If Luther were alive today, would he be Catholic?

[Wannano]

Was there splintering or a great divide? Jews who believed in Jesus went to the Church. Christians who revolted against the Church went in many directions.

Hi rc, I was hoping that my comment would be understood in the context of how one feels and perceives things when a family member or friend leaves a common viewpoint of faith for another.

 

[LutheranScholar]

Was there splintering or a great divide? Jews who believed in Jesus went to the Church. Christians who revolted against the Church went in many directions.

The important thing though ( in my eyes, at least) is that they remained Christians. I’ll give you an analogy from my own family, starting with my mother’s side. My maternal grandmother, the daughter of a Catholic mother and a Baptist father was raised Catholic and married a man who was raised as a Presbyterian. Later on in life, they began attending a Baptist Church and both their daughters were baptized as Baptists and remain Baptists to this day, my mother a progressive and my aunt a conservative. My father’s parents were both raised Methodist, but fell out of faith later on in life. My Dad’s family is comprised of two nonobservant Catholics ( my father’s older brother married a Polish American woman whose family worked the mines of West Virginia), one of his daughters is a liberal Presbyterian. Dad’s younger brother was an unbeliever and his children follow his example.
My Dad himself is as I mentioned above and I am Lutheran, while my sister is a Baptist.
I don’t say that there aren’t serious disagreements that pop up over theology from time to time, but what we do agree on is our common Christianity ( those of us who believe). That’s why I say so forcefully that regardless of affiliation, Jesus Christ really is our Lord and Savior, regardless of the name on the church buildings of our various communions. one family, many Christian varieties. If my daughter’s life leads her to choose a church different than what she’s being raised in, after a couple of " what abouts," I’ll probably accept her choice as her choice and feel none the worse about it.

 

[LutheranScholar]

You have Catholicism to thank for you degrading it on this forum. We started hospitals way before Protestants got into the business. You have us to thank for genetics. St Jude’s. Medicine. Protestantism has a history of being racist to certain groups.

I don’t respond negatively unless I feel my faith is under attack. You’ve been smugly downing my faith and that of every other Protestant ever since this discussion started. You’ve well earned your spot on my ignore list.

 

[rcwitness]

You’ve been reading Protestant doctored history too long.

Just saying that Luther and other reformers had immediate support and sympathy for his complaints. This was already in the hearts of believers. They were already separated in heart from various things in the Church. Luther merely gave them a place to Commune while expressing those sentiments.

That is one of my biggest grievances over the Reformation. Namely, a Eucharistic meal, outside the Catholic Church.

 

[Peter_J]

An analogy could be “the boil had been festering and slowly coming to a head when Luther lanced it?”

I think you’re being a trifle too optimistic vis a vis how we Cs view Luther.

I don’t wish to suggest an alternate analogy, but it would have it be something that’s a mixture of good and bad, not lancing the boil.

 

[Peter_J]

None taken! It is ironic, though, that you would look at me,

I was afraid that you had just come out of the shower or something, which would have made me rather rude.

But I don’t know about “ironic” … I’ll admit to “somewhat arbitrary”, inasmuch as I realize that there are numerous other Lutheran, or exLutheran, posters who seem to make a career out of finding really really anti-Protestant posts and partnering up with the authors of said posts, which inevitably leads to a back and forth that is extremely long and … not my cup of tea (to put it in a PC way).

 

[MichaelP3]

I don’t respond negatively unless I feel my faith is under attack. You’ve been smugly downing my faith and that of every other Protestant ever since this discussion started. You’ve well earned your spot on my ignore list.

I know the feeling! Had a few of those myself.

 

[LutheranScholar]

I was afraid that you had just come out of the shower or something, which would have made me rather rude.

But I don’t know about “ironic” … I’ll admit to “somewhat arbitrary”, inasmuch as I realize that there are numerous other Lutheran, or exLutheran, posters who seem to make a career out of finding really really anti-Protestant posts and partnering up with the authors of said posts, which inevitably leads to a back and forth that is extremely long and … not my cup of tea (to put it in a PC way).

Peter J, to you I’ll apologize for my part in an extremely off- topic back and forth with somebody who I should have ( in all charity) simply ignored. I’d call it more of an online duel or feud than " partnership," though. I greatly enjoyed the dialogue I’ve had with you, RC Witness, Mary and the other Catholics who came here in good faith for a conversation. As soon as I saw the one- liners, I should have just said my adieux to those particular posters and continued the conversation with the people who actually wanted to address the issue ( which has rather gone beyond the WWLDT? What Would Luther Do Today?) rather than respond to those who insert snide comments about the other faith traditions that are represented on this part of your forum. I do regret entertaining those who would stir up conflict and stirring the pot at warp speed myself.

 

[Truthstalker]

Peter J, to you I’ll apologize for my part in an extremely off- topic back and forth with somebody who I should have ( in all charity) simply ignored. I’d call it more of an online duel or feud than " partnership," though. I greatly enjoyed the dialogue I’ve had with you, RC Witness, Mary and the other Catholics who came here in good faith for a conversation. As soon as I saw the one- liners, I should have just said my adieux to those particular posters and continued the conversation with the people who actually wanted to address the issue ( which has rather gone beyond the WWLDT? What Would Luther Do Today?) rather than insert snide comments about the other faith traditions that are represented on this part of your forum. I do regret entertaining those who would stir up conflict.

The best thing to do is to report and ignore them. There is a little triangle in the upper right corner. Let the moderator deal with them.

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.

This was a mighty fine thread with charitable discussion. Sigh.

 

[rcwitness]

The best thing to do is to report and ignore them. There is a little triangle in the upper right corner. Let the moderator deal with them.

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.

This was a mighty fine thread with charitable discussion. Sigh.

The thing is, is that it’s not much different in real life conversations. If we all actually talked about these things and said what’s on our mind, this is closer to what you’d get. When pressed, we show some colors.

I don’t mind some heated debate. It’s when the accusations are unwarranted that I feel like saying something. And even then, I could have misunderstood the poster.

So I actually have never reported anyone. It’s a last resort, and by the time I have been close, they have been suspended or banned.

I think CAF is very good at maintaining respectful posts. I’ve been a little too sharp, and ignorant at times. I have learned some.

 

[Peter_J]

Peter J, to you I’ll apologize for my part in an extremely off- topic back and forth with somebody who I should have ( in all charity) simply ignored. I’d call it more of an online duel or feud than " partnership," though. I greatly enjoyed the dialogue I’ve had with you, RC Witness, Mary and the other Catholics who came here in good faith for a conversation. As soon as I saw the one- liners, I should have just said my adieux to those particular posters and continued the conversation with the people who actually wanted to address the issue ( which has rather gone beyond the WWLDT? What Would Luther Do Today?) rather than respond to those who insert snide comments about the other faith traditions that are represented on this part of your forum. I do regret entertaining those who would stir up conflict and stirring the pot at warp speed myself.

I don’t want to comment on posts that I haven’t read, so I’ll take your word for it on some of the above. But in terms of general approach to posting on a web discussion forums I have to say: exactly!!! (The second and third exclamation points are because I have tried to make a similar point in the past with other Lutheran or Protestant posters with scores of those duels/feuds/partnerships/dialogues/whatevers under their belts, and I felt like I was talking to a steel wall.)

I’m not against ecumenical dialogue, but there is such a thing as bad dialogue.

 

[LutheranScholar]

I don’t want to comment on posts that I haven’t read, so I’ll take your word for it on some of the above. But in terms of general approach to posting on a web discussion forums I have to say: exactly!!! (The second and third exclamation points are because I have tried to make a similar point in the past with other Lutheran or Protestant posters with scores of those duels/feuds/partnerships/dialogues/whatevers under their belts, and I felt like I was talking to a steel wall.)

I’m not against ecumenical dialogue, but there is such a thing as bad dialogue.

You’re right. Bad dialogue is at least dialogue, though. A lot of what you see here really isn’t so much dialogue as it is people patting each other on the back and congratulating themselves on the scores they made against the " bad guys." Like everybody else here, I love my faith. One defends what one loves and I can guarantee you’ll never see me write a provocative opening post on a thread that trashes the Catholic Church or any other church. " Catholics, who can you thank for being able to read the Bible in your own language?" " Why, LCMS Lutherans, of course!" Okay, no. Stroking one’s ego might be perfectly acceptable on a forum devoted to fellowship with folks of one’s own confession, but when others are invited in to talk, then of course a modicum of respect is called for. When one comes in as a guest, respectful protocol is also appropriate. When a guest is told that his faith insults God and attempts to separate Jesus from His own Church, then ( of course) problems will arise. As you and almost everybody else here on CAF know, Protestants do not equate with Satanists.

 

[MichaelP3]

The important thing though ( in my eyes, at least) is that they remained Christians. I’ll give you an analogy from my own family, starting with my mother’s side. My maternal grandmother, the daughter of a Catholic mother and a Baptist father was raised Catholic and married a man who was raised as a Presbyterian. Later on in life, they began attending a Baptist Church and both their daughters were baptized as Baptists and remain Baptists to this day, my mother a progressive and my aunt a conservative. My father’s parents were both raised Methodist, but fell out of faith later on in life. My Dad’s family is comprised of two nonobservant Catholics ( my father’s older brother married a Polish American woman whose family worked the mines of West Virginia), one of his daughters is a liberal Presbyterian. Dad’s younger brother was an unbeliever and his children follow his example.
My Dad himself is as I mentioned above and I am Lutheran, while my sister is a Baptist.
I don’t say that there aren’t serious disagreements that pop up over theology from time to time, but what we do agree on is our common Christianity ( those of us who believe). That’s why I say so forcefully that regardless of affiliation, Jesus Christ really is our Lord and Savior, regardless of the name on the church buildings of our various communions. one family, many Christian varieties. If my daughter’s life leads her to choose a church different than what she’s being raised in, after a couple of " what abouts," I’ll probably accept her choice as her choice and feel none the worse about it.

Can’t agree more. My wife was a Polish Catholic and today she is a Protestant. While my whole family in law are still Catholic, they accepted it very sincerely. They were more sad in a cultural way then thinking she is damned or anything.

 

[LutheranScholar]

No offense.

None taken. I guess I’ll just go ahead and give a little background, then. My father’s family were the Goodings of Fairfax County, Virginia, while his mother’s people were the Thornes of Prince George’s County, Maryland. My mother’s father was part of the McDonald family of Scott County, Tennessee, while my mother’s mother ( from DC herself) had parents from two states: her mother was a Pecot from Charenton, Louisiana and her father was a Cornett from Hindman, Kentucky. Call me Andrew if you want. That’s my bio and I hope I’m a little less anonymous.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

My dear wife, a hardcore Lutheran ( LCMS, she has to make that distinction known), would say that Luther was and is always Catholic. And the LCMS is the true catholic church, as Luther and Lutherans corrected the doctrinal errors of the Catholic Church. My paraphrasing may be a little off, but I think that is what most Lutherans believe, at least the LCMS. I’m Catholic, so I get to hear of the ‘errors’ and everything else anti-Catholic. sigh

I feel for you

 

[Lenten_ashes]

This has been a interesting read.

So confessional Lutherans hold to the Pope being anti-Christ…is that just the Pope of Luther’s era or does it apply to the papacy in general?

 

[LutheranScholar]

…the other side of the coin: why do Protestants feel the need to proselytize Catholics? Shouldn’t they follow St. Paul’s norm:

Maran atha!

Angel

Not to build on another’s foundation. Yes, that’s quite true. Why some Protestants feel the need to " evangelize" Catholics remains quite beyond my ken, especially in this day and age. Mind you, there are Protestants out there who would " evangelize" other Protestants to their own belief systems, but, as there are a lot of different Protestant communions, there are a lot of ways they feel the need to carry out the Great Commission. If somebody wants to talk seriously with me about my faith, I’ll share it, but it’s far too precious to simply bandy about. If someone would be facetious, I’d simply grunt " www.lcms.org" and go about my business. My Pastor in Jacksonville put it quite well when he was being given a hard time in an interdenominational gathering ( I don’t know if it was a family reunion or what) when he had to say " look, we’re part of the same Christian family and Jesus died for me just as much as He did for you. We’re all going to meet in Heaven, by the grace of God." He was right. I work with a serious Anglican and we get on rather well, despite our denominational loyalties. Mutual respect has a lot to do with successful dialogue. The internet is pretty good with websites of various churches explaining their convictions. Screaming on street corners with Bible in hand seems rather passe these days.Just visit the website.

 

[LutheranScholar]

This has been a interesting read.

So confessional Lutherans hold to the Pope being anti-Christ…is that just the Pope of Luther’s era or does it apply to the papacy in general?

Good evening, Lenten_ashes! This is the position of the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod on the papacy ( no, individual Popes can be and many have been excellent Christians): *QUESTION: As a Methodist living in a new town, I have found a local LCMS church where I feel comfortable and fed. Seeking information, I have looked over your pages on the net and have developed some questions. The connection between the antichrist and pope are unclear to me. Do you believe the pope is the only enemy?

ANSWER: The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod’s Theological Commission:

The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5, 23-24; Mark 13:6, 21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ’s Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.

However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ” (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20-21, 24-25, 11:36-45; 2 Thess. 2; 1 John 2:18, 4:3; Rev. 17-18) … Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions’ identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above.

It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person’s heart.

Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.

In a footnote, the Commission adds:

To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine “that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified,” the judgment of the Lutheran Confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.*lcms.org/faqs/lcmsviews#pope

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Good evening, Lenten_ashes! This is the position of the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod on the papacy ( no, individual Popes can be and many have been excellent Christians): QUESTION: As a Methodist living in a new town, I have found a local LCMS church where I feel comfortable and fed. Seeking information, I have looked over your pages on the net and have developed some questions. The connection between the antichrist and pope are unclear to me. Do you believe the pope is the only enemy?

ANSWER: The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod’s Theological Commission:

The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5, 23-24; Mark 13:6, 21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ’s Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.

However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ” (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20-21, 24-25, 11:36-45; 2 Thess. 2; 1 John 2:18, 4:3; Rev. 17-18) … Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions’ identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above.

It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person’s heart.

Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.

In a footnote, the Commission adds:

To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine “that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified,” the judgment of the Lutheran Confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.lcms.org/faqs/lcmsviews#pope

Greetings, LS.

So if I am reading this correctly, it’s actually the council of Trent that LCMS believes is the Anti-Christ?

I’ve always felt like protestants and Catholics(Trent wording included) are just splitting hairs when talking justification. I mean they are speaking different languages(catholicese/protestantese) but essentially saying the same things, imo.

Pax

 

[LutheranScholar]

Greetings, LS.

So if I am reading this correctly, it’s actually the council of Trent that LCMS believes is the Anti-Christ?

I’ve always felt like protestants and Catholics(Trent wording included) are just splitting hairs when talking justification. I mean they are speaking different languages(catholicese/protestantese) but essentially saying the same things, imo.

Pax

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.