If Luther were alive today, would he be Catholic?

[Lenten_ashes]

The Catholics and the Lutherans might find that they have more in common than otherwise, but with that said, I have to give you an honest dissertation on what the LCMS considers the office of the papacy to be. It’s like somebody from a closed Communion church having to explain to somebody from an open communion church why they’re not allowed to partake. To copy and paste would take too many bytes, but here’s a link: issuesetcarchive.org/issues_site/resource/archives/papacy.htm. The marks of the Anti- Christ are these:
X. The Marks of the Antichrist, according to Luther and Melanchthon

(see Treatise on Power and Primacy of the Pope, 39-40 [KW, 337]):

• #1 - Rules over the church and establishes earthly dominion on the basis of doctrine of church and ministry, esp. Matthew 16:19, “The Keys.”
• #2 - Doctrine contradicts the Gospel at numerous points.
• #3 - Claims the right to alter Jesus’ teaching and worship.
• #4 - Claims to bind and loose in this life and the next.
• #5 - Not willing to be judged by anyone, including councils of the church.
• #6 - Defends errors with the greatest savagery, killing dissenters.
• As noted before, #6 no longer applies. #1 applies regarding church rule, but not regarding earthly rule.
• #5 still does apply, in spite of the appearance of conciliar authority at Vatican II. Pope Paul VI made some critical changes to documents of Vatican II before it was completed, which means he still claimed final authority. #1-4 still apply, therefore the papacy still bears some of the marks of the antichrist, per Lutheran doctrine.

Anyone can come up with false doctrine and be declared a heretic. That alone does not make an “antichrist.” The word “Christ” means an “anointed prince,” i.e., a lord. Jesus is Lord and has universal and complete Lordship over his church through His Word. **Therefore any religious leader in the church who claims or exercises “lordship” over the church stands in danger of bearing the marks of an “antichrist,” because his claims or exercise of authority are in competition with Jesus. **This is a problem not limited to Roman Catholicism.

I bolded that line in the last paragraph for emphasis. Indeed, the papcy is not the only office that make certain claims that would define them as " Anti- Christ." Anybody who heads up a church claiming divinely bestowed authority for himself sets himself up for that.

Thanks for taking the time to reply! Now that i fully understand their position of course i vehemently object lol.

I did attend a LCMS church for about 6 months a few years back. Never heard any anti-catholic rhetoric at their functions so i would not have guessed such a position was held. So my next question is does the common church goer really know the LCMS official stance on such matters? And are you allowed differences of opinions?

I didn’t become a member; just talked to the pastor and was subsequently allowed communion there.

Thanks again for your time.

 

[LutheranScholar]

Thanks for taking the time to reply! Now that i fully understand their position of course i vehemently object lol.

I did attend a LCMS church for about 6 months a few years back. Never heard any anti-catholic rhetoric at their functions so i would not have guessed such a position was held. So my next question is does the common church goer really know the LCMS official stance on such matters? And are you allowed differences of opinions?

I didn’t become a member; just talked to the pastor and was subsequently allowed communion there.

Thanks again for your time.

Awesome question ( and not just because I’m taking a break from typing out minutes from the last Church Council Meeting )! Sure, we’re allowed differences of opinions and there is no inquisitor there to give us pop quizzes on doctrine, but if we’re going to take any kind of official position in the Church ( like a Council Secretary or a Sunday School teacher), we have to promise that we will strictly adhere to the Confessions. The conservatives are more likely to be found among the clergy and officials of the LCMS, while the laity are all over the road theologically. Right hand lane of a left hand turn sometimes, maybe, but it’s still pretty conservative. We’re not only allowed differences of opinion as lay people, but we vociferously exercise that right in robust debate. For example, many of the churchgoers think it’s a stupid and self- serving move to get rid of the Lay Ministry and replace it with properly ordained ministers, but the whole " Lay Ministry" thing was regarded as a necessary aberration when it was implemented. A Lay Minister exercises all the functions of a pastor ( except for consecrating the Host for Communion), but he isn’t actually ordained. By 2018, this aberration will no longer exist ( I voted for Pastor Harrison as LCMS president, by the way and I was pleased that he won the election) and ordained, practicing pastors will be performing their office. I think that adherence to the Book of Concord should be as close to absolute as possible and that collection of documents state that nobody will exercise the ministry without a proper call.
? - Confession - Confutation - Defense

Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.

*Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called. *bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article14 It’s straight out of the Augsburg Confession and really easy to understand, isn’t it? You would think so.

 

[rcwitness]

X. The Marks of the Antichrist, according to Luther and Melanchthon

(see Treatise on Power and Primacy of the Pope, 39-40 [KW, 337]):

#1 - Rules over the church and establishes earthly dominion on the basis of doctrine of church and ministry, esp. Matthew 16:19, “The Keys.”

 

[LutheranScholar]

All right, one more copy/ paste, then I get back to work on those minutes.
*8] I. Luke 22:25. Christ expressly prohibits lordship among the apostles [that no apostle should have any supremacy over the rest]. For this was the very question, namely, that when Christ spake of His passion, they were disputing who should be at the head, and as it were the vicar of the absent Christ. There Christ reproves this error of the apostles and teaches that there shall not be lordship or superiority among them, but that the apostles should be sent forth as equals to the common ministry of the Gospel. Accordingly, He says: The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors, but ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. The antithesis here shows [By holding these matters against one another, one sees] that lordship [among the apostles] is disapproved.

II. Matt. 18:2. The same is taught by the parable when Christ in the same dispute concerning the kingdom*** places a little child in the midst, signifying that among ministers there is not to be sovereignty, just as a child neither takes nor seeks sovereignty for himself.***

9] III. John 20:21. Christ sends forth His disciples on an equality, without any distinction [so that no one of them was to have more or less power than any other], when He says: As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. [These words are clear and plain:] He says that He sends them individually in the same manner as He Himself was sent; hence He grants to no one a prerogative or lordship above the rest.

10] IV. Gal. 2:7f St. Paul manifestly affirms that he was neither ordained nor confirmed [and endorsed] by Peter, nor does he acknowledge Peter to be one from whom confirmation should be sought.** And he expressly contends concerning this point that his call does not depend upon the authority of Peter. But he ought to have acknowledged Peter as a superior if Peter was superior by divine right [if Peter, indeed, had received such supremacy from Christ]. Paul accordingly says that he had at once preached the Gospel [freely for a long time] without consulting Peter.** Also: Of those who seemed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man’s person). And: They who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me. Since Paul, then, clearly testifies that he did not even wish to seek for the confirmation of Peter [for permission to preach] even when he had come to him, he teaches that the authority of the ministry depends upon the Word of God, and that Peter was not superior to the other apostles, and that it was not from this one individual Peter that ordination or confirmation was to be sought [that the office of the ministry proceeds from the general call of the apostles, and that it is not necessary for all to have the call or confirmation of this one person, Peter, alone].

11] V. In 1 Cor. 3:6, Paul makes ministers equal, and teaches that the Church is above the ministers. Hence superiority or lordship over the Church or the rest of the ministers is not ascribed to Peter [in preference to other apostles]. For he says thus: All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, i.e., let neither the other ministers nor Peter assume for themselves lordship or superiority over the Church; let them not burden the Church with traditions; let not the authority of any avail more than the Word [of God]; let not the authority of Cephas be opposed to the authority of the other apostles, as they reasoned at that time: “Cephas, who is an apostle of higher rank, observes this; therefore, both Paul and the rest ought to observe this.” Paul removes this pretext from Peter, and denies [Not so, says Paul, and makes Peter doff his little hat, namely, the claim] that his authority is to be preferred to the rest or to the Church.*bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

Well, I asked for it.I wanted to stand as a champion for Confessional Lutheranism and here I am getting called out on it. It’s perfectly just. Back to work for me now, though.

 

[LutheranScholar]

I’m unsubscribing. This last post made me extremely uncomfortable and I didn’t come here to " prove Lutheranism’s superiority," I came to try to talk about those things we share in common. " Do Catholics do this?" " Wow! Lutherans do that, too!" That sort of thing. Proselytizing is forbidden and I don’t want to talk anyone out of their faith, knowing how dearly I hold my own, nor do I want to provoke anybody to break that rule on proselytization, on either the Catholic or the Protestant side. Pax Christi Vobiscum.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Had I known the LCMS church i attended held such a anti-Catholic position, I wouldn’t have attended even once, tbh. Because even though i wasn’t in total agreement with Rome on some issues like Papal authority I understood that they had a scriptural and historical basis to do so. I knew how Luther felt about the Pope but did not know this sentiment followed throughout the ages.

Lutheran scholar, i hope you wont unsubscribe as i asked a few questions and you answered, you weren’t in here breaking any rules imo.

Have a great night.

 

[rcwitness]

All right, one more copy/ paste, then I get back to work on those minutes.
8] I. Luke 22:25. Christ expressly prohibits lordship among the apostlesYes, He prohibits “Lordship” and for “benefit”. Let’s look at the passage:
A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves.
“You are those who have continued with me in my trials; as my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Jesus is Teaching what true greatness is. It is to serve, and to serve is why He is appointing them. He speaks of “the leader among you”. He does not intend to diminish Peter’s role, but describe the duty of a leader. He then addresses Peter in the next verse:

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”And he said to him, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” He said, “I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me.”
Haydocks commentary:
Ver. 32.That thy faith fail not. The faith of Peter, established by the coming of the Holy Ghost, hath never failed, nor can fail, being built upon a rock, which is Christ himself, and being guided by the spirit of truth, as Christ promised. (John xv. 26. and xvi. 13.) — And thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren, even all the other apostles and bishops, over whom I have made and constituted thee and thy successors the chief head, that such a head being appointed by divine authority, all occasions of schisms and divisions might cease, says St. Jerome. (Witham) — Admire the superabundance of the divine patience. That the disciple might not lose courage, he promised him pardon before he has committed the crime, and restores him again to his apostolic dignity, saying,confirm thy brethren. (St. Cyril)

9] III. John 20:21. Christ sends forth His disciples on an equality, without any distinction [so that no one of them was to have more or less power than any other]

 

[MaryT777]

Lutheran Scholar:

Stick around. We may be as different as Catholic and Lutherans but we are as similar as two believing Christians!~

We post to gain a better understanding of the Faith of each other so here’s cheers towards
a better understanding!~
:tiphat:

Mary.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I wish to go on record, as a Catholic Priest who is a theologian and was part of the dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics for decades until my retirement, that there are no words to express my abject horror sentiments expressed by certain posters on this thread who have presented themselves as Catholic but with statements attacking those with whom we are one in Christ…who are baptised into Christ and belong to Him with us. This is anything but reflective of the mind of the Holy See

Let us be clear:

Unitatis Redintegratio, of Vatican II, expresses our current mind on Christian unity. It’s opening sentence: The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council

It continues
*The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation*
The Church of Rome proclaimed Martin Luther Witness of Jesus Christ and Witness to the Gospel. We did this already in 1983, on the 500th anniversary of his birth

Pope St. John Paul wrote in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint
42. It happens for example that, in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, Christians of one confession no longer consider other Christians as enemies or strangers but see them as brothers and sisters. Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and “Christians of other Communities”. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as “Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church”. This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ. /…/ The “universal brotherhood” of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction. Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past
Pope Benedict XVI, in pilgrimage to the place so centrally associated with Martin Luther during his apostolic visit to Germany in 2008, expressed himself: w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2011/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20110923_evangelical-church-erfurt.html

I remind all Catholics on October 31, Pope Francis will inaugurate in Sweden a joint commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. This is to observed UNIVERSALLY

Vatican Radio describes this
*The one-day event will include a common worship service in Lund cathedral based on a Catholic-Lutheran “Common Prayer” liturgical guide, published earlier this month by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) and the Lutheran World Federation (LWF).

The commemoration in Lund follows on directly from the publication in 2013 of a joint document entitled ‘From Conflict to Communion’, which focuses on the themes of thanksgiving, repentance and commitment to common witness. While asking for forgiveness for the divisions of past centuries, it also seeks to showcase the gifts of the Reformation and celebrate the way Catholics and Lutherans around the world work together on issues of common concern*
Catholic Bishops in the United States and around the world will be holding services co-presided with their Lutheran Counterparts in commemoration of this event. The Catholic Bishops in the United States have decided the commemoration will go two years

Catholics who dare to pronounce a position on these matters that is not conformed to that of the Pope or of the responsible Vatican Dicastery is to be repudiated for want of fidelity and submission to the Holy See.

Catholics – and others – desiring to know the current thought are invited to read the following document from the Holy See

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/lutheran-fed-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html

and this document which has, under guidance of PCPCU, emerged from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/upload/Declaration_on_the_Way-for-Website.pdf

The document was accepted by ELCA. We see Bishop Madden, Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Baltimore, with the Presiding Bishop of ELCA holding the document

catholicsun.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/IMG_8775.jpg

The story of the accord’s acceptance

catholicphilly.com/2016/08/news/national-news/assembly-oks-document-marking-50-years-of-lutheran-catholic-dialogue/

 

[MaryT777]

Father,

I appreciate your post but the confessional Lutherans ,including the LCMS as in the Faith of Lutheran Scholar are as you know not part of the LWF. They did not sign the JDDJ and in fact the President of their Synod said it was a “GIANT” step back for Lutheranism.

Also, the LCMS is NOT participating in the Joint Commemoration of the Reformation.

That said, I think a few persons on this thread are simply sharing their feelings that the Pope or his office as Antichrist is something we reject.

I think lively discussion is appreciated on this forum and when the ever controversial issue of the AntiChrist is the Pope/his office is the Pope you can expect Catholics to respond to that in Biblical terms hopefully.

Peace Father.

Mary.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

There is the curious phenomenon on CAF of people who call themselves Catholic but are anything but that in charity and allegiance or conformity to recent papal outreach to Protestants. They rebel against Rome in order to condemn Protestants for rebellion. It is comic, almost, and really does destroy the credibility of Catholicism.

Theoretically this is the Catholic ANSWERS forum, and people can come here and see what Catholicism is all about, rather than some poster’s twisted opinion of something that he claims is Catholic. We should be seeing well educated Catholics expounding the Catholic faith. All too often there is personal opinion and garbage. Usually the personal opinion is that Protestants should not have personal opinions. Or these posters are adhering to an opinion of Luther that the Catholic Church rejected 50 years ago.

That is my personal opinion.

You have said it very well.

It may indeed be a “phenomenon” but it is a phenomenon to be unequivocally condemned.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father,

I appreciate your post but the confessional Lutherans ,including the LCMS as in the Faith of Lutheran Scholar are as you know not part of the LWF. They did not sign the JDDJ and in fact the President of their Synod said it was a “GIANT” step back for Lutheranism.

Also, the LCMS is NOT participating in the Joint Commemoration of the Reformation.

That said, I think a few persons on this thread are simply sharing their feelings that the Pope or his office as Antichrist is something we reject.

I think lively discussion is appreciated on this forum and when the ever controversial issue of the AntiChrist is the Pope/his office is the Pope you can expect Catholics to respond to that in Biblical terms hopefully.

Peace Father.

Mary.

I am very well aware of the positions that are held within Lutheranism.

The positions on the Lutheran side of the table are properly theirs. I have no comment to make in that regard…above all in this forum.

As a priest, I do, however, address those who are Catholics, reminding them of their obligation regarding their submission to the hierarchy. As the Holy See made clear in the dispositive norms promulgated in the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism:

4. The Directory is addressed to the Pastors of the Catholic Church, but it also concerns all the faithful, who are called to pray and work for the unity of Christians, under the direction of their Bishops. The Bishops, individually for their own dioceses, and collegially for the whole Church, are, under the authority of the Holy See, responsible for ecumenical policy and practice.

In other words, even individual lay Catholics MUST adhere to and articulate what the bishops teach in matters related to dialogue.

A Catholic forum based in the United States must be in total fidelity and submission to the bishops of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops…and, of course, to the Successor of Peter and to the Holy See.

The position of the Holy See and of the American Bishops is not what I was seeing reflected in certain posts to be found on this thread…and in so far as that occurs, such positions are to be denounced.

 

[JMM1957]

In other words, even individual lay Catholics MUST adhere to and articulate what the bishops teach in matters related to dialogue.

A Catholic forum based in the United States must be in total fidelity and submission to the bishops of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops…and, of course, to the Successor of Peter and to the Holy See.

The position of the Holy See and of the American Bishops is not what I was seeing reflected in certain posts to be found on this thread…and in so far as that occurs, such positions are to be denounced.

I often think about how bad it would be without the Holy See and the U.S. bishops. I have heard many Protestants say they wish there was more defined authority in their churches also.

 

[rcwitness]

I wish to go on record, as a Catholic Priest who is a theologian and was part of the dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics for decades until my retirement, that there are no words to express my abject horror sentiments expressed by certain posters on this thread who have presented themselves as Catholic but with statements attacking those with whom we are one in Christ…who are baptised into Christ and belong to Him with us. This is anything but reflective of the mind of the Holy See

The position of the Holy See and of the American Bishops is not what I was seeing reflected in certain posts to be found on this thread…and in so far as that occurs, such positions are to be denounced.

Hey Fr., it would help to distinguish which posts you are criticizing.

The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity…

The Church of Rome proclaimed Martin Luther Witness of Jesus Christ and Witness to the Gospel. We did this already in 1983, on the 500th anniversary of his birth

I know we have corresponded about this before. I do not have sentiments which are opposed to the Church of Rome. But I would like to know the context in which “the Church of Rome proclaimed Luther a Witness of Jesus Christ and the Gospel”. Does this mean that his excommunication was wrong? Does this mean that his Teachings about the office of the pope were a Witness to Jesus?

 

[LutheranScholar]

Lutheran Scholar:

Stick around. We may be as different as Catholic and Lutherans but we are as similar as two believing Christians!~

We post to gain a better understanding of the Faith of each other so here’s cheers towards
a better understanding!~
:tiphat:

Mary.

Good point, Mary. I’ve been reading these posts and maybe I invested a little more emotion into what I was saying than I should have. " How does the LCMS view the papacy?" " You all are not going to like this,*** but…***" I gave an honest answer to honest questions. We do share more in common than what separates us, though, Mary, you’re quite right. :tiphat:

 

[LutheranScholar]

Does this mean that his excommunication was wrong?

I know that this question was not addressed to me, but I would like to answer it, if I might. Martin Luther had a pretty intense response to his excommunication, which I’ll post here and say, for what it’s worth, today we Lutherans at the very least consider Martin Luther’s excommunication arbitrary and unfair.

*Martin Luther’s Reply to the Papal Bull of Leo X
Source: Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Hendrickson Classic, 1950)(pp. 153-155).

    I have heard that a bull against me has gone through the whole earth before it came to me, because being a daughter of darkness it feared the light of my face. For this reason and also because it condemns manifestly the Christian articles I had my doubts whether it really came from Rome and was not rather the progeny of that man of lies, dissimulation, errors, and heresy, that monster John Eck. The suspicion was further increased when it was said that Eck was the apostle of the bull. Indeed the sty1e and the spittle all point to Eck. True, it is not impossible that where Eck is the apostle there one should find the kingdom of Antichrist. Nevertheless in the meantime I will act as if I thought Leo not responsible, not that I may honor the Roman name, but because I do not consider myself worthy to suffer such high things for the truth of God. For who before God would be happier than Luther if he were condemned from so great and high a source for such manifest truth? But the cause seeks a worthier martyr. I with my sins merit other things. But whoever wrote this bull, he is Antichrist. I protest before God, our Lord Jesus, his sacred angels, and the whole world that with my whole heart I dissent from the damnation of this bull, that I curse and execrate it as sacrilege and blasphemy of Christ, God's Son and our Lord. This be my recantation, Oh bull, thou daughter of bulls.

Having given my testimony I proceed to take up the bull. Peter said that you should give a reason for the faith that is in you, but this bull condemns me from its own word without any proof from Scripture, whereas I back up all my assertions from the Bible. I ask thee, ignorant Antichrist, dost thou think that with thy naked words thou canst prevail against the armor of Scripture? Hast thou learned this from Cologne and Louvain? If this is all it takes, just to say, “I dissent, I deny," what foo1, what ***, what mole, what log could not condemn? Does not thy meretricious brow blush that with thine inane smoke thou withstandest the lightning of the divine Word? Why do we not believe the Turks? Why do we not admit the Jews? Why do we not honor the heretic if damning is all that it takes? But Luther, who is used to bellum, is not afraid of bullam . I can distinguish between inane paper and the omnipotent Word of God.

They show their ignorance and bad conscience by inventing the adverb "respectively.” My articles are called “respectively some heretical, some erroneous, some scandalous,” which is as much as to say, “We don’t know which are which.” 0h meticulous ignorance! I wish to be instructed, not respectively, but absolutely and certainly. I demand that they show absolutely, not respectively, distinctly and not confusedly, certainly and not probably, clearly and not obscurely, point by point and not in a lump, just what is heretical. Let them show where I am a heretic, or dry up their spittle. They say that some articles are heretical, some erroneous, some scandalous, some offensive. The implication is that those which are heretical are not erroneous, those which are erroneous are not scandalous, and those which are scandalous are not offensive. What then is this, to say that something is not heretica1, not scandalous, not false, but yet is offensive? So then, you impious and insensate papists, write soberly if you want to write. Whether this bull is by Eck or by the pope, it is the sum of all impiety, blasphemy, ignorance, impudence, hypocrisy, lying – in a word, it is Satan and his Antichrist.

     Where are you now, most excellent Charles the Emperor, kings, and Christian princes? You were baptized into the name of Christ, and can you suffer these Tartar voices of Antichrist? Where are you, bishops? Where, doctors? Where are you who confess Christ? Woe to all who live in these times.  The wrath of God is coming upon the papists, the enemies Of the cross of Christ, that all men should resist them. You then, Leo X, you cardinals and the rest of you at Rome, I tell you to your faces: "If this bull has come out in your name, then I will use the power which has been given me in baptism whereby I became a son of God and co-heir with Christ, established upon the rock against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. I call upon you to renounce your diabolical blasphemy and audacious impiety, and, if you will not, we shall all hold your seat as possessed and oppressed by Satan, the damned seat of Antichrist; in the name of Jesus Christ, whom you persecute. But my zea1 carries me away. I am not yet persuaded that the bull is by the pope but rather by that apostle of impiety, John Eck....

   If anyone despises my fraternal warning, I am free from his blood in the last judgment. It is better that I should die a thousand times than that I should retract one syllable of the condemned articles. And as they excommunicated me for the sacrilege of heresy, so I excommunicate them in the name of the sacred truth of God. Christ will judge whose excommunication will stand. Amen.

Martin Luther Trial Homepage * law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/luther/againstexecrablebull.html

I don’t think he and Johann Eck liked each other very much…

 

[rcwitness]

Good point, Mary. I’ve been reading these posts and maybe I invested a little more emotion into what I was saying than I should have. " How does the LCMS view the papacy?" " You all are not going to like this,*** but…***" I gave an honest answer to honest questions. We do share more in common than what separates us, though, Mary, you’re quite right. :tiphat:

“How does the LCMS view the papacy?”

I think if Jesus would have told Peter:
“Satan demanded to sift you… and you will deny me… but after you turn, the rest of you (apostles) strengthen Peter. I have prayed that all your faith will not fail!”

… this would be more “conciliar” than what he did pray for.

PS: Don’t feel bad for expressing the LCMS position. I think you are adjusting, like we all should, to express our communion’s interpretations and doctrine in good fellowship.

 

[MichaelP3]

Thanks for taking the time to reply! Now that i fully understand their position of course i vehemently object lol.

I did attend a LCMS church for about 6 months a few years back. Never heard any anti-catholic rhetoric at their functions so i would not have guessed such a position was held. So my next question is does the common church goer really know the LCMS official stance on such matters? And are you allowed differences of opinions?

I didn’t become a member; just talked to the pastor and was subsequently allowed communion there.

Thanks again for your time.

I can say something here. I attended a Calvinistic Church for the first 17 years of my life. In the 16th year I heard the term “Predestination” for the first time and finding that interesting found out the Church was considered Calvinistic although I never even heard of the guy. (No we don’t have statues of Calvin )

What I am trying to say, no everybody won’t know everything Because the Church won’t vehemently teach it. It is part of the history but not considered binding first of all, and secondly not considered important for salvation in any way. (What is in the Nicene Creed however have been taught throughout by years)

 

[LutheranScholar]

I can say something here. I attended a Calvinistic Church for the first 17 years of my life. In the 16th year I heard the term “Predestination” for the first time and finding that interesting found out the Church was considered Calvinistic although I never even heard of the guy.

What I am trying to say, no everybody won’t know everything Because the Church won’t vehemently teach it. It is part of the history but not considered binding first of all, and secondly not considered important for salvation in any way.

That’s true. When one goes to an LCMS Church, one will be fed with the Word and Sacraments ( Baptism, Absolution, Holy Communion), but one will not be quizzed on the particulars of the Lutheran Confession ( although you will be taught from the Small Catechism). I’m slightly atypical in that I take the Confessions far more seriously than an average LCMS layman and I’ve made it a point to include study of the Confessions as part of my daily devotions. None of that is required of a Lutheran layperson. I grew up in a moderate Southern Baptist Church ( before the fundamentalists took charge of the Southern Baptist Convention in the early 1990s) and the emphasis was on Bible study and certain Calvinistic concepts were taught ( TULIP was my favorite acronym). Trying to apply scientific principles to Bible Study was a bit of a turn off, though, and calling the Lord’s Supper a Memorial contradicted what was to me the obvious words of Jesus, which I thought we were supposed to adhere to. Tradition means something to me, now as much as it did back then. There was a decided lack of liturgy at that church that sort of signaled to me that I had somewhere else to be. I do credit my childhood church with being the place I was baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ and I also credit my Baptist upbringing for instilling in me a respect and regard for Holy Scriptures.

 

[Peter_J]

I can say something here. I attended a Calvinistic Church for the first 17 years of my life. In the 16th year I heard the term “Predestination” for the first time and finding that interesting found out the Church was considered Calvinistic although I never even heard of the guy. (No we don’t have statues of Calvin )

Interesting.

Growing up as a Catholic, I believe I spent a similar number of years not hearing about Leo X.