If Luther were alive today, would he be Catholic?

[LutheranScholar]

Hi!
…for a second there I thought I had confused your responses with that of someone else (you truly sounded as if you were abrogating Christ’s Love and Unity, for a second)… then you went into your blind support of a cleric gone wild and espoused the Church with the de Vince code (hatred and myth); it seems that your terminologies for Love and Christian Unity truly laps up Lutheran skewness to the bone.

Please forgive my rudeness for continuing in this circle.

May the Holy Spirit Guide you.

Maran atha!

Angel

Please pardon my viciousness. Like yourself, I take my faith very seriously and when I feel it’s being questioned or even attacked, I will respond in kind. I do apologize for letting that carry me as far as I did.

 

[jcrichton]

No Lutheran has ever called “the Catholic Church” the anti-Christ, as we believe it to be a part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church - even if it may promote some heterodoxies from our perspective. What we do consider to be anti-to-Christ are some of the powers claimed by the office of the papacy. While the Orthodox may not use the same language, some have used similar reasoning. That’s not to say the charge of anti-Christ isn’t serious; it certainly is! But it is not some end-of-the-world-rapture-nuttiness that many conflate with the term. To a Lutheran, any leader within the church who acts contrary to Christ is acting in a spirit of anti-Christ.

…so it’s not a question of culture but of perception…

Personally, I have encountered “Christians” (can’t recall the various denominations, including non-denominational) that have, flatly, to my face, stated that the Pope (they don’t care which–all are inclusive) is the anti-Christ; this of course makes the Church anti-Christian by default.

Some of the expressions here, other than snobbish, were understood in the same vein.

Conversely, while I refer to Luther as a failure in keeping the Mystical Body Unified, I do not use a blanket statement to mean that all non-Catholic Christians are as he.

Yet, once the exchange has been engaged, when such terminologies arise, I cannot but continue to note the continuous derogatory theme that accompanies the arguments.

What you perceive as anti-Christian because it is associated with the Papacy can be said of your own branch of Believers—where the Catholic Church has one Pope, non-Catholics produce them by the hundreds if not thousands as each branch/sect divests itself of the old by reinventing a new (1st Baptist, 2nd… Lutheran, Adventist, x, y, xy, z, etc.). Still, I would not venture to call you anti-Christians.

Luther, to me, is a sore who broke from the Church and became the catalyst for hundreds of years of rebellion and thousands upon thousands of splinters of the Mystical Body of Christ. I am not claiming that the Church Teaches that. I am confessing my understanding of the Lutheran (the man) revolt.

In my part, if you feel I’ve derided you or your belief, I apologize.

I cannot change my mind about Luther. But know that in my heart I do not fault you (nor other non-Catholic Christians) because of how I feel about him.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[LutheranScholar]

You clearly showed your motives in that last sentence. Now you know how we feel. Call what my brothers say polemic. It is still truth.

I apologize for the language I used in defending my faith, but for defending my faith, I do not apologize. Luther was no saint and in fact, he wrote things later in life that today’s most Confessional Lutheran would deem deplorable, but he also raised a lot of valid points, at least from the vantage point of a Lutheran looking back to the times and circumstances of 499 years ago. Putting Jesus at the center, keeping the sacraments and the Christian calendar, while putting the work of God’s grace through faith alone ( love is based on that faith and good works flow from that love, so of course works are a necessary manifestation of that faith) is an emphasis that Confessional Lutheran Churches have that strike a positive note in my own soul.

God doesn’t want anybody to be damned, but people, through their own obstinate lack of repentance and their trust in what they do ( be it ever so cloaked in one’s inborn, sinful nature… Lutherans take Original Sin quite seriously indeed) would damn themselves apart from God’s grace. That is why infant baptism is so utterly necessary, you see. To grow in grace, baptism has to happen first, although occasionally people have experienced grace prior to baptism, when they hear the Word preached. Baptism makes it so much easier, though.

Absolution is just as necessary to the life of faith as Baptism and Holy Communion, although some would simply consider Absolution an extension of the grace given in one’s baptism. There are two parts of Repentance: Contrition and Faith that one’s sins have been forgiven in Jesus’ Name. Satisfaction was offered by Jesus at the Cross, we maintain, so there is Contrition and faith. Of course, the endgame for that is repentance, where the Holy Spirit works grace through one to turn one’s life around to the greater glory of God.

These are the topics I was rather hoping to discuss, but unfortunately, I got a little sidetracked and while I will not say that I was completely unprovoked, I should have met those other issues in the spirit of Christian fellowship and charity. I’m as much a sinner as anybody ( oh, please. More so) and I own that. Grace and peace be with you.

 

[Peter_J]

These are the topics I was rather hoping to discuss,

Do you see those topics as focuses of the dialogues? (I’m not trying to set you up with that question – yes, really – I’m just asking. )

 

[rcwitness]

These are the topics I was rather hoping to discuss, but unfortunately, I got a little sidetracked and while I will not say that I was completely unprovoked, I should have met those other issues in the spirit of Christian fellowship and charity. I’m as much a sinner as anybody ( oh, please. More so) and I own that. Grace and peace be with you.

I was trying to recognize this with Fr Don Ruggero, that the issues kinda have to be “opened up”. I realize he is very conscientious about keeping our dialogue “in the context” of the current efforts of our respective leadership. And he does well to remind us about this!

As individuals, we should also have the privilege to express and defend our understanding of the specific matters that are subjects of division between us. Sometimes I may express or articulate something inaccurate, and so I need help from my fellow Catholic and Non-Catholics alike.

Also, it takes a little effort to remember that one thread can’t suffice to address all the issues. That’s why I am glad you want to stay here in the forum. It takes time and many threads to get a good sense of each other. And even though we may not come to agreement on everything, we can learn to appreciate one another’s perspective. The issues you have shared about deserve great attention. And I, for one, hope to reassure you that nothing in the Catholic faith is anti-Christ.

For example, I wish Lutherans would approach the Catholic doctrine of Faith and Works in the same manner they receive St Jame’s Scripture! That’s all. The Catechism clearly recognizes the grace necessary to know Jesus and freely receive justification apart from any work. She merely professes what the Scriptures reveal, that faith that saves is inseparable from the works it produces.

 

[anon67074017]

I don’t doubt you could have a protracted debate with Lutherans on whether that is true or not. But I think what’s important for purposes of this thread is: if he were alive today, would he interpret the bible differently than he actually did?

I do not think that Luther would interpret the Bible differently today.

 

[jcrichton]

I apologize for the language I used in defending my faith, but for defending my faith, I do not apologize. Luther was no saint and in fact, he wrote things later in life that today’s most Confessional Lutheran would deem deplorable, but he also raised a lot of valid points, at least from the vantage point of a Lutheran looking back to the times and circumstances of 499 years ago. Putting Jesus at the center, keeping the sacraments and the Christian calendar, while putting the work of God’s grace through faith alone ( love is based on that faith and good works flow from that love, so of course works are a necessary manifestation of that faith) is an emphasis that Confessional Lutheran Churches have that strike a positive note in my own soul.

God doesn’t want anybody to be damned, but people, through their own obstinate lack of repentance and their trust in what they do ( be it ever so cloaked in one’s inborn, sinful nature… Lutherans take Original Sin quite seriously indeed) would damn themselves apart from God’s grace. That is why infant baptism is so utterly necessary, you see. To grow in grace, baptism has to happen first, although occasionally people have experienced grace prior to baptism, when they hear the Word preached. Baptism makes it so much easier, though.

Absolution is just as necessary to the life of faith as Baptism and Holy Communion, although some would simply consider Absolution an extension of the grace given in one’s baptism. There are two parts of Repentance: Contrition and Faith that one’s sins have been forgiven in Jesus’ Name. Satisfaction was offered by Jesus at the Cross, we maintain, so there is Contrition and faith. Of course, the endgame for that is repentance, where the Holy Spirit works grace through one to turn one’s life around to the greater glory of God.

These are the topics I was rather hoping to discuss, but unfortunately, I got a little sidetracked and while I will not say that I was completely unprovoked, I should have met those other issues in the spirit of Christian fellowship and charity. I’m as much a sinner as anybody ( oh, please. More so) and I own that. Grace and peace be with you.

Hi!
…this seems to be more of a dialogue than our previous (beginning posts); this is my concern for seeking to know the past… you’ve written so much Catholic Doctrine than you may not have even realized… including the Salvation Grace of Baptism and the realization that the Holy Spirit can Give Grace even in the absence of Baptism (as attested by Scriptures); but, rather than pronounce it as a law/tenet we are to emulate Apostolic Tradition and continue to Bring the Faithful to the Fold through Baptism, since it is through Baptism that we are Sealed in the Holy Spirit.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[FollowChrist34]

Just a few things I want to say:

As a Catholic, I have a very deep respect for the confessional Lutheran Churches. I think they are the closest Protestant denomination to Catholicism: shared creed, doctrine, Eucharist, Real Presence. I put them up there with the Orthodox and traditional Anglicanism. As far as comments on this thread, I would say I have more sympathy and empathy with the Lutheran side than the comments coming from many of my Catholic “brothers and sisters.”

I earlier talked about going through a stage of 16 century polemics, where Catholic and Protestant Christians work out core issues of their faith in terms of the conflicts of the past. One hopes the next stage is the part where they work out how to live and engage with one another in mutually respectful, even loving, dialogue and unity as members of the body of Christ. The “separated brethren” part.

The one sad thing about confessional Lutheranism (which I have considered joining), is that by its nature, it is trapped in 16th century polemics. It is a product of history - the Pope defined as the anti-Christ. This comes from the origins of the Lutheran Church at the height of the conflict - and truth be told, in general terms, by which I mean the whole conflict taken in its entirety, I think Luther had the better side of the argument and was wronged. The Reformation was tragic, but also allowed by God for the good of the Church. But where does this leave the confessional Lutherans today? Post Vatican II? Today’s Catholic Popes are not the Popes of the 16th century. The state of Christianity is so different for both Churches. Yet, by definition confessional Lutherans are still locked in combat with the 16th century Catholic Church. They claim to be the true reformed Catholic Church.

What to do now? Frankly, it would drive me up the wall were I a confessional Lutheran - I am not saying they should come back to the RCC. Right or wrong, I like having different branches of Christianity because I think they keep us honest - I don’t trust the Church in this world to ever get it right 100% of the time. If truth is temporarily thwarted one place, it springs forth elsewhere, then nourishes and opens the original block. But the Lutherans do need to evolve past their original definition somehow and come to terms with the present - have a Vatican II. And I think in practice they have for the most part. Again, they are one of the very few authentic Christian Churches at least to my mind - pure creed, doctrine, Real Presence. Much of the anti-Christ talk on the books is merely technical now, and often a source of embarrassment.

Perhaps this is as good as it will get: Catholics and Lutherans are sisters and brothers in Christ, separated by history, the past, theology. Get over it and live with one another, in today’s Church, not dismissing our past, but not polemicizing about it 24/7. I feel like I am watching real decent people on this thread passionately attack one another for stuff that happened 500 years ago. Really tear each other apart, inflict wounds. Absolutely nothing comes from it but pain. Is there deeper understanding, empathy? I don’t see it.

As for Catholics who choose to carry on this spat, I have no words, I really don’t. I don’t mean to offend anyone but it is beyond me just what the hell this kind of vitriol is supposed to achieve. It is an embarrassment. I can’t even read some of these posts through for shame, sadness.

Last point: At least the Lutherans have decent theology thanks to Luther - I always thought the Anglican Henry VIII ‘get me a divorce damn it’ foundation was somehow lacking in heroism, inspiration, authenticity - I love that Luther worked from his core, soul - what he genuinely believed was truth. And what a brain; the man is a genius and there is much of God’s truth (and love) in his work. Maybe this fight goes on just because we can have such substantive, fascinating debates…

Just my opinion, carry on. Peace to all…

 

[rcwitness]

Hi!
…this seems to be more of a dialogue than our previous (beginning posts); this is my concern for seeking to know the past… you’ve written so much Catholic Doctrine than you may not have even realized… including the Salvation Grace of Baptism and the realization that the Holy Spirit can Give Grace even in the absence of Baptism (as attested by Scriptures); but, rather than pronounce it as a law/tenet we are to emulate Apostolic Tradition and continue to Bring the Faithful to the Fold through Baptism, since it is through Baptism that we are Sealed in the Holy Spirit.

Maran atha!

Angel

Yes. Even Paul was commanded to go to the Church to receive Baptism and the Holy Spirit.

He (St Paul) stresses how he received divine revelation through Christ directly, and did not consult “flesh and blood” to know the gospel:

I did not confer with flesh and blood,**nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me.

But he was sent directly to receive Baptism/Confirmation/Holy Spirit and be healed to a Deacon.

"Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him.**And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”

Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Anani′as. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Anani′as.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.”*And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying,*and he has seen a man named Anani′as come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.”

And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.’11And when I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus.

12*“And one Anani′as, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there,13came to me, and standing by me said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And in that very hour I received my sight and saw him.14*And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Just One and to hear a voice from his mouth;15for you will be a witness for him to all men of what you have seen and heard.16And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Paul was convincing the Galatians that he was a genuine Apostle, but not that he did not submit to the Church, and receive instruction for his ministry. He also received affirmation by Peter that the Godpel was acceptable to the Church.

 

[GKC]

Just a few things I want to say:

As a Catholic, I have a very deep respect for the confessional Lutheran Churches. I think they are the closest Protestant denomination to Catholicism: shared creed, doctrine, Eucharist, Real Presence. I put them up there with the Orthodox and traditional Anglicanism. As far as comments on this thread, I would say I have more sympathy and empathy with the Lutheran side than the comments coming from many of my Catholic “brothers and sisters.”

I earlier talked about going through a stage of 16 century polemics, where Catholic and Protestant Christians work out core issues of their faith in terms of the conflicts of the past. One hopes the next stage is the part where they work out how to live and engage with one another in mutually respectful, even loving, dialogue and unity as members of the body of Christ. The “separated brethren” part.

The one sad thing about confessional Lutheranism (which I have considered joining), is that by its nature, it is trapped in 16th century polemics. It is a product of history - the Pope defined as the anti-Christ. This comes from the origins of the Lutheran Church at the height of the conflict - and truth be told, in general terms, by which I mean the whole conflict taken in its entirety, I think Luther had the better side of the argument and was wronged. The Reformation was tragic, but also allowed by God for the good of the Church. But where does this leave the confessional Lutherans today? Post Vatican II? Today’s Catholic Popes are not the Popes of the 16th century. The state of Christianity is so different for both Churches. Yet, by definition confessional Lutherans are still locked in combat with the 16th century Catholic Church. They claim to be the true reformed Catholic Church.

What to do now? Frankly, it would drive me up the wall were I a confessional Lutheran - I am not saying they should come back to the RCC. Right or wrong, I like having different branches of Christianity because I think they keep us honest - I don’t trust the Church in this world to ever get it right 100% of the time. If truth is temporarily thwarted one place, it springs forth elsewhere, then nourishes and opens the original block. But the Lutherans do need to evolve past their original definition somehow and come to terms with the present - have a Vatican II. And I think in practice they have for the most part. Again, they are one of the very few authentic Christian Churches at least to my mind - pure creed, doctrine, Real Presence. Much of the anti-Christ talk on the books is merely technical now, and often a source of embarrassment.

Perhaps this is as good as it will get: Catholics and Lutherans are sisters and brothers in Christ, separated by history, the past, theology. Get over it and live with one another, in today’s Church, not dismissing our past, but not polemicizing about it 24/7. I feel like I am watching real decent people on this thread passionately attack one another for stuff that happened 500 years ago. Really tear each other apart, inflict wounds. Absolutely nothing comes from it but pain. Is there deeper understanding, empathy? I don’t see it.

As for Catholics who choose to carry on this spat, I have no words, I really don’t. I don’t mean to offend anyone but it is beyond me just what the hell this kind of vitriol is supposed to achieve. It is an embarrassment. I can’t even read some of these posts through for shame, sadness.

Last point: At least the Lutherans have decent theology thanks to Luther - I always thought the Anglican Henry VIII ‘get me a divorce damn it’ foundation was somehow lacking in heroism, inspiration, authenticity - I love that Luther worked from his core, soul - what he genuinely believed was truth. And what a brain; the man is a genius and there is much of God’s truth (and love) in his work. Maybe this fight goes on just because we can have such substantive, fascinating debates…

Just my opinion, carry on. Peace to all…

Decree of nullity.

 

[LutheranScholar]

Do you see those topics as focuses of the dialogues? (I’m not trying to set you up with that question – yes, really – I’m just asking. )

I think they could be. Focusing on what unites us as Christians might be both more positive and productive than drawing the lines on those things that separate us into Lutherans and Catholics. A method of personal meditation that I use is what we call the Lutheran Rosary, where we will use the Jesus Prayer or the pre- Tridentine Hail Mary as the ten repetitive prayers as we contemplate the Joyful, Sorrowful, Luminous and Glorious Mysteries ( five Mysteries apiece). I am not sure how popular a method this actually is in the LCMS, but it is used, and when used properly, it is a great aid on meditating on those wondrous events in the life of Jesus. I can testify to its inspirational and reverential power. We Lutherans also refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Holy Mother of God. I am sure there are other things we share in common.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Decree of nullity.

Ah, really?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Just a few things I want to say:

As a Catholic, I have a very deep respect for the confessional Lutheran Churches. I think they are the closest Protestant denomination to Catholicism: shared creed, doctrine, Eucharist, Real Presence. I put them up there with the Orthodox and traditional Anglicanism. As far as comments on this thread, I would say I have more sympathy and empathy with the Lutheran side than the comments coming from many of my Catholic “brothers and sisters.”

I earlier talked about going through a stage of 16 century polemics, where Catholic and Protestant Christians work out core issues of their faith in terms of the conflicts of the past. One hopes the next stage is the part where they work out how to live and engage with one another in mutually respectful, even loving, dialogue and unity as members of the body of Christ. The “separated brethren” part.

The one sad thing about confessional Lutheranism (which I have considered joining), is that by its nature, it is trapped in 16th century polemics. It is a product of history - the Pope defined as the anti-Christ. This comes from the origins of the Lutheran Church at the height of the conflict - and truth be told, in general terms, by which I mean the whole conflict taken in its entirety, I think Luther had the better side of the argument and was wronged. The Reformation was tragic, but also allowed by God for the good of the Church. But where does this leave the confessional Lutherans today? Post Vatican II? Today’s Catholic Popes are not the Popes of the 16th century. The state of Christianity is so different for both Churches. Yet, by definition confessional Lutherans are still locked in combat with the 16th century Catholic Church. They claim to be the true reformed Catholic Church.

What to do now? Frankly, it would drive me up the wall were I a confessional Lutheran - I am not saying they should come back to the RCC. Right or wrong, I like having different branches of Christianity because I think they keep us honest - I don’t trust the Church in this world to ever get it right 100% of the time. If truth is temporarily thwarted one place, it springs forth elsewhere, then nourishes and opens the original block. But the Lutherans do need to evolve past their original definition somehow and come to terms with the present - have a Vatican II. And I think in practice they have for the most part. Again, they are one of the very few authentic Christian Churches at least to my mind - pure creed, doctrine, Real Presence. Much of the anti-Christ talk on the books is merely technical now, and often a source of embarrassment.

Perhaps this is as good as it will get: Catholics and Lutherans are sisters and brothers in Christ, separated by history, the past, theology. Get over it and live with one another, in today’s Church, not dismissing our past, but not polemicizing about it 24/7. I feel like I am watching real decent people on this thread passionately attack one another for stuff that happened 500 years ago. Really tear each other apart, inflict wounds. Absolutely nothing comes from it but pain. Is there deeper understanding, empathy? I don’t see it.

As for Catholics who choose to carry on this spat, I have no words, I really don’t. I don’t mean to offend anyone but it is beyond me just what the hell this kind of vitriol is supposed to achieve. It is an embarrassment. I can’t even read some of these posts through for shame, sadness.

Last point: At least the Lutherans have decent theology thanks to Luther - I always thought the Anglican Henry VIII ‘get me a divorce damn it’ foundation was somehow lacking in heroism, inspiration, authenticity - I love that Luther worked from his core, soul - what he genuinely believed was truth. And what a brain; the man is a genius and there is much of God’s truth (and love) in his work. Maybe this fight goes on just because we can have such substantive, fascinating debates…

Just my opinion, carry on. Peace to all…

Not sure Henry VIII was an Anglican exactly.

 

[GKC]

Ah, really?

I’ve seen it so said, yes.

 

[rcwitness]

Yes. Even Paul was commanded to go to the Church to receive Baptism and the Holy Spirit.

He (St Paul) stresses how he received divine revelation through Christ directly, and did not consult “flesh and blood” to know the gospel:

I did not confer with flesh and blood,**nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me.

But he was sent directly to receive Baptism/Confirmation/Holy Spirit and be healed to a** Deacon.**

Oops… I meant disciple/Apostle/prophet Ananais.

 

[LutheranScholar]

Just a few things I want to say:

As a Catholic, I have a very deep respect for the confessional Lutheran Churches. I think they are the closest Protestant denomination to Catholicism: shared creed, doctrine, Eucharist, Real Presence. I put them up there with the Orthodox and traditional Anglicanism. As far as comments on this thread, I would say I have more sympathy and empathy with the Lutheran side than the comments coming from many of my Catholic “brothers and sisters.”

I earlier talked about going through a stage of 16 century polemics, where Catholic and Protestant Christians work out core issues of their faith in terms of the conflicts of the past. One hopes the next stage is the part where they work out how to live and engage with one another in mutually respectful, even loving, dialogue and unity as members of the body of Christ. The “separated brethren” part.

The one sad thing about confessional Lutheranism (which I have considered joining), is that by its nature, it is trapped in 16th century polemics. It is a product of history - the Pope defined as the anti-Christ. This comes from the origins of the Lutheran Church at the height of the conflict - and truth be told, in general terms, by which I mean the whole conflict taken in its entirety, I think Luther had the better side of the argument and was wronged. The Reformation was tragic, but also allowed by God for the good of the Church. But where does this leave the confessional Lutherans today? Post Vatican II? Today’s Catholic Popes are not the Popes of the 16th century. The state of Christianity is so different for both Churches. Yet, by definition confessional Lutherans are still locked in combat with the 16th century Catholic Church. They claim to be the true reformed Catholic Church.

Perhaps this is as good as it will get: Catholics and Lutherans are sisters and brothers in Christ, separated by history, the past, theology. Get over it and live with one another, in today’s Church, not dismissing our past, but not polemicizing about it 24/7. I feel like I am watching real decent people on this thread passionately attack one another for stuff that happened 500 years ago. Really tear each other apart, inflict wounds. Absolutely nothing comes from it but pain. Is there deeper understanding, empathy? I don’t see it.

Last point: At least the Lutherans have decent theology thanks to Luther - I always thought the Anglican Henry VIII ‘get me a divorce damn it’ foundation was somehow lacking in heroism, inspiration, authenticity - I love that Luther worked from his core, soul - what he genuinely believed was truth. And what a brain; the man is a genius and there is much of God’s truth (and love) in his work. Maybe this fight goes on just because we can have such substantive, fascinating debates…

Just my opinion, carry on. Peace to all…

What ought we to do now? The answer is crystal clear: preach the Law and Gospel, correctly administer the Holy Sacraments, do our part to fulfil the Great Commission and lead God- pleasing lives! Right now, there are Christians worldwide who exist under threat of extermination by the forces of radical Islam while Western secularism threatens to undermine the Christian Faith at home. We are better off loving the Lord our God with all our minds, hearts and strength and loving our neighbors as ourselves than spewing bile at people who ( at heart) are fellow believers. Again, when my faith is challenged, I’ll try diplomacy, but when that fails, I will have my " eye for an eye." As a polemicist, I can get very nasty, as you have seen.

I wrote before that Luther wrote some intemperate things later in life, not only about the Pope and the Catholic bishops, but about the peasants, the Jews, the Reformed, the Anabaptists and the Muslim Turks as well. These writings are very embarrassing, but they reflect the views of an older gentleman who had been embroiled in conflict for most of his life. Lutheranism is a rather poor choice of name for us, although we do follow Luther’s teachings, we look to the Scriptures and our Confessions, which have not only been written by Luther, but also by his companions and followers of the first couple of generations after the Reformation. C.F.W. Walther, who with his friends organized what would become the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod, himself wrote a series of sermons and lectures that have been collected in a tome known as Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible, which also presents some good insights regarding the Christianity of his day in the German and American landscapes. His writings are pretty addictive.

I am grateful for the chance to read and learn from many of the posters here who offer their perspectives from the Lutheran, Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian and Methodist camps. It helps me to learn more about the traditions of those who really share a common Faith: one that puts Christ in the Center.

 

[jcrichton]

Just a few things I want to say:

As a Catholic, I have a very deep respect for the confessional Lutheran Churches. I think they are the closest Protestant denomination to Catholicism: shared creed, doctrine, Eucharist, Real Presence. I put them up there with the Orthodox and traditional Anglicanism. As far as comments on this thread, I would say I have more sympathy and empathy with the Lutheran side than the comments coming from many of my Catholic “brothers and sisters.”

I earlier talked about going through a stage of 16 century polemics, where Catholic and Protestant Christians work out core issues of their faith in terms of the conflicts of the past. One hopes the next stage is the part where they work out how to live and engage with one another in mutually respectful, even loving, dialogue and unity as members of the body of Christ. The “separated brethren” part.

The one sad thing about confessional Lutheranism (which I have considered joining), is that by its nature, it is trapped in 16th century polemics. It is a product of history - the Pope defined as the anti-Christ. This comes from the origins of the Lutheran Church at the height of the conflict - and truth be told, in general terms, by which I mean the whole conflict taken in its entirety, I think Luther had the better side of the argument and was wronged. The Reformation was tragic, but also allowed by God for the good of the Church. But where does this leave the confessional Lutherans today? Post Vatican II? Today’s Catholic Popes are not the Popes of the 16th century. The state of Christianity is so different for both Churches. Yet, by definition confessional Lutherans are still locked in combat with the 16th century Catholic Church. They claim to be the true reformed Catholic Church.

What to do now? Frankly, it would drive me up the wall were I a confessional Lutheran - I am not saying they should come back to the RCC. Right or wrong, I like having different branches of Christianity because I think they keep us honest - I don’t trust the Church in this world to ever get it right 100% of the time. If truth is temporarily thwarted one place, it springs forth elsewhere, then nourishes and opens the original block. But the Lutherans do need to evolve past their original definition somehow and come to terms with the present - have a Vatican II. And I think in practice they have for the most part. Again, they are one of the very few authentic Christian Churches at least to my mind - pure creed, doctrine, Real Presence. Much of the anti-Christ talk on the books is merely technical now, and often a source of embarrassment.

Perhaps this is as good as it will get: Catholics and Lutherans are sisters and brothers in Christ, separated by history, the past, theology. Get over it and live with one another, in today’s Church, not dismissing our past, but not polemicizing about it 24/7. I feel like I am watching real decent people on this thread passionately attack one another for stuff that happened 500 years ago. Really tear each other apart, inflict wounds. Absolutely nothing comes from it but pain. Is there deeper understanding, empathy? I don’t see it.

As for Catholics who choose to carry on this spat, I have no words, I really don’t. I don’t mean to offend anyone but it is beyond me just what the hell this kind of vitriol is supposed to achieve. It is an embarrassment. I can’t even read some of these posts through for shame, sadness.

Last point: At least the Lutherans have decent theology thanks to Luther - I always thought the Anglican Henry VIII ‘get me a divorce damn it’ foundation was somehow lacking in heroism, inspiration, authenticity - I love that Luther worked from his core, soul - what he genuinely believed was truth. And what a brain; the man is a genius and there is much of God’s truth (and love) in his work. Maybe this fight goes on just because we can have such substantive, fascinating debates…

Just my opinion, carry on. Peace to all…

I guess it is true… Catholics should be ashamed of themselves… they are so easy to criticize the Church and to circumvent her Teachings… I mean, most converts to other religions only confess finding Christ while on the other side (greener grass syndrome)… but Luther got the worst part of it… is that Catholic apologetics?

…distrust is not an empty gong (sound); in the US Catholicism was the only religion that was banned and oppressed through the people and their government as laws were enacted against Catholics… throughout the world Catholics have been killed for the crime of being Catholics–some of it happened in the early 20th century in several parts of the world…

Loving those that kill does not automatically correct their behavior… if we do not actually seek to Unify the Body of Christ (even if rehashing the past hurts) no amount of “ecumenism” will cure what ills it.

Christ Call to Be One is not in name sake or appearance; there’s that pesky “Love one another,” part that cannot be feigned!

While the Cristeros were being suppressed and killed in Mexico (early nineteen hundreds) two opponents became one (at least of one mind) as both White supremacists and the US government supported the Mexican government against an ill equipped and trained peasant force whose most heinous crime was to hold the Mass (Eucharist) as Sacred, called for social justice, carried devotionals, icons, and Crucifixes… oh yeah, and that bad bad thing called Celebrating Mass.

If evil can unite, why can’t those who call themselves “true” Christians Unite in Christ?

That’s what you, and all “Christians” should be really ashamed of.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[FollowChrist34]

What ought we to do now? The answer is crystal clear: preach the Law and Gospel, correctly administer the Holy Sacraments, do our part to fulfil the Great Commission and lead God- pleasing lives! Right now, there are Christians worldwide who exist under threat of extermination by the forces of radical Islam while Western secularism threatens to undermine the Christian Faith at home. We are better off loving the Lord our God with all our minds, hearts and strength and loving our neighbors as ourselves than spewing bile at people who ( at heart) are fellow believers. Again, when my faith is challenged, I’ll try diplomacy, but when that fails, I will have my " eye for an eye." As a polemicist, I can get very nasty, as you have seen.

I wrote before that Luther wrote some intemperate things later in life, not only about the Pope and the Catholic bishops, but about the peasants, the Jews, the Reformed, the Anabaptists and the Muslim Turks as well. These writings are very embarrassing, but they reflect the views of an older gentleman who had been embroiled in conflict for most of his life. Lutheranism is a rather poor choice of name for us, although we do follow Luther’s teachings, we look to the Scriptures and our Confessions, which have not only been written by Luther, but also by his companions and followers of the first couple of generations after the Reformation. C.F.W. Walther, who with his friends organized what would become the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod, himself wrote a series of sermons and lectures that have been collected in a tome known as Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible, which also presents some good insights regarding the Christianity of his day in the German and American landscapes. His writings are pretty addictive.

I am grateful for the chance to read and learn from many of the posters here who offer their perspectives from the Lutheran, Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian and Methodist camps. It helps me to learn more about the traditions of those who really share a common Faith: one that puts Christ in the Center.

Yes, I really enjoy (civil) discussion with people from different faiths - it can be very illuminating, but sadly I think too often CAF deteriorates into eye for an eye - even when nothing has happened to the first eye, if you catch my drift…but again there are plenty of good interesting posts as well among the briars and thorns. (on a good thread anyway)

As for Luther and the Jews, yes, the first time I read any of that I think my hair actually stood on end. Wow. Wow. Wow. I do tend to go too easy on ole Luther. I know it. I guess I am just trying to restore a happy medium, what with the nonstop bashing going all around on these threads. So much of Luther’s work is very inspiring and I read him (selectively - about a third of his work) right when I was realizing I was a Christian from atheism, coming back to the Church, so it really made an impact in a positive way. I got over the Jewish stuff - the Lutherans have completely disowned it on record and also much of the 16th century Christian culture in Europe talked like that about Jews. (Shakespeare’s Shylock for example) Anti-Semitism unfortunately has a prominent, extensive history in Europe. Almost a sort of cultural norm. I think Luther is just very intense and articulate in his writing so it really knocks you out when he starts in on the Jewish people - plus we look through the WWII / Nazis lens at it today. Last point, Catholics have smeared Luther in a lot of unfair ways too, no doubt. Horrible stuff. Mentally ill, etc. We both have our share of uncharitable attacks in this dispute - that was kind of my main point. I think it is more productive if we see each other primarily as fellow Christians in a pretty anti Christian world these days, same creed, same doctrine, shared history, Augustinian heritage. Best use of our time. My sense from your post is you agree with that.

 

[jcrichton]

Yes. Even Paul was commanded to go to the Church to receive Baptism and the Holy Spirit.

He (St Paul) stresses how he received divine revelation through Christ directly, and did not consult “flesh and blood” to know the gospel:

I did not confer with flesh and blood,**nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me.

But he was sent directly to receive Baptism/Confirmation/Holy Spirit and be healed to a Deacon.

"Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him.**And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”

Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Anani′as. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Anani′as.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.”*And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying,*and he has seen a man named Anani′as come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.”

And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.’11And when I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus.

12*“And one Anani′as, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there,13came to me, and standing by me said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And in that very hour I received my sight and saw him.14*And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Just One and to hear a voice from his mouth;15for you will be a witness for him to all men of what you have seen and heard.16And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Paul was convincing the Galatians that he was a genuine Apostle, but not that he did not submit to the Church, and receive instruction for his ministry. He also received affirmation by Peter that the Godpel was acceptable to the Church.

Hi!
…this is one of my favorite confessions (St. Paul’s); here is a man Saul who is bent on fixing what is not broken… Jesus appears to him and Claims the Church as His Body–you, sir, are persecuting Me! Must have been quite an ordeal for St. Paul… yet, he humbled himself to Christ and while he was given the same Revelation as those who knew the Lord through His Ministry, he did not let it go to his head and humbled himself to the Church.

…which brings me to my second most favorite confession from St. Paul–he states that he does not boast about that man who was given the vision and found himself in heaven… rather, he boasts about Christ, and He, Crucified!

Christ’s Revelation took full roots in St. Paul!–what meager confessions I possess… :crying::crying::crying:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Ah, really?

Hi!


…I do not know if you meant it to use it as such… but your screen name got me lol!

Maran atha!

Angel