If Luther were alive today, would he be Catholic?

[Truthstalker]

You have said it very well.

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

Thank you.

Whenever some “Catholic” posts something, I am expected to read it as actual church teaching. That is the implication of this forum. Whenever other “Catholics” do NOT condemn something, I can only think they agree with it. The sin of omission of a rebuke that is well-earned can be worse than the actual initial act.

It is difficult to read this thread without obtaining the impression that Catholicism is largely smug self-congratulation, intentional ignorance, and something to be stayed away from. That is the fault of some posters who are almost wholly incompetent to be attempting any sort of apologetics.

 

[rcwitness]

Thank you.

Whenever some “Catholic” posts something, I am expected to read it as actual church teaching. That is the implication of this forum. Whenever other “Catholics” do NOT condemn something, I can only think they agree with it. The sin of omission of a rebuke that is well-earned can be worse than the actual initial act.

It is difficult to read this thread without obtaining the impression that Catholicism is largely smug self-congratulation, intentional ignorance, and something to be stayed away from. That is the fault of some posters who are almost wholly incompetent to be attempting any sort of apologetics.

As I asked Fr Don, I think it’s appropriate to ask you… please address the actual posts you are criticizing, so that we don’t have to all wonder what posts you are referring to.

 

[Wannano]

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

Let us be clear:

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

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

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

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

Pope St. John Paul wrote in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint

42. It happens for example that, in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, Christians of one confession no longer consider other Christians as enemies or strangers but see them as brothers and sisters. Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and "Christians of other Communities"​

. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as “Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church”. This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ. /…/ The “universal brotherhood” of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction. rl]

Good morning Father Ruggero, at least it is morning here!

Once again I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. As a result I hope I can ask some questions of you since I truly believe your answers will be truthful and represent the actual Catholic position. I have asked various questions here from time to time and have learned quite a bit. I have though been blamed for playing “gotcha” with Catholics but that is not my intent so bear with me if I don’t come across or word something quite right. Certainly ask me for clarification if needed.

I have read From Conflict to Communion through a couple of times now. Since I am neither Catholic or Lutheran I have no particular bone to chew in this presentation. I am intrigued and actually quite astounded in many ways. I also can see that there is a long road ahead but thankful there is a move to at least walk in the same direction.

I am trying to understand the mechanics of Anathema. The Council of Trent established various anathema and I am asking if those were an infallible defintion? I think I am correct in saying that it was and that it means God’s voice was heard on the various canons and the Church put forth resulting anathemas under His direction?

Basically anathema is excommunication for Catholics ? For non-Catholics is it really a spiritual curse as in being accursed or given over to Satan?

Of particular interest to me is the Catholic -Lutheran agreement regarding the Eucharist. “The common understanding of the real presence affirms all the essential elements of faith in the eucharistic presence of Jesus Christ without adopting the conceptual terminology of Transubstantiation.” This seems to go against the canon concerning Transubstantiation from Trent. How is an anathema dropped or cancelled if it was conceived infallibly?

I hope I am not out of place in asking you all this. I really have a desire to understand it all.

Thanks, Wannano
​

​

 

[Peter_J]

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!

What are you guys, some kind of copy cat?

 

[Peter_J]

But seriously …

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.

I think your question makes complete sense. In such a case, presumably either the one side would have to admit that they were wrong in claiming X to be infallible, or the other would have to admit that they were wrong in claiming X to be error.

But that’s not the only kind of case that happens. E.g. Within RCism, there are some who claim that Unam Sanctum was an infallible, ex cathedra statement, but other RCs say that it wasn’t. Yet both sides of the dispute are RCs.

 

[Peter_J]

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

In charity, I personally don’t have a problem with Traditionalists using the term “Traditionalist Catholic” (which implies being Catholic). I only mind when they claim to represent Catholicism as a whole.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thank you.

Whenever some “Catholic” posts something, I am expected to read it as actual church teaching. That is the implication of this forum. Whenever other “Catholics” do NOT condemn something, I can only think they agree with it. The sin of omission of a rebuke that is well-earned can be worse than the actual initial act.

It is difficult to read this thread without obtaining the impression that Catholicism is largely smug self-congratulation, intentional ignorance, and something to be stayed away from. That is the fault of some posters who are almost wholly incompetent to be attempting any sort of apologetics.

Yes, you are correct. Which is why, after I received an email, I returned to this thread to make the comment that I did.

As for your second paragraph, that is sadly all too correct and an assessment one too readily arrives at in reading certain posts. Which is also why I quoted the Directory, promulgated by the Holy See, that statements made by Catholics must reflect the positions of the Holy See and of the Bishops. Incalculable harm can be done by articulating positions that are diametrically opposed to where the Church is today on issues related to the dialogue and thereby misleading both under-informed Catholics as well as non-Catholics.

 

[jcrichton]

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.

I concur–the problem with remaining silent (specially in a Catholic forum) is that the anti-Catholic agenda is spread as those who visit the sites take back that Catholics could not answer (which is contrary to Biblical Teaching) in defense of their Faith.

I’ve have accepted the visits of Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons (some of these coming back with the next agents of higher levels; some ending with their pronouncements that I was not ready to know the truth about God, etc.); they view Catholics as fish in a barrel–people so weak in their Faith and Scriptures that the simplest sleight of hands can win them over.

Though the internet (I guess due to its long-distance and anonymity) seems to embolden the arguments/response.

Still, just explaining the Catholic’s side of the story (and don’t mention the CCC or the writings of the Fathers/Docs) almost never works as they would persist with their intent: Catholics, bad. :hammering::hammering::hammering:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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?

…well, if you are intimating that you are excommunicating me from the Catholic Church–I welcome your pronouncement; :bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

…well… as soon as you become the Pope!

If you are confusing my intent, ask and I would do the best to clarify my statements.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Thank you.

Whenever some “Catholic” posts something, I am expected to read it as actual church teaching. That is the implication of this forum. Whenever other “Catholics” do NOT condemn something, I can only think they agree with it. The sin of omission of a rebuke that is well-earned can be worse than the actual initial act.

It is difficult to read this thread without obtaining the impression that Catholicism is largely smug self-congratulation, intentional ignorance, and something to be stayed away from. That is the fault of some posters who are almost wholly incompetent to be attempting any sort of apologetics.

…that’s the sad part of it, isn’t it?

…anyone posting on the net seem to post with full authority and knowledge–even judging the posts of others through their own preconceptions…

…what is truly hurtful is the ignorance perpetrated as both lack of knowledge and intentional/unintentional misappropriation of other people’s mindset is engaged as they are accused and debased–under the guise of correctness, of course. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Rather then pointing fingers, isn’t if more constructive not to believe everything that is stated and to ask direct clarification of statements?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Peter_J]

…I welcome your pronouncement; :bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

…well… as soon as you become the Pope!

As a long-time participants on web discussion forums, I sometimes think that every one of us should put something like that in our signatures.

 

[Peter_J]

It is difficult to read this thread without obtaining the impression that Catholicism is largely smug self-congratulation, intentional ignorance, and something to be stayed away from.

Your annoyance is understandable of course, but honestly I don’t think that any – any I say – church or denomination would look good if evaluated on the basis of what one or another of its members posts on a blog or forum.

And I am certain that there are many religious websites out there that are worse than this one.

 

[LutheranScholar]

What are you guys, some kind of copy cat?

That didn’t compute, sorry? It’s a rite that has come down to us presumably from the age of the Apostles in simplified form…If all Luther did was purify the Apostolic Christian Church, we didn’t copy it… we inherited it.

 

[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.

Just got back from work and I thought I’d address this. " I, God??" I have never, in the three years I’ve been attending a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod church ( I was received into the Church in February of 2013. Ironically, February was the same month I was baptized in 1988) heard an LCMS minister refer to himself as " God." I have heard plenty say " I, a called and ordained minister of Jesus Christ," right before the Absolution ( corporate and private). The two parts of repentance are contrition and faith. They are terrified by the justly earned wrath of God and are then comforted by faith that their sins have been forgiven through the Cross of Christ. By grace they have been justified through faith. Only God and the parishioner knows the condition of one’s heart when that Absolution is pronounced. If it’s just a rote routine that they don’t think about, if they don’t hear the sweet words of Christ’s forgiveness from the mouth of the minister, then they’ve shut the door to Him all by themselves.The Corporate Absolution is every bit as valid as the private one, although people utilize the private one for their own needs ( and by the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Humbling oneself before a minister is no easy thing to do)…

 

[Peter_J]

That didn’t compute, sorry? It’s a rite that has come down to us presumably from the age of the Apostles in simplified form…If all Luther did was purify the Apostolic Christian Church, we didn’t copy it… we inherited it.

It was a little funny (Tom Cruise in “A few good men”).

 

[MaryT777]

Just got back from work and I thought I’d address this. " I, God??" I have never, in the three years I’ve been attending a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod church ( I was received into the Church in February of 2013. Ironically, February was the same month I was baptized in 1988) heard an LCMS minister refer to himself as " God." I have heard plenty say " I, a called and ordained minister of Jesus Christ," right before the Absolution ( corporate and private). The two parts of repentance are contrition and faith. They are terrified by the justly earned wrath of God and are then comforted by faith that their sins have been forgiven through the Cross of Christ. By grace they have been justified through faith. Only God and the parishioner knows the condition of one’s heart when that Absolution is pronounced. If it’s just a rote routine that they don’t think about, if they don’t hear the sweet words of Christ’s forgiveness from the mouth of the minister, then they’ve shut the door to Him all by themselves.The Corporate Absolution is every bit as valid as the private one, although people utilize the private one for their own needs ( and by the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Humbling oneself before a minister is no easy thing to do)…

Lutheran Scholar,

I am glad you responded for I did not catch my typo. The Pastor did not of course call himself God. I thought he said “God’s called and ordained servant.” He probably said" I a called and ordained minister etc" . I was mesmerized by the Corporate Absolution part for it was in every service I attended. (Just for the record of course as a Catholic, I never did Commune)

I appreciate your comments about the two parts including contrition and faith regarding the Corporate Absolution. Yes, I can agree that humbling oneself before a priest/minister is no easy thing to do. However, hearing those words of absolution personally is an amazing moment’ of God’s grace, mercy and forgiveness.

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

Lutheran Scholar:

How do LCMS Lutherans address the issue of retaining sin. I was thinking of this verse from the Scripture and I think the Corporate Absolution does not address this.
Your thoughts are appreciated:

“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (John 20:21-23).

 

[LutheranScholar]

Lutheran Scholar:

How do LCMS Lutherans address the issue of retaining sin. I was thinking of this verse from the Scripture and I think the Corporate Absolution does not address this.
Your thoughts are appreciated:

“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (John 20:21-23).

Part III, Article IX. Of Excommunication.

*The greater excommunication, as the Pope calls it, we regard only as a civil penalty, and it does not concern us ministers of the Church. But the lesser, that is, the true Christian excommunication, consists in this, that manifest and obstinate sinners are not admitted to the Sacrament and other communion of the Church until they amend their lives and avoid sin. And ministers ought not to mingle secular punishments with this ecclesiastical punishment, or excommunication. * bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#excommunication

*Part III, Article VII. Of the Keys.

1] The keys are an office and power given by Christ to the Church for binding and loosing sin, not only the gross and well-known sins, but also the subtle, hidden, which are known only to God, as it is written in Ps. 19:13: Who can understand his errors? And in Rom. 7:25 St. Paul himself complains that with the flesh he serves the law of sin. 2] For it is not in our power, but belongs to God alone, to judge which, how great, and how many the sins are, as it is written in Ps. 143:2: Enter not into judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified. 3] And Paul says, 1 Cor. 4:4: For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified. * bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#keys

In short, Mary, the retention of sins really depends on the sinner’s state of the soul. if s/he stubbornly resists God’s grace for him/ her, the Holy Spirit is driven out weeping and that person’s sins are retained. Just because that person’s so proud that s/ he thinks that that sin can’t be forgiven. Worse still, maybe the reprobate has self- convinced that there is no sin at all and his or her state of excommunication is something arbitrary and somebody else’s fault. One can resist the grace of God and one can lose one’s salvation. That takes me back to a story I heard in my Baptist days. " When we stand before God, there can only be two scenarios. We bow before God and say ‘Thy Will be done’ and enter into Heaven, or God tells us, ’ thy will be done’ and we are ushered to Hell." There is nothing to choose between. Only God can lead one to true repentance and He will, to be sure, if we are given the grace we need to readmit His sovereignty to our lives, which, paradoxically, we can’t do without God’s grace first working faith in us.

 

[rcwitness]

As I asked Fr Don, I think it’s appropriate to ask you… please address the actual posts you are criticizing, so that we don’t have to all wonder what posts you are referring to.

Is this not fair to ask? I’m not demanding it, but saying that it’s not fair to make blanket accusations with strong disappointment over Catholic posts in the whole thread. How are those reading suppose to know what you are criticizing?

… I will let it go, but just find it worth noting.

 

[Wannano]

Is this not fair to ask? I’m not demanding it, but saying that it’s not fair to make blanket accusations with strong disappointment over Catholic posts in the whole thread. How are those reading suppose to know what you are criticizing?

… I will let it go, but just find it worth noting.

I think you are making a fair request.