How Old is Your Church?

[pocohombre]

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

I will have to check it out Did not mean to accuse or lie.Believe it has been brought before here on CA,that pope gregory wrote a letter to a head bishop whom I believe was trying to say he was a head bishop or a universal bishop or something.I think Gregory used the word/term"anti-christ,or the spirit thereof.For sure it was a chastisement.Will double check again though.It would have been nice if you would have been more expilcit in just what is the true history.I meant no malice and in no way accused the pope of being anti-Christ if that is what you thought,

 

[steve_b]

I will have to check it out Did not mean to accuse or lie.Believe it has been brought before here on CA,that pope gregory wrote a letter to a head bishop whom I believe was trying to say he was a head bishop or a universal bishop or something.I think Gregory used the word/term"anti-christ,or the spirit thereof.For sure it was a chastisement.Will double check again though.**It would have been nice if you would have been more expilcit in just what is the true history.**I meant no malice and in no way accused the pope of being anti-Christ if that is what you thought,

You wrote

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 ?)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11182958&postcount=94

You accused Pope Gregory of calling the Eastern Patriarch the antichrist. Now you know that’s not what happened.

 

[gcnuss]

Late, as usual, but here are a few thoughts from another Lutheran.

I firmly believe that my church is not a 16th century innovation. As do all Lutherans, I take the history of the Church as my faith history. It is impossible to divide my understanding of our faith into pre- and post- 1517 sections. All that took place in the first sixteen centuries of the church is the foundation for what I believe, as confessed in the three ecumenical creeds and in the teachings of many of the early theologians of the church.

I do not believe for a minute that Luther had any intention of starting a new church. I am convinced that he would have preferred to remain within the Catholic Church but that became impossible when he was excommunicated.

Luther certainly did not want any movement named after him. The appellation “Lutheran” was applied to those who supported Luther by the papal bull “Decet Romanum” in which it was declared that they would henceforth be known as Lutherans. As sometimes happens, something that was meant to be a sign of shame was adopted by those “Lutherans” as a badge of honor.

I find it troubling that the separation between our traditions was at least as much political and economic (and I include ecclesiastical politics and economics equally with the secular politics and economics) as it was religious. The sixteenth century was a time of violent change, not all of which seemed to be under control. We do well to put away the polemics of that time and look upon each other with love and charity.

Finally, I hold my Catholic brothers and sisters in high esteem. I am impressed with your devotion to the Triune God and I am blessed to know you as brothers and sister in Christ.

 

[steve_b]

Late, as usual, but here are a few thoughts from another Lutheran.

I firmly believe that my church is not a 16th century innovation. As do all Lutherans, I take the history of the Church as my faith history. It is impossible to divide my understanding of our faith into pre- and post- 1517 sections. All that took place in the first sixteen centuries of the church is the foundation for what I believe, as confessed in the three ecumenical creeds and in the teachings of many of the early theologians of the church.

Luther was excommunicated from the Catholic Church. And he did nothing to correct that. All the Catholics who left the Church to follow him, formed Lutheranism. Since they are opposed to the Catholic Church, which 3 ecumenical creeds are you speaking of?
g:

I do not believe for a minute that Luther had any intention of starting a new church.

But that’s what he did. Personally I measure a person’s intention by what they freely do.
g:

I am convinced that he would have preferred to remain within the Catholic Church but that became impossible when he was excommunicated.

The ball was in his court after his excommunication, and he would NOT recant his errors. Therefore, he did nothing about his circumstances. His actions tell me what he preferred.
g:

Luther certainly did not want any movement named after him.

Why didn’t he stop it then? He could have.
g:

The appellation “Lutheran” was applied to those who supported Luther by the papal bull “Decet Romanum” in which it was declared that they would henceforth be known as Lutherans. As sometimes happens, something that was meant to be a sign of shame was adopted by those “Lutherans” as a badge of honor.

Exsurge Domine, Bull of Leo X, was 1st http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

Then came Decet Romanum Pontificem http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10decet.htm

III. Our purpose is that such men should rightfully be ranked with Martin and other accursed heretics and excommunicates, and that even as they have ranged themselves with the obstinacy in sinning of the said Martin, they shall likewise share his punishments and his name, by bearing with them everywhere the title “Lutheran” and the punishments it incurs.

Luther could have changed all this. But he didn’t. As far as the condemnation, that originally came from scripture. (see next section)
g:

I find it troubling that the separation between our traditions was at least as much political and economic (and I include ecclesiastical politics and economics equally with the secular politics and economics) as it was religious. The sixteenth century was a time of violent change, not all of which seemed to be under control. We do well to put away the polemics of that time and look upon each other with love and charity.

Division is division. Scripture condemns it. Romans 16:17-20 , and if one continues in division it won’t go well for them Galatians 5:19-21. That condemnation has no expiration date to it. Once someone knows their situation, they need to act on it.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

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

Jon

I think you should reread my post. I never said heresy was a person, I said a heretic was a person.

BTW, still waiting to hear how the LCMS can accuse an office (the Papacy) of being the Antichrist, rather than a person, as St. Paul says. Also, if a good Christian man is in the office of the Papacy (like Pope Francis) what are Lutherans to think? A good Christian can be functioning as the Antichrist merely because of his office? Also not Biblical.

 

[gcnuss]

The ball was in his court after his excommunication, and he would NOT recant his errors.

If Luther did not believe he was in error, why would he recant? Had I been in his shoes, with the might of the Church and the Holy Roman Empire arrayed against me, I would hope that I would have had the courage to follow my conscience.

 

[SPH1]

I will have to check it out Did not mean to accuse or lie.Believe it has been brought before here on CA,that pope gregory wrote a letter to a head bishop whom I believe was trying to say he was a head bishop or a universal bishop or something.I think Gregory used the word/term"anti-christ,or the spirit thereof.For sure it was a chastisement.Will double check again though.It would have been nice if you would have been more expilcit in just what is the true history.I meant no malice and in no way accused the pope of being anti-Christ if that is what you thought,

So, why didn’t you check it out before your above reply?

 

[Novocastrian]

Then came Decet Romanum Pontificem http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10decet.htm

III. Our purpose is that such men should rightfully be ranked with Martin and other accursed heretics and excommunicates, and that even as they have ranged themselves with the obstinacy in sinning of the said Martin, they shall likewise share his punishments and his name, by bearing with them everywhere the title “Lutheran” and the punishments it incurs.

I’m curious as to whether Decet Romanum Pontificem is still in force in the Catholic Church.

All the best,

N.

 

[Memaw]

If Luther did not believe he was in error, why would he recant? Had I been in his shoes, with the might of the Church and the Holy Roman Empire arrayed against me, I would hope that I would have had the courage to follow my conscience.

Maybe your conscience would be wrong, then would you follow it?? If he was excommunicated, he should have known he was wrong. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Novocastrian]

Maybe your conscience would be wrong, then would you follow it?? If he was excommunicated, he should have known he was wrong. God Bless, Memaw

Surely that depends on the manner and circumstances of the excommunication. If you were ‘excommunicated’ by someone you suspected of acting ultra vires, would you know that you were in the wrong?

 

[JonNC]

I think you should reread my post. I never said heresy was a person, I said a heretic was a person.

BTW, still waiting to hear how the LCMS can accuse an office (the Papacy) of being the Antichrist, rather than a person, as St. Paul says. Also, if a good Christian man is in the office of the Papacy (like Pope Francis) what are Lutherans to think? A good Christian can be functioning as the Antichrist merely because of his office? Also not Biblical.

again, it is the teaching that is in error. We are to think that, while teachings regarding the office he holds are in error, we also recognize that he believes them fully, and without any attempt to deceive the faithful. God’s grace is greater than our errors.

Jon

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Maybe your conscience would be wrong, then would you follow it?? If he was excommunicated, he should have known he was wrong. God Bless, Memaw

This is not meant in a harsh tone. If he (Luther, that is) was so wrong, what was the need for the Counter Reformation?

I’m not saying Luther was totally correct, but even the RCC realized the need for reform following his departure.

It is encouraging when RC’s are frank enough to acknowledge the need.

 

[steve_b]

I’m curious as to whether Decet Romanum Pontificem is still in force in the Catholic Church.

All the best,

N.

Just thinking outloud, Is there anything in that document that you see, that looks like it has changed regarding this issue?

 

[JimG]

This is not meant in a harsh tone. If he (Luther, that is) was so wrong, what was the need for the Counter Reformation?

I’m not saying Luther was totally correct, but even the RCC realized the need for reform following his departure.

It is encouraging when RC’s are frank enough to acknowledge the need.

No doubt there was need for reform. The way to reform the Church is to reform it, not to start a competing institution with different doctrines.

That’s how many of the religious orders got started. Their founders wished to reform the Church, and they did.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

No doubt there was need for reform. The way to reform the Church is to reform it, not to start a competing institution with different doctrines.

That’s how many of the religious orders got started. Their founders wished to reform the Church, and they did.

You’re right. But as has been stated, the 95 Thesis were really a means of debate and discussion, not a threat. That said, if he were to be analyzed today, I’m sure he would be considered to have a diagnosable mental condition.

I’m not saying he was totally right, but he did have valid points which pushed against the power structure of the time.

 

[pocohombre]

So, why didn’t you check it out before your above reply?

Cause of Time.Anyways. I stand corrected. I had the pope right, I had eastern patriarch right and the time and I believe the occasion right (unless you want to quibble of “universal vs’ head” bishop). Where I stand corrected is the “stamping” of anti-Christ to the patriarch. Gregory did not .He “stamped” the title of head/universal bishop that the patriarch was given/took as a forerunner to the anti-Christ. Thank you for the correction.I know one can even quibble with this, but it is off topic and much has been written and debated over this thru the centuries.Sorry and thanks again.

 

[Novocastrian]

Just thinking outloud, Is there anything in that document that you see, that looks like it has changed regarding this issue?

I find it hard to imagine that the Roman Church still claims the right, power or jurisdiction to deny the right of Lutherans to own property!

 

[AmbroseSJ]

again, it is the teaching that is in error. We are to think that, while teachings regarding the office he holds are in error, we also recognize that he believes them fully, and without any attempt to deceive the faithful. God’s grace is greater than our errors.

Jon

What you seem to be saying is that the teachings regarding the office are in error, and so it is the “teachings” that are the Antichrist??

Is everyone who hold erroneous teachings the Antichrist?? Or just the Pope?

Oh wait, it’s the teaching that is the Antichrist, right? Or is it only the teaching on the Papacy that is the Antichrist? So NO PERSON is the Antichrist, right?

I thought the Papacy was the Antichrist? That’s not a teaching, its an office.

Can any Lutheran explain in understandable English exactly who or what is their Antichrist?

I thought the LCMS made it pretty clear that the Papacy (the Pope) was the Antichrist.

 

[gcnuss]

Maybe your conscience would be wrong, then would you follow it?? If he was excommunicated, he should have known he was wrong. God Bless, Memaw

If one believes he is right, it is not likely that one will have reason to believe that his conscience is in error. The mere fact of excommunication would not necessarily lead one to give up what he believes is right. We might see Luther as continuing in the tradition of the early Christians who would not give up their faith even when the Jewish and Roman authorities proclaimed them to be wrong.

God’s blessings to you, also.

 

[Memaw]

Surely that depends on the manner and circumstances of the excommunication. If you were ‘excommunicated’ by someone you suspected of acting ultra vires, would you know that you were in the wrong?

Believe me, being a Catholic Priest, Martin Luther knew just what it meant!! God Bless, Memaw