If Luther were alive today, would he be Catholic?

[jcrichton]

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

There are two problems with the professed tenets: 1) the fallacy of its origin (determination by anti-Catholic agenda), and 2) all Catholics fall under the premise of the anti-Christ since to be Catholic means to be under the Authority of the Church which is under the guidance of the Pope, both the office and the man.

…while it seems that some are attempting to make strides (reconciliation) there cannot be multiple understandings (the pope, the office, changes in the composition of what “makes” the anti-Christ, only a person here or there, only the tenets that do not disagree with Protestantism…) since that’s akin to the erroneous precept: “I believe, in case there’s such thing as a True God.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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

…till someone accuses God of the caprice of damning people to hell, regardless of their willingness to seek Him, while, simultaneously, saving people regardless of their unwillingness to seek Him and Obey His Commandments.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

…yet, by your final statement all non-Catholics Christians must be anti-Christians since they claim being lead by the Holy Spirit to splinter the Body of Christ:

The World Christian Encyclopedia of 2001 counted 33,830. (For a breakdown of these numbers, see this Fact Sheet, which also pulls data from the World Christian Database mentioned below. Here’s a tidbit you’ll find in the fact sheet: There are 242 Roman Catholic denominations! And another: It is estimated there will be 55,000 denominations by the year 2025, which does not say much for ecumenism.) (blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents.com/2012/03/29/how-many-christian-denominations-are-there/)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

1 Timothy 5
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those wholabor in preaching and teaching.
Titus 3
Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for any honest work…
Could they be more vague?
Evidence please.
Matt. 16
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Only regarding Teaching on faith and morals.
Didn’t these reformers approve of the same to their adversaries? Are all popes being accused of this?

Even if Jesus did?
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…”

Hi, RC!
…their take is based on their preconceptions; that’s why many refuse to believe that Jesus Founded a physical Church on earth; rather, to fit with their anti-Church stance, they define Jesus’ founding an “invisible” church which requires no History, no Apostolic Succession, to Tradition… a “church” that is based on faith on those who came before them and whose doctrinal practices they follow to the teeth (well, till they decide to change doctrine or claim a new command by the Holy Spirit to start a new “church” or is it “the true, new church” or “a resurrection of the early church” or the “nth _____________________ church”)–they embrace anything as long as it is not the Catholic Church.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[MaryT777]

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.

Lutheran Scholar:

I was a visitor to the LCMS here and there a long the way because I had a LCMS Pastor friend I met at a nursing home when I managed an apt complex. My tenant was his parishioner and I went once with her to the Nursing Home Service.

My question is about the general absolution. The “people” usually said something as “I a poor miserable sinner, confess…” and then the Pastor said “I God , called and ordained minister forgive you yours sins…etc.”

As a Catholic I am curious as how the Pastor can give a “blanket absolution.” after not hearing sins personally. Is there an assumption that if one is in Church they are duly repentant?

Also, then is Private Confession ever available and if so why would it be available if the general absolution is in the Lutheran Service.

I guess, it’s “confession session” questions to you today.
Blessings,

Mary.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

…till someone accuses God of the caprice of damning people to hell, regardless of their willingness to seek Him, while, simultaneously, saving people regardless of their unwillingness to seek Him and Obey His Commandments.

Maran atha!

Angel

Lol calvinism is awful. Thankfully not everyone on their side believes in it

 

[Lenten_ashes]

(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)

No it’s only during Christmas when you folks join us Catholics in “worshiping” of graven images(nativity scenes) lol

In all seriousness though, i can understand why Lutheranism might want to sorta suppress these confessions. The language is ugly and offensive. Luther and the Church had their beef 500 years ago and we all get that, but by now it should be time to bury the anathemas.

Pax

 

[jcrichton]

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.

…actually, what Christ said was that it should not be so among you; meaning that the Office of the Pope should not lord over Believers. A fact that anti-Catholics continue to confuse: you are Cephas, I give you the Keys, that which you bind on earth is bound in Heaven; that which you loosen on earth is loosen in Heaven; when you return bring the others to you; if you Love Me Feed my sheep–Jesus Delegated His Authority to the Apostles; just as He selected Twelve from amongst all of Israel, Jesus selected one from amongst the Twelve (interim, Eleven; ultimately Thirteen) to act in persona Christi.

None Catholics claim that Christ is the head of their “church,” but such claims are mute since over 30,000 groups (and they continue to grow) make such claims while holding various facets of “Christian belief,” some of which openly contradict Christ’s Teaching (divorce, homosexuality, contraception, abortion, love for material gain, hatred, division, disobedience of Christ’s Authority, rejection of the Word of God, dissembling…); to some, Christ is their head only if He is voted in.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Yes, 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)

The next chapter bro.
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.” (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.”

I don’t want to be a “Peter alone” preacher! I merely want to accept the strengthening of Peter and his successor. I want to follow Jesus as the Church of God does, with obedience to the leaders.

…but that’s just it; it is not that I should want to follow St. Peter’s guidance because I prefer him to the other Apostles… I must follow St. Peter’s guidance because Jesus determine it so! :bible1:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[LutheranScholar]

Lutheran Scholar:

I was a visitor to the LCMS here and there a long the way because I had a LCMS Pastor friend I met at a nursing home when I managed an apt complex. My tenant was his parishioner and I went once with her to the Nursing Home Service.

My question is about the general absolution. The “people” usually said something as “I a poor miserable sinner, confess…” and then the Pastor said “I God , called and ordained minister forgive you yours sins…etc.”

As a Catholic I am curious as how the Pastor can give a “blanket absolution.” after not hearing sins personally. Is there an assumption that if one is in Church they are duly repentant?

Also, then is Private Confession ever available and if so why would it be available if the general absolution is in the Lutheran Service.

I guess, it’s “confession session” questions to you today.
Blessings,

Mary.

Private Confession and Absolution is indeed available to Lutherans! It’s not used as much as the weekly Confession and Absolution, but whenever somebody has a sin that he or she needs to confess, they ask for the Rite, which is in the Lutheran Service Book:
forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=23403&stc=1&d=1471748168

This attachment is the standard model for the Rite, taken from the Lutheran Service Book. It hadn’t been used that much in the past, but I suppose as people are apparently on the road to rediscovering their apostolic heritage, they are making increasing use of rites like Confession and Absolution and sacramentals like the Lutheran Rosary. The General Confession had always been a part of the Divine Service, as far as I can tell and there really is no reason to omit such a precious treasure. We do corporate as well as private confession and absolution. The best of both worlds!

 

[Wannano]

No it’s only during Christmas when you folks join us Catholics in “worshiping” of graven images(nativity scenes) lol

In all seriousness though, i can understand why Lutheranism might want to sorta suppress these confessions. The language is ugly and offensive. Luther and the Church had their beef 500 years ago and we all get that, but by now it should be time to bury the anathemas.

Pax

You raise an interesting point that I have been wondering about. Anathemas. How do they get cancelled or buried?

When the Catholic Church pronounces an anathema as it did several times at Trent is it an infallible teaching? Maybe I do not use the right words but what I mean is it considered God speaking through the Church or is it a man made decision to consider a person an anathema. I have the understanding that a person who was considered an anathema has his soul condemned to hell as far as the Church was concerned. Is that correct?

 

[jcrichton]

I wish to go on record, as a Catholic Priest who is a theologian and was part of the dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics…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
*…All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ

…The Church of Rome proclaimed Martin Luther Witness of Jesus Christ* and Witness to the Gospel.

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’…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/Father, I concur with you that all Christians should be working towards ecumenism; yet, it is much as the term “we are all children of God:”
No matter how the Church proclaims that we are all children of God we truly are not all children of God–we are merely all creatures Created in the Image and Likeness of God.

Documents may state that Catholics are Christians and that non-Catholics are our brethren, yet, the reality is that anti-Catholicism is still actively taught as many claim that they (not Catholics) are in fellowship with Christ.

Today, I was hit several times with pamphlets [excerpts: “…going to priests for forgiveness of sin… thinking that their sin will be cleansed in purgatory…” one of the tracts had a depiction of a priest holding a sing that states “God is dead!”] How do we turn a blind eye to such strongly held beliefs?

Maran atha!

Angel
​

​

 

[Lenten_ashes]

You raise an interesting point that I have been wondering about. Anathemas. How do they get cancelled or buried?

When the Catholic Church pronounces an anathema as it did several times at Trent is it an infallible teaching? Maybe I do not use the right words but what I mean is it considered God speaking through the Church or is it a man made decision to consider a person an anathema. I have the understanding that a person who was considered an anathema has his soul condemned to hell as far as the Church was concerned. Is that correct?

Ive been taught these council results are infallible.

But i think what we can do is better understand what was actually being said. I think most of the reformed do not beliveve thst you can just say i believe in Jesus, then live like hell the rest of your life and still go to heaven. What they would say is that a true believer will naturally produce good works through God’s grace…and we would agree on that. To me its a language issue, catholicese and protestantese.

 

[jcrichton]

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.

…so when the pope is the anti-Christ, should Catholic respect the sensibilities of those who not only hold such beliefs but teach it and spread it in all formats (including Catholic forums) by merely saying something to the effect: “yeah, but we are truly brothers; I love you man?”

Would this not just be giving credence to such claims?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Wannano]

Ive been taught these council results are infallible.

But i think what we can do is better understand what was actually being said. I think most of the reformed do not beliveve thst you can just say i believe in Jesus, then live like hell the rest of your life and still go to heaven. What they would say is that a true believer will naturally produce good works through God’s grace…and we would agree on that. To me its a language issue, catholicese and protestantese.

Sorry LA, I am not connecting to your thoughts in your second paragraph in terms of the questions I was asking…

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Sorry LA, I am not connecting to your thoughts in your second paragraph in terms of the questions I was asking…

The “faith alone” anathema at Trent. I think it’s a language issue for the most part.

 

[Wannano]

The “faith alone” anathema at Trent. I think it’s a language issue for the most part.

Oh, I see. I am probably confusing you (or everyone ) for I am looking at what anathema really is. If it is infallible which itake to mean Holy Spirit directed without error jthen how do we bury them or cancel them? Maybe I am not making any sense.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Oh, I see. I am probably confusing you (or everyone ) for I am looking at what anathema really is. If it is infallible which itake to mean Holy Spirit directed without error jthen how do we bury them or cancel them? Maybe I am not making any sense.

No need to do anything official really. Just sit down and discuss what was said and meant. Both sides agree you need true faith to be saved. Come to a simple understanding and you can bury the harsh feelings between the two sides

 

[rcwitness]

…so when the pope is the anti-Christ, should Catholic respect the sensibilities of those who not only hold such beliefs but teach it and spread it in all formats (including Catholic forums) by merely saying something to the effect: “yeah, but we are truly brothers; I love you man?”

Would this not just be giving credence to such claims?

Maran atha!

Angel

It’s a legitimate question.
My approach, is to explain why I believe what I believe. And obviously I don’t have everything figured out, but I need to learn why the Church believes certain things too.

What is unconstructive, is to try using “big authority” over others. We can share why we accept authority, but authority in itself (or alone) will not compel another to believe. There must be faith and reason in harmony with the Word of God.

I’m pretty sure I can settle some to at least see that there is a “non anti-Christ” view of the papacy. If not, I at least try. We need to continue to respect and honor the person even if we have to end fellowship with them. Say some prayers.

 

[Truthstalker]

Father, I concur with you that all Christians should be working towards ecumenism; yet, it is much as the term “we are all children of God:”
No matter how the Church proclaims that we are all children of God we truly are not all children of God–we are merely all creatures Created in the Image and Likeness of God.

Documents may state that Catholics are Christians and that non-Catholics are our brethren, yet, the reality is that anti-Catholicism is still actively taught as many claim that they (not Catholics) are in fellowship with Christ.

Today, I was hit several times with pamphlets [excerpts: “…going to priests for forgiveness of sin… thinking that their sin will be cleansed in purgatory…” one of the tracts had a depiction of a priest holding a sing that states “God is dead!”] How do we turn a blind eye to such strongly held beliefs?

Maran atha!

Angel

It sounds to me like you have some outright rejection of Catholic teaching going on here.

Perhaps you should remove that “Catholic” identifier you have?