize things. It’s not a blood line, it’s a Faith line. ‘Breakaway churches’ lost the most important connection to the Holy Catholic Faith and that is the True Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist, Body. Blood, Soul and Divinity. and the Sacraments. Through the loss of Apostolic Succession. I would recommend you reading a good book on the Early Church Fathers and what they believed about that. God Bless, Memaw

Oh how I wish most protestants I have met would not try to "TELL: us Catholics what we believe.

Yeah…I know what you mean.

 

[SPH1]

I guess the second thing I would like to say is I do belong to Christ’s Original Church as expressed through Anglicanism. As pointed out, we trace our roots to Pentecost, Peter, Christ (pick your choice).

As do the JW’s and just about every so-called Christian faction out there.

My guess is, if the Episcopal Church and Church of England did not move away from Biblical Ordination, Rome could have been prompted to investigate and accept them.

The problem is that Anglicanism/Episcopalianism is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with Protestantism as a whole. You can have so-called High Church Anglicans down to those who are more akin to Baptists. At best only a portion of Anglicanism has anything really in common with the Catholic Church.

 

[SPH1]

As you said, the innovations of Rome had caused Christianity to veer off course. That is why Luther and his followers boldly separated from the Catholic Church.

And I’d like to see them come up with the innovations of “Rome” as opposed to the supposed innovations of the whole Church. Protestants usually attempt to reduce everything to “Rome”. But I wonder how many “innovations” and doctrines actually originated in “Rome” as opposed to the wider Church.

My point is that it isn’t just “Rome” Protestants have a problem with. It is the whole Christian Church.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

I have talked to so many of them and they just won’t believe me that these things are NOT true. I ask them if they believe in the 8th Commandment.

Yeah, I run into the same thing all the time speaking to RC’s about Anglicanism.

 

[Memaw]

Yeah, I run into the same thing all the time speaking to RC’s about Anglicanism.

I really doubt that, maybe some do but I would bet that most don’t do that. Maybe your just trying to “get even” so to speak. I have never had a protestant tell me that Catholics lie about them.
Have you ever seen nasty ole tracts put out by the Catholic Church lying about other denominations.? God Bless, Memaw

 

[Darryl_B]

Yeah, I run into the same thing all the time speaking to RC’s about Anglicanism.

I’ve personally found that the greatest critics of Anglicanism, are the Anglicans themselves.

 

[JonNC]

JONNC you said. “Again, my suggestion is that you ask what we believe, not tell us. And I will do all I can to return the favor.”

Oh how I wish most protestants I have met would not try to “TELL: us Catholics what we believe. They tell us we worship statures, pay for Sacraments, talk to dead people, worship Mary, the Pope and many other silly things. I have talked to so many of them and they just won’t believe me that these things are NOT true. I ask them if they believe in the 8th Commandment. I have read some of the most vile tracts ever printed against the Catholic Church. Do they not have a conscience?? Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said,” Millions of people hate what they “believe” the Catholic Church teaches but only a few hate what the Church really teaches. God Bless, Memaw

I wish they would, too.

For the lurkers. Catholics do not:
Worship statues
Worship the Blessed Virgin Mary
talk to “dead people”
worship the pope
pay for sacraments, or worship bread and wine

Everything we as non-Catholics have and know as Christians -scripture, the pulpit, Baptism and the other sacraments - we owe to the Catholic Church, and we should be ever grateful to her for these gifts.

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JonNC:

Not that I can see. The Donatist heresy had to do with whether the moral character of a priest effected the sacraments. Lutherans join with Catholics in rejecting this.

I didn’t make myself clear on this. What I meant was that the Donatists, being a schismatic/heretical church, still insisted it was Catholic. That is the similarity, not the heresy itself. Their arguments are your arguments.

No. the papacy is anti (as in opposed to)-Christ. There is no obfuscation here. The belief, as outlined in the Treatise, spells it out. Pope Francis is NOT the Anti-Christ. Popes B XVI and JP II were/are not the Anti-Christ.
Again, my suggestion is that you ask what we believe, not tell us. And I will do all I can to return the favor.

Here’s a quote from the LCMS website on their STATEMENT OF DOCTRINAL POSITIONS page:

“As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18,*** have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome*** and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16);*** that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation*** – these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) ***Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” ***(Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)”

And as you can see from the statement above Pope Francis IS the VERY Anti-Christ according to your doctrinal statement.

Waiting for your stout denial

 

[Memaw]

I didn’t make myself clear on this. What I meant was that the Donatists, being a schismatic/heretical church, still insisted it was Catholic. That is the similarity, not the heresy itself. Their arguments are your arguments.

Here’s a quote from the LCMS website on their STATEMENT OF DOCTRINAL POSITIONS page:

“As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18,*** have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome*** and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16);*** that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation*** – these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) ***Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” ***(Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)”

And as you can see from the statement above Pope Francis IS the VERY Anti-Christ according to your doctrinal statement.

Waiting for your stout denial

Strange how far some will go to defend their misguided position. Would that be considered going against the 8th Commandment??? “Thou shalt not bear FALSE witness against thy neighbor!”. God Bless, Memaw

 

[pocohombre]

I didn’t make myself clear on this. What I meant was that the Donatists, being a schismatic/heretical church, still insisted it was Catholic. That is the similarity, not the heresy itself. Their arguments are your arguments.

Here’s a quote from the LCMS website on their STATEMENT OF DOCTRINAL POSITIONS page:

“As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18,*** have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome*** and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16);*** that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation*** – these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) ***Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” ***(Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)”

And as you can see from the statement above Pope Francis IS the VERY Anti-Christ according to your doctrinal statement.

Waiting for your stout denial

It is interesting that I think the first one to stamp anti- christ on a professed head bishop claimant is a pope himself ( was it Gregory 5-6th century, against eastern patriarch ?)

 

[JonNC]

I didn’t make myself clear on this. What I meant was that the Donatists, being a schismatic/heretical church, still insisted it was Catholic. That is the similarity, not the heresy itself. Their arguments are your arguments.

Here’s a quote from the LCMS website on their STATEMENT OF DOCTRINAL POSITIONS page:

“As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18,*** have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome*** and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16);*** that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation*** – these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) ***Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” ***(Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)”

And as you can see from the statement above Pope Francis IS the VERY Anti-Christ according to your doctrinal statement.

Waiting for your stout denial

No denial is forthcoming, but again you are trying to put your spin on it. Also from the LCMS website.

Connection between the antichrist and the pope
Q: As a Methodist living in a new town, I have found a local LCMS church where I feel comfortable and fed. Seeking information, I have looked over your pages on the net and have developed some questions. The connection between the antichrist and pope are unclear to me. Do you believe the pope is the only enemy?

A: The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod’s Theological Commission:
The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5,23-24; Mark 13:6,21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ’s Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.
However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ” (Dan. 7:8,11, 20-21, 24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . . Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions’ identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of
the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves.
We do not presume to judge any person’s heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.
In a footnote, the Commission adds:
To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine “that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified,” the judgment of the Lutheran confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds.
At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.
Usage: We urge you to contact an LCMS pastor in your area for more in-depth discussion.
Published by: LCMS Church Information Center
©The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
1333 S. Kirkwood Road, St. Louis, MO 63122-7295
888-843-5267 • infocenter@lcms.org • www.lcms.org/faqs

EDIT: I neglected to then clarify:

No. the papacy is anti (as in opposed to)-Christ. There is no obfuscation here. The belief, as outlined in the Treatise, spells it out. Pope Francis is NOT the Anti-Christ. Popes B XVI and JP II were/are not the Anti-Christ.

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

We have to hold in wonder and awe a church that on one hand says that the Papacy is THE VERY ANTICHRIST, and in the next breath say that it doesn’t apply to individual popes!

So then, Lutherans condemn an office but not the person. But how is an office the Anti-christ? Can an office be a person AND the Anti-christ? How very strange.

Catholics believe the Anti-christ is (or will be) a person. Even in the case of heretics, the heresy itself isn’t the Anti-christ, but rather the heretic who is a “type” of the Anti-christ.

 

[steve_b]

It is interesting that I think the first one to stamp anti- christ on a professed head bishop claimant is a pope himself ( was it Gregory 5-6th century, against eastern patriarch ?)

You didn’t come up with that accusation on your own.

It would have been real easy for you to check that for accuracy. Where did you get your version?
catholic.com/quickquestions/did-pope-gregory-the-great-say-that-anyone-who-claimed-the-title-universal-bishop-was

Gregory’s letter re: John the Faster
newadvent.org/cathen/08493a.htm

I hope you don’t continue to spread that lie, or you will be guilty of bearing false witness against another

 

[JonNC]

We have to hold in wonder and awe a church that on one hand says that the Papacy is THE VERY ANTICHRIST, and in the next breath say that it doesn’t apply to individual popes!

So then, Lutherans condemn an office but not the person. But how is an office the Anti-christ? Can an office be a person AND the Anti-christ? How very strange.

Catholics believe the Anti-christ is (or will be) a person. Even in the case of heretics, the heresy itself isn’t the Anti-christ, but rather the heretic who is a “type” of the Anti-christ.

A diiference between us. We tend to speak of teaching or practice as heresy, not a person.

Jon