W
WilT
Guest
AtDawn;12349771… said:
- Status
T
Tomster
Guest
Your really should review Melancthon’s grievous agonies when he foresaw the dreadful consequences of the overthrow of Church authority, his declaration that he adheres to the Confession of Augsburg while at the same time he thinks of reforming it, his uncertainties proceeding from the constitution of the Protestant Churches, how he passed his whole life without ever daring to explain his doctrine entirely because he was tyrannized by Luther and how he believed that the authority of the Church was absolutely necessary in matters of faith and how he wished to acknowledge the bishops, whom succession had established, and saw no other remedy for the evils of the Church.
T
Tomster
Guest
Really, Jon, you should know better. It’s obvious you don’t. The Bishop of Rome assigns jurisdiction to a validly and licitly ordained bishop. In Lutheranism different Lutheran Synods believe different things and the bishops of those different Lutheran Synods reflect those varying beliefs. The result, no unity of belief between the contending Lutheran Synods.
K
KjetilK
Guest
AND LUTHERANISM IS NOT A CHURCH!!!
It is an ecclesial tradition. To see what your argument amounts to, just change ‘Lutheranism’ to ‘Byzantinianism,’ and ‘Lutheran’ to ‘Byzantine.’
T
Tomster
Guest
I attribute my pugnacious attitude to this topic to the grace I received when I was confirmed in the Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, over fifty years ago. Error is error and it must be shown for what it is. The Holy Spirit gave me the grace and He expects me to exercise that grace and do something with it. For me to do as you suggest would be not only wrong but uncharitable. :knight2:
Only to those who recognize his authority to do so. There are numerous bishops who do not rely on the Bishop of Rome for this (some of them Byzantine), as their jurisdiction is different from his. they do not need his assignment. In the same way, my synod does not need an assignment from the Bishop of Rome, or the Presiding Bishop of the ELCA.
You seem to have missed Father K’s entire point.
Jon
T
Tomster
Guest
Granted, Lutheranism is not a church! And I am glad you emphasized that fact. See 1 Timothy 3:15. It is interesting that you missed this passage since the Bible is your sole rule of faith.
By an ineffable mystery Christ found a way to incorporate in Himself the men who answer His call. He instituted the Church as a Mystical Body, which is a doctrine to be believed, of which Christ is the Head and the faithful His members. The Church is a social organism, with a visible hierarchic structure and a spiritual vitality, nourished by Christ through the sacraments. The life of the Church springs from Christ the Redeemer and is guarded and regulated by the bishop of Rome, successor of St.Peter, constituted by the Lord as the foundation stone of His Church and its supreme pastor. This marvelous Mystical Body, synthesis of all God’s works, rich in the light of truth and inexhaustible lifeblood of supernatural life, is open to all men of good will. The soul enters it, meets with Christ, purifies itself in Him, is transformed, treads firmly with Him the return road to the heart of God from whom it came into being at the moment of its creation.
These are the principle treatises that constitute the solid organism of dogmatic theology. This sacred science is like an itinerary, which scans the pace of infinite Wisdom and Love toward Its creature and the pace of the creature, who has found the way again the way of salvation, the way that leads to His Father’s house. God, Thought and Love, who contemplates Himself in the Word, His Son, and loves Himself in His Spirit, wishes a being outside of Himself to whom to communicate His perfections, His love, His life: hence the work of creation, in which man, made in the image and likeness of God and enriched by grace and other privileges, dominates. Man falls miserably into guilt and remains under the weight of sin and of the divine malediction for centuries. Eternal Love does not tolerate so much ruin and, bending over His wayward creature, He becomes one with it by taking on His flesh; hence the Incarnation of the Word and the Redemption, which reopens the roads to heaven. And the Word inserts Itself and rests in the breast of humanity to save it; thus we have the Church with its infallible teaching body, with her graces and sacraments, sources of supernatural life. The Church is the marriage between God and man, as it were, the prolongation of the Incarnation in which Christ continues His redeeming work made up of suffering and love, living in every soul which, through the struggles and tribulations of the present life, yearns for the light and peace of life eternal.
A true romance: romance or drama made up of truth and living reality, in which man, in contact with Christ, redeems himself with from guilt, liberates himself from evil, recaptures his true being, and moves on to the conquest of God, his beginning and his necessary end.
Man’s ingenuity cannot account for this. The Church has remained one, holy, catholic and apostolic - not through man’s effort, but because God preserves the Church He established (Matthew 16:18, 28:20).
He guided the Israelites on their escape from Egypt by giving them a pillar of fire to light their way across the dark wilderness (Exodus 13:21). Today He guides us through His Catholic Church.
The Bible, sacred Tradition, and the writings of the earliest Christians testify that the Church teaches with Jesus’ authority. In this age of countless competing religions, each clamoring for attention, one voice rises above the din: the Catholic Church, which the Bible calls the “the pillar and foundation of truth”.
Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, “He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). Jesus promised to guide His Church unto all truth (John 16:12-23). We can have confidence that His Church teaches the truth of Christ.
:tiphat:
K
KjetilK
Guest
Man, it’s like talking to a brick wall! Byzantinianism is not a Church either. Why is that not a problem?
W
WilT
Guest
Let it rest 
The topic should be about why we as Catholics can find it hard to see a woman in priest garb. Let this be the subject
The topic should be about why we as Catholics can find it hard to see a woman in priest garb. Let this be the subject
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
This is a very good point. But I think it also speaks to the consequences of a lack of a final, centralized authority. God knows how we are, and established Peter as a sign of unity.
W
WilT
Guest
A
AtDawn
Guest
Oh, I notice now that you are the original poster blush so you’re the one who really can define the topic of the thread, I guess…
G
guanophore
Guest
I think I have to agree with Tomster on this point. It appears that the situation is self-refuting.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Well, Tomster doesn’t seem to understand my point at all.
My point is that disunity between particular churches within the same ecclesial tradition doesn’t necessarily reflect a problem with said ecclesial tradition as such. If it did, it would be equally true for any ecclesial tradition where there are churches out of communion with each other. Which would then mean that, say, Byzantinianism is problematic because the Russian Church (the Moscow Patriarchate) is out of communion with the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.
And if disunity between different Lutheran churches proves that Lutheran churches are improperly called churches, then disunity between Byzantine churches proves that Byzantine churches are improperly called churches too. Which, of course, means that the Melkite Greek Catholic Church is improperly called a Church.
And I highly doubt that Tomster thinks that a uniate Church, in communion with Rome, is imporoperly called a Church. But that is the logical outcome of his arguments.
My point is that focusing on Lutheranism as such is as futile as focusing on Byzantinianism as such. What we need to do, however, is to take each Church on its own terms. Just because some American Lutherans might lack proper orders, it doesn’t automatically mean that, say, the Church of Norway does.
T
Tomster
Guest
The focus here is on Lutheranism and its divisions. As I stated much earlier, there are those Byzantines, so called uniat, who are in communion with the See of Rome, One Church, get it! Those Byzantines who did not return to the See of Rome are not in communion with the Holy Father. Get it!
As you stated earlier, emphatically I might add, that you are a part of some sort of nebulous, unbiblical, on-going community, whatever that may be and not part of the Church.
It is obvious that you have failed to address my last post regarding the true nature of the Church and your failure to address 1 Timothy 3:15. What did St. Paul mean when he told Timothy that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth? Please, your interpretation of that verse.
In conclusion, any exposition of the Catholic Church must at the last paraphrase the celebrated sentence of Webster in his reply to Hayne: The Church - there she stands! The Church is an existential reality that does not fit into any genus or species. Catholicity is the religion of the whole, a religion in perfect accord with man in all his variety as well as his unity. Catholicity alone perfectly explains man to himself. It has always had its irrefutable answer to all attacks made upon it. Its claims can be obscured only by an appeal to what is not true or is misunderstood, or is at least irrelevant.
The Church survives the civilizations that she informs, though each of these earthly cities that succeed each other one by one find in her the source of their strength.
This singular fact that lies across all history will never perish, but will never attain here below an absolute and definitive triumph. From the beginning it has been, and until the end it will be militant and opposed. It will never exhaust the work of testimony and evangelization that has been confided to it.
It is as simple and as unfathomable as God speaking!
K
KjetilK
Guest
Yes, I know that the Byzantines who didn’t return to the See of Rome is out of communion with the Holy Father. That has been my point all along. You haven’t understood a word I have been saying.
These churches, let us call them ‘non-roman Byzantines,’ are valid Churches, out of communion with Rome, and with other churches of their tradition. The tradition in question is Byzantinianism.
My point is that you cannot, and I repeat, CANNOT, say that Lutheranism is bad because not all Lutheran churches are in communion, unless you also say that, say, Byzantinianism is bad because not all Byzantine churches are in communion (and by ‘in communion’ I mean ‘in communion with other Byzantine churches’).
The question here is one of validity, not liceity. You keep conflating the two. The Russian Church, Moscow Patriarchate, is a valid Church. It is Byzantine. The Melkite Greek Catholic Church is also a valid Church. That, too, is Byzantine. Yet these two churches are not in communion with each other. We therefore have to conclude that ‘being in communion with other churches of one’s tradition’ is not needed for validity. You therefore cannot say that, say, the LCMS is invalid because it isn’t in communion with the ELCA. If you did, you would also HAVE TO say that the Melkite Greek Catholic Church is an invalid Church, because it isn’t in communion with the Russian Church, Moscow Patriarchate.
P
pablope
Guest
Okay…here is a difference I see.
The Greek OC, as an example, can trace their authority to exist from one of the Apostles…just as the Russian OC was organized/founded, with authority from one of the Apostolic Churches, and it was granted as a patriarchate as such by one of the Apostolic churches. Same with the Byzantine Rite.
So where does the LCMS, or any Lutheran ecclesial tradition, trace its authority to exist from one of the Apostolic Churches?
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
I think that’s a different argument. ISTM that Tomster is saying Lutheranism is false because there is division between churches that call themselves Lutheran.
But he’s not applying this standard to other ecclesical bodies that are supposedly apostolic, yet also have division.
If division proves one false, then it also proves both false.
K
KjetilK
Guest
First, I used the LCMS as an example. I do not have all the details. The Church of Norway, of which I’m part, did loose apostolic succession, but regained it through the Church of England, who had regained it through Old Catholic bishops.
Second, your point is entirely different then the one Tomster has tried (and failed) to make. Tomster’s argument is basically this:
*]Not all Lutheran churches are in communion with all Lutheran churches.
*]Therefore, Lutheran churches aren’t proper churches.
The hidden premise here is this: In order to be a proper church, you need (amongst other things) to be in communion with other churches of your tradition. Now this creates problems for him, because he cannot apply one set of logic on Lutheranism, and another set of logic on other traditions. Let’s take two examples:
Example 1: Byzantinianism.
*]Not all Byzantine churches are in communion with all Lutheran churches.
*]In order to be a proper church, you need (amongst other things) to be in communion with other churches of your tradition.
*]Therefore, Byzantine churches aren’t proper churches.
This would mean that the Melkite Greek Catholic Church is an invalid Church. That is what logic demands.
Example 2: Anglican.
*]Not all Anglican churches are in communion with all Anglican churches.
*]In order to be a proper church, you need (amongst other things) to be in communion with other churches of your tradition.
*]Therefore, Anglican churches aren’t proper churches.
This would mean that the Ordinariate erected by Pope Benedict is invalid. That is what logic demands.
My point is that Tomster keeps ignoring the logical outcomes of his own arguments. Logic doesn’t change when applied to the Roman Catholic Church.
If he doesn’t want to admit to that, he needs to change his argument.
BINGO!
- Status