It Is Finished

[mark_a]

I feel so stupid. For some reason, my mind is telling me I’m making a mistake. I’m lost. I’m confused.

:banghead:

I hope you are not looking for 100% assurance of anything in the any church.

Take your time.

We’ll leave the light on for ya!!

 

[GKC]

Ready for a strange suggestion from a fellow Lutheran?

Sign up for RCIA. In a figurative sense, lay our confessions side by side with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I suspect the Holy Spirit will guide you. And if you let Him guide you, where ever you end up is the right place.
My prayers and best wishes are with you.
Jon

A second on this suggestion, from an Anglican.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

A second on this suggestion, from an Anglican.

GKC

And Anglicanism would be a reasonable place for a Lutheran to explore at some point, as well.

Jon

 

[GKC]

And Anglicanism would be a reasonable place for a Lutheran to explore at some point, as well.

Jon

I would only do that very, very carefully.

GKC

 

[GeorgeSword]

I was a bit worried this had happened when you disappeared the other day, but it’s okay. I’m glad you at least looked at the Church. I will pray for you, and time is never wasted exploring God, or for that matter, other religions and cultures. May God guide you to truth. I would be very pleased, though, if you stuck around the forums, even if you argue for Lutheranism
As for Anglicanism being a place for enquierers to the Church… well, I think it’s best to look at the Church, not something that split off of it. But it is something like Catholicism lite, I suppose, but the Episcopal Church has grown a bit too liberal to be even called that from I stand. It’s liturgical and the priests (and ‘priestesses’) wear vestments… I think there are more differences than similarities, but I suppose it might be a stepping stone… so could Lutheranism be. Accepting liturgical worship, the Real Presence (though the Lutherans have a different stance on this than the Catholics) among other things (some Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics, practice intercessory prayer) can slowly make you become more comfortable with Catholicism and, perhaps, lead you to it.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Joe:

I can understand that logic, but it seems to me that all compasses point north. Therefore, if this is a compass of truth, all compasses will eventually lead you to one truth. . …

In vessels it is necessary to correct the compass for various disturbing fields, e.g. the iron engine, which pull it off its proper direction. With a new compass they take the vessel to a calibrated range, swing it in a complete circle, and note deviations in the compass reading. These are balanced out with small bits or iron at strategic point around the compass mounting. I haven’t done this; so don’t bet any money on what I am saying. This arrangement is good only for that compass in that setting. If the compass is moved or replaced, or if significant changes are made in the ship/boat, the process must be repeated.

Note I have never done this, and have only read brief sketches on it. So don’t bet any money on the details.

 

[reen12]

The denominations of Christianity are fascinating.

-did Jesus leave anyone in charge of his church?

-who decided which writings were to be part of the
Christian scriptures? [and does “we were here first”
constitute a compelling reason to accept this canon?]

-by the 16th century, would even Simon Peter
recognize the pomp and circumstance that presented
itself as Church - now festooned, as she was,
with the doctrinal baubles of the centuries?
‘Tetzel, call your office.’]

-Luther simply removed books from the canon of scripture.
Why would anyone accept his judgement on same?
It seems to me that each reformer arrogated to himself the
words of the very deity worshipped:
‘You have heard it said [by Rome,] but I say…’

-more puzzling, why is it that the former defender of
the faith, Henry, broke with Rome, declaring himself
head of the church in England - over the matter of
several marriages, each failing to provide him with
a male heir? [which is truly ironic, since it is now
understood that the male determines the gender of offspring.]
How is the foundation of yet another church, to be cogently ‘explained?’
I can think of any number of reasons to bail, in terms of the RCC,
but lack of a male heir is, surely, not one of them.

-On the other hand, Orthodoxy was wholly correct
in breaking from the western church. The utter
arrogance of defining the ‘procession’ within the trinity,
was rightly seen as blasphemy, by the eastern church.
Later, however, excursions into ‘uncreated light,’ functioned
in similar fashion to that of the *filioque. *

I sometimes wonder if the apple in Eden didn’t have
*‘speculative activity’ at it’s core. *
[pun intended]

I think of this as the ‘pulling a rabbit out of a hat’
school of theologizing. A mere hop, skip and a jump -
from the* filioque *- and we’re in the arms of uncreated light.
Before one even reaches Luther, the accretions
in both the eastern and western churches
have made the competing ecclesias top-heavy.​

Saul of Tarsus [St. Paul] began all of this theologizing -
beginning with a raison d’etre for the appearance
of godhead in our midst. Original sin.
A sin in our very being, ‘inherited’ from Adam.

"Huh?"said Saul’s former co-religionists. http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif * *

reen12 :coffeeread:

 

[GKC]

The denominations of Christianity are fascinating.

-did Jesus leave anyone in charge of his church?

-who decided which writings were to be part of the
Christian scriptures? [and does “we were here first”
constitute a compelling reason to accept this canon?]

-by the 16th century, would even Simon Peter
recognize the pomp and circumstance that presented
itself as Church - now festooned, as she was,
with the doctrinal baubles of the centuries?
‘Tetzel, call your office.’]

-Luther simply removed books from the canon of scripture.
Why would anyone accept his judgement on same?
It seems to me that each reformer arrogated to himself the
words of the very deity worshipped:
‘You have heard it said [by Rome,] but I say…’

-more puzzling, why is it that the former defender of
the faith, Henry, broke with Rome, declaring himself
head of the church in England - over the matter of
several marriages, each failing to provide him with
a male heir? [which is truly ironic, since it is now
understood that the male determines the gender of offspring.]
How is the foundation of yet another church, to be cogently ‘explained?’
I can think of any number of reasons to bail, in terms of the RCC,
but lack of a male heir is, surely, not one of them.

-On the other hand, Orthodoxy was wholly correct
in breaking from the western church. The utter
arrogance of defining the ‘procession’ within the trinity,
was rightly seen as blasphemy, by the eastern church.
Later, however, excursions into ‘uncreated light,’ functioned
in similar fashion to that of the *filioque. *

I sometimes wonder if the apple in Eden didn’t have
*‘speculative activity’ at it’s core. *
[pun intended]

I think of this as the ‘pulling a rabbit out of a hat’
school of theologizing. A mere hop, skip and a jump -
from the* filioque *- and we’re in the arms of uncreated light.
Before one even reaches Luther, the accretions
in both the eastern and western churches
have made the competing ecclesias top-heavy.​

Saul of Tarsus [St. Paul] began all of this theologizing -
beginning with a raison d’etre for the appearance
of godhead in our midst. Original sin.
Luther loved this doctrine. A sin in our very being,
‘inherited’ from Adam.

"Huh?"said his former co-religionists. http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif* *

reen12 :coffeeread:

Embedded in here was a mention of Henry. I can rarely resist Horny Hank, a particular hobby if mine.

His dynastic concerns were in keeping with the beliefs of the times, as to a dynastic succession. A subject he was particularly concerned with, his own claims to the throne being none too secure.

His approach to a decree of nullity was playing the game as it was intended to be played. His causa, while not as strong as it might have been (if he had pursued the undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty) was quite as strong as was common in the day. And what he sought, the declaration of nullity for both theological and dynastic reasons was an everyday occurrence. Getting crossways with the Holy roman Emperor was not so common.

And, in the long run for a number of historical reasons, some sort of break with Rome would likely have occurred, if not under Henry, than under the next strong monarch.

And the story of exactly how Henry got his tile of Defensor Fidei is fascinating. I’ve told it around here before. It went beyond the Assertio.

GKC

 

[erikd]

Hi erikd,
The Catholic Church says this, and I know you believe it, and that’s fine. Orthodox, Lutherans, and others do disagree with the contention, however. We would point to Transubstantiation, and papal primacy as examples of what we would term innovations.

While the word transubstantiation was not mentioned until 1079, it only became the word that accurately explained the phenomena that was believed as early as the second century:

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [Ignatius of Antioch A.D. 110]).

I know that as a Lutheran you would not contest this point as you also believe that the Eucharist includes the real presence of Christ under consubstantiation (meaning the accidents of bread and wine still exist along with the presence of Christ).

Papal primacy, within the history of the early Church, was always viewed as a given, rather than a disputed point. For instance, in 96 AD Pope Clement wrote a letter to the Corinthians, admonishing them and warning them to remain humble and strong in the faith. The letter was delivered by representatives from Rome who stayed in Corinth to witness that the contents of the letter were not only read out loud in Church but followed.

First, Luther’s Bible contained all the books traditionally contained in the western Bible. His challenge of the deuterocanonical books and the NT books you mentioned was no different than challenges to the canon from St. Jerome on, including Cardinal Cajetan. This was permitted by Rome until Trent, which did not apply to Luther.
The fact that Lutherans consider the d-c books as not canonical reflects a point of view held by many thoughout the history of the Church. It is interesting to point out that Luther, even near the end of his life, preached from Revelations and James and Hebrews, and more importantly, are regularly used in Lutheran liturgy.
Remember what I said, Lutherans are Lutheran because we believe, teach, and confess the Augsburg Confession asa right reflection of scripture and early church teachings, not because of Martin Luther necessarily. So, Luther’s speculations about Hebrews, for example, are interesting, but not necessarily relevant to a Lutheran, especially since he changed his thinking about those NT books as he got older.

I often hear the argument of St. Jerome and others who refuted the deuterocanonical Books. What I don’t hear is the defense these men mounted for following the advise of Rome despite their own opinion:

“What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us.” (St. Jerome: Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).

As far as this transgression being approved until the Council of Trent, I couldn’t disagree more. The Council of Rome in 382 AD and the Council of Carthage in 419 AD both listed the Canons of Scripture. They both listed 71 Books. The reason, by the way, that it was 71, is due to the fact that the Book of Baruch as well as the Book of Lamentations was listed under the Book of Jeremiah. Those three Books listed as one.

As for the inclusion of “alone” in Romans, Luther was translating into German. In the German it was necessary to properly show the meaning. It is not in any English translation since the word is not necessary for the meaning to be conveyed. The contention that “Faith Alone” as Luther taught it was not known before him is also debatable.

I’m sure you won’t agree with me, but I hope you understand this explanation of our POV.
Jon

My ignorance of the knowledge of the German language prevents me from commenting on this, I will take you at your word. I thank you for the pleasant exchange of ideas.

 

[erikd]

In vessels it is necessary to correct the compass for various disturbing fields, e.g. the iron engine, which pull it off its proper direction. With a new compass they take the vessel to a calibrated range, swing it in a complete circle, and note deviations in the compass reading. These are balanced out with small bits or iron at strategic point around the compass mounting. I haven’t done this; so don’t bet any money on what I am saying. This arrangement is good only for that compass in that setting. If the compass is moved or replaced, or if significant changes are made in the ship/boat, the process must be repeated.

Note I have never done this, and have only read brief sketches on it. So don’t bet any money on the details.

That’s very interesting and it would certainly change how I understand the original compass argument you made.

 

[erikd]

I feel so stupid. For some reason, my mind is telling me I’m making a mistake. I’m lost. I’m confused.

:banghead:

There’s no reason to feel stupid. Faith is a journey that lasts a lifetime. Many people accept the faith of their parents without ever understanding what it is they believe. The fact that you’re challenging yourself to look everywhere and understand everything should show you that you not only truly love the Lord but that you want to serve Him in a way that He would want. Not many people put that much thought into it, though all should. I commend you on your journey and will help in any way I can. For now, pray, and continue learning. Read everything you can and absorb knowledge like a sponge. But more than anything: PRAY, PRAY, PRAY!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I can relate. I choose to stay in catholicism , even though I have certain issues with it. Other christian churches do not fit me, while I can understand alot of why they are the way they are.

We are all seeking Perfect truth but we seek it with imperfect humanity.

See you in Heaven.

Your words here are filled with insight and much appreciated.

Peace,
Robert

 

[reen12]

And what he sought, the declaration of nullity for both theological and dynastic reasons was an everyday occurrence. Getting crossways with the Holy roman Emperor was not so common.

And, in the long run for a number of historical reasons, some sort of break with Rome would likely have occurred, if not under Henry, than under the next strong monarch.

And the story of exactly how Henry got his tile of Defensor Fidei is fascinating. I’ve told it around here before. It went beyond the Assertio.

GKC

It’s been 45 years since I read European history, GKC.
I’m clueless, as to the relationship of a given Holy Roman emperor
to a given English monarch.
My training is in philosophy, but in the old days, there were
mandated courses in history, world literature, languages,
science, philosophy and mathematics, no matter what one’s
chosen major.
It’s been so many years that I need enlightenment on:

Getting crossways with the Holy roman Emperor was not so common.

Did Frederick III, the Elector of Saxony, get crosswise with Charles V -
when Frederick had Luther snatched and taken to Wartburg Castle?
[It’s a dizzying experience, trying to sort out the threads of political
intrigue in the early 16th century.] Wasn’t the 16th c. the era of
the rise of the nation-state - as opposed to being part of the
Holy Roman Empire? Is not this the time period considered the
birth of the modern era?
What gets me looney is the attempt to view ecclesiastical issues
as if these were occuring in a vacuum - as if nothing else was occuring in history
which influenced same.
Luther would never have survived, had he not been where he was, when he was, IMO.

Best,

reen12

 

[GKC]

It’s been 45 years since I read European history, GKC.
I’m clueless, as to the relationship of a given Holy Roman emperor
to a given English monarch.
My training is in philosophy, but in the old days, there were
mandated courses in history, world literature, languages,
science, philosophy and mathematics, no matter what one’s
chosen major.
It’s been so many years that I need enlightenment on:

Did Frederick III, the Elector of Saxony, get crosswise with Charles V -
when Frederick had Luther snatched and taken to Wartburg Castle?
[It’s a dizzying experience, trying to sort out the threads of political
intrigue in the early 16th century.] Wasn’t the 16th c. the era of
the rise of the nation-state - as opposed to being part of the
Holy Roman Empire? Is not this the time period considered the
birth of the modern era?
What gets me looney is the attempt to view ecclesiastical issues
as if these were occuring in a vacuum - as if nothing else was occuring in history.
Luther would never have survived, had he not been where he was, when he was, IMO.

Best,

reen12

I quite agree with your point. History was politics and religion, married, at the time.

As to Luther, Contarini is the man to ask, though I got a slight memory of what happened. But Charles V was, from many points, entangled with Henry. In that Catherine was Charles’ aunt, and Charles sort of had Clement in his pocket, following the battle of Pavia, and the sack of Rome. Henry’s request for a decree of nullity was commonplace, and the entire system was set up to meet the needs of both the Church, in maintaining the sacrament of marriage, and the secular powers’ requirement for the making and breaking of dynastic marriages. Bad timing for Henry; Catherine appealed to Charles to preserve her honor. It was more complicated than that, but, in the end, power politics prevailed. Charles was still the powerhouse of Europe, though yes, certainly, the independent nation state was being born. Henry had a lot to do with it, in relation to the Church.

GKC

 

[historyb]

I feel so stupid. For some reason, my mind is telling me I’m making a mistake. I’m lost. I’m confused.

:banghead:

I am too, but right at this moment I know I don’t want to go back to the RCC. It might be best if you got off here for awhile and joined a Lutheran board remaining here will only confuse you more

 

[JonNC]

As far as this transgression being approved until the Council of Trent, I couldn’t disagree more. The Council of Rome in 382 AD and the Council of Carthage in 419 AD both listed the Canons of Scripture. They both listed 71 Books. The reason, by the way, that it was 71, is due to the fact that the Book of Baruch as well as the Book of Lamentations was listed under the Book of Jeremiah. Those three Books listed as one.

I thank you for the pleasant exchange of ideas

 

[reen12]

I quite agree with your point. History was politics and religion, married, at the time.

As to Luther, Contarini is the man to ask, though I got a slight memory of what happened. But Charles V was, from many points, entangled with Henry. In that Catherine was Charles’ aunt, and Charles sort of had Clement in his pocket, following the battle of Pavia, and the sack of Rome. Henry’s request for a decree of nullity was commonplace, and the entire system was set up to meet the needs of both the Church, in maintaining the sacrament of marriage, and the secular powers’ requirement for the making and breaking of dynastic marriages. Bad timing for Henry; Catherine appealed to Charles to preserve her honor. It was more complicated than that, but, in the end, power politics prevailed. Charles was still the powerhouse of Europe, though yes, certainly, the independent nation state was being born. Henry had a lot to do with it, in relation to the Church.

GKC

A wonderful post, GKC, thank you.

But Charles V was, from many points, entangled with Henry. In that Catherine was Charles’ aunt, and Charles sort of had Clement in his pocket, following the battle of Pavia, and the sack of Rome.

“Catherine was Charles’ aunt…” Hmmmm, the plot thickened.

Even in our own day, the combined efforts of John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher
and Ronald Reagan helped usher in the collapse of the Soviet empire.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
“The more things change, the more they remain the same.”

A pleasure to read your posts, GKC. One needn’t wholly agree with another,
on every point under the sun, in order to express appreciation for genuine scholarship.
I do so express same, GKC. :tiphat:

Best,

reen12

 

[erikd]

I share your appreciation of a pleasant exchange. It is the pleasant exchanges that will eventually draw us toward unity, which would be the ultimate solution to Tristan’s problem.
Jon

Amen to that my brother in Christ.

 

[GKC]

A wonderful post, GKC, thank you.

“Catherine was Charles’ aunt…” Hmmmm, the plot thickened.

Even in our own day, the combined efforts of John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher
and Ronald Reagan helped usher in the collapse of the Soviet empire.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
“The more things change, the more they remain the same.”

A pleasure to read your posts, GKC. One needn’t wholly agree with another,
on every point under the sun, in order to express appreciation for genuine scholarship.
I do so express same, GKC. :tiphat:

Best,

reen12

You are very kind in your assessment, considering how tired I was when I wrote that.

And it’s not so much scholarship as it is reading. Lots of reading.

GKC

 

[reen12]

You are very kind in your assessment, considering how tired I was when I wrote that.

And it’s not so much scholarship as it is reading. Lots of reading.

GKC

I surely understand what you are saying, GKC. At age 63, I tire far more quickly,
and no longer have near-total recall of that which I was priviledged to read.
And I also comprehend what you are saying, with regard to scholarship.
Yet I have to say that, to me, you are a scholar. My definition of same includes
a love of learning, which I hold to be a gift from God Himself.

reen12