Jesus' Church!

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=Tomster;8233366]There’s your phrase again, Jon, “orthodox Lutheranism.” Just what is it and who within Lutheranism determines it? It seems that what you are saying is that your brand of Lutheranism is orthodox while other brands of Lutheranism are not, meaning they are heterodox.

Not to speak for Jon, but I would venture a guess that by orthodox Lutheranism he means those that still hold to the first seven councils as authoritative, that still abide be the Augsburg confession, that do not allow female clergy, or active known homosexual clergy, nor do they recognize the same sex unions.

But then, those who you claim to be heterodox will point the finger right back at you and claim that your brand of Lutheranism is heterodox while they are orthodox.

kinda like the Old Catholics, and groups like them do at us.

Therein lies your problem, Jon, private interpretation. And because of it, unity within worldwide Lutheranism is only a dream.

It logically follows, Jon, that if you guys can’t get it together because of the basic flaw of Lutheranism, which is private interpretation, how can you expect Catholics to enter into meaningful discussions regarding unity when you own house is in terminal disarray?

Your kidding right? have you looked at the state of the church. Not just now,but since oh maybe a month or 2 after Pentecost. If there is such unity within the Church why do we gets some of the threads that we do. take a look over on the traditional forums at about kneeling or standing for communion. Or should we receive in the hand or on the tongue. And do not under any circumstances bring up whether or not you should be abstaining from meat on Fridays outside of lent. Because if you do you will be hit with every document from Rome on the subject and as many different opinions ( all of course are completely correct) as there are stars in the sky. We have these kind of problem with a clear line of authority why would those that do not have want to come to us of unity?

 

[patricius79]

Jesus never made any protestant churches… NO not even one! Jesus made his “Christian Church”! Christians believe the words of Jesus!

Saint Augustine is CHRISTIAN!! Augustine believes the words of Jesus, Augustine said: “Jesus carried his own body in his hands at the Last Supper”!

Augustine also said… about, Faith Alone (Sola Fide)!

*This must *not be understood in such a way as to say that a man who has received faith and continues to live is righteous, even though he leads a wicked life. (Questions 76.1; commenting on Romans 3:28; Bray, 105; Defferari, Vol. 70, 195)
&
Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle’s statement: “We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law,” have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. (A Treatise on Grace and Free Will; Chapters 18; NPNF 1, Vol. V)

Christians believe the words of Jesus, they are not protestants! Augustine is a Catholic Bishop, he is not protestant, Augustine is NOT in protest against Jesus! Protestants are in PROTEST against; “Jesus’ Christian body!” Protestants are NOT Christians simply because: Jesus is NOT, he CANNOT “Be ALWAYS with them, even to the very end of the Age”; Because Jesus did not start with them!

To be Protestant is to reject …scriptures!
Matthew 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you** always**, to the very end of the age.”

FACT: There were no protestants until sixteen hundred years, AFTER Jesus said: "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

He is not with them because he did not start with them, they must reject Matthew 28:20 as a LIE from the mouth of Jesus!

Dogknox

It is true that there is no historic person in the first millenium that roughly agrees with the Protestant–e.g. Protestant Evangelical–interpretation of the New Testament

however many Protestants are living better lives than Catholics, and they are Christians

 

[JonNC]

You, of course, are speaking of “spiritual communion”.

Here is what he said,

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper

He is simply saying that there is no need to deny “the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper”. I will let you determine for yourself what kind of presence is a “salvation-granting presence”.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Tomster;8233277]Which Lutheran channels are you referring to? Your orthodox Lutheran channels or other Lutherans who are heterodox in your estimation.

regarding the CCC, probably any of them.

Ecumenism, in my opinion, should start with your own separated brothers. But, then, the question arises: Who can speak authoritatively for worldwide Lutheranism?

It has been my opinion that, long term, the success of ecumenism is directly related to unity between Rome and Orthodoxy, but that doesn’t mean we should not talk.

Regardless of what you or I think, our leaders have determined that ecumenism is necessary, indeed vital to restoring unity. And there has been successes, one might say dramatic statements in the last 60 years between Lutheranism and Rome.

Then again, I know there are those traditionalists on both sides who reject these joint statements.

Jon

 

[Tomster]

Jon,

I will break down the forthcoming paragraph into numbered sentences for you. Please, if you would:

 

[Tomster]

Jon,

To gain a better understanding of your position, I will break down the following paragraph into numbered sentences. Please comment on them telling us if each sentence is:

a) orthodox according to your understanding

b) orthodox according to Lutheran teaching

c) orthodox according to Lutherans separated from your particular brand of Lutheranism

---

1. Since the Son of God in assuming human nature has united the human to the divine, a totally new and vital relationship has arisen between God and man.
2. However immeasurable the distance between Creator and creature, between the All-holy God and fallen man, it has been bridged by the Incarnation of God’s Son.
3. St. Athanasius in the East and St. Augustine in the West both consider that the foundation of the redemption and restoration of fallen man lies in this: that God became man in order that man might become divine.
4. The fact of the Incarnation, the central fact of the history of the human race, inspires a sense of awe and mystery, not only because it shows that what is impossible with man is possible with God, but also because of its immense and far reaching consequences for the whole of creation and, in particular, for man.
5. Just as the Incarnation is the visible manifestation of God, whom no man has ever seen, so also in the holy sacraments Christ has rendered visible the invisible working of the divine Spirit.
6. It is because of this that the normal way of return to God leads through visible realities to those which are invisible.
7. Such is the way of salvation determined by Christ in God’s name, and the mystery of the Church and all the circumstances of that reality form the counterpart of the mystery of the Incarnation.
8. Christ’s work of salvation in the individual believer is based, it is true, on an action accomplished once at a certain point in history, on the sacrifice of the Cross by which fallen man was, in principle, reconciled to God; yet it is achieved in each one in a manner resembling the Incarnation itself, that is, in and through the Holy Church which is the body of Christ.

 

[Tomster]

Not to speak for Jon, but I would venture a guess that by orthodox Lutheranism he means those that still hold to the first seven councils as authoritative, that still abide be the Augsburg confession, that do not allow female clergy, or active known homosexual clergy, nor do they recognize the same sex unions.

kinda like the Old Catholics, and groups like them do at us.

Your kidding right? have you looked at the state of the church. Not just now,but since oh maybe a month or 2 after Pentecost. If there is such unity within the Church why do we gets some of the threads that we do. take a look over on the traditional forums at about kneeling or standing for communion. Or should we receive in the hand or on the tongue. And do not under any circumstances bring up whether or not you should be abstaining from meat on Fridays outside of lent. Because if you do you will be hit with every document from Rome on the subject and as many different opinions ( all of course are completely correct) as there are stars in the sky. We have these kind of problem with a clear line of authority why would those that do not have want to come to us of unity?

To answer your last question it is simply because we do have “a clear line of authority” while they do not.

As far as the Old Catholics and any other post-Pentecost groups are concerned, it is true, we, Catholics, have always had this kind of problem with dissenters. And due to man’s fallen nature I am sure we will always have it. Real, God given authority is a tough pill for many to swallow.

 

[Tomster]

regarding the CCC, probably any of them.

It has been my opinion that, long term, the success of ecumenism is directly related to unity between Rome and Orthodoxy, but that doesn’t mean we should not talk.

Regardless of what you or I think, our leaders have determined that ecumenism is necessary, indeed vital to restoring unity. And there has been successes, one might say dramatic statements in the last 60 years between Lutheranism and Rome.

Then again, I know there are those traditionalists on both sides who reject these joint statements.

Jon

You mention successes and dramatic statements between Lutheranism and Rome. Fine! Well! Good!

But my inquiry at this point is for you to show us where have there been successes and dramatic statements between orthodox Lutherans, such as yourself, and other Lutherans which you have implied to be heterodox.

You still haven’t really addressed the internal situation of worldwide Lutheranism and who within worldwide Lutheranism definitively decides what it will take for complete and total unity within Lutheranism.

 

[Tomster]

regarding the CCC, probably any of them.

It has been my opinion that, long term, the success of ecumenism is directly related to unity between Rome and Orthodoxy, but that doesn’t mean we should not talk.

Regardless of what you or I think, our leaders have determined that ecumenism is necessary, indeed vital to restoring unity. And there has been successes, one might say dramatic statements in the last 60 years between Lutheranism and Rome.

Then again, I know there are those traditionalists on both sides who reject these joint statements.

Jon

Jon, please, which leaders are you referring to? How did they come to be your leaders? It is my understanding that everyone within Lutheranism is a member of the priesthood. By what authority do these leaders claim to be leaders and are their decisions binding on the rest of the priesthood of believers.

 

[Tomster]

Thank you Jon. I knew it was somewhere I just could not find it. Guess it took a Protestant to show the Catholics were to find Catholic Church teachings and what it says.
Thanks again Brother.

I don’t want to come across as being hostile but I really don’t think Jon would appreciate anyone calling him a Protestant.

 

[dogknox]

davidv You said…

My study of Catholic teaching is the basis for my claim. What is yours?

I said… I will say this… “The Catholic Church believes the bible!!”
You asked… What does that mean?
davidv It means All Catholic Doctrine is from the Bible! Explicated or Implied!
It means… The protestant belief of… Scripture ALONE and Faith ALONE are not found in the bible! They are Man made TRADITIONS, they first appeared in the Sixteenth Century!

I said: You must reject the bible to reject “Baptism removes sins”!
Your words…

Pretty bold claim. Do you have anything to back it up besides your sayso?

Scriptures are clear: Acts 2:38 **
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.** And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Do you see it? “Repent and be baptized, for the forgiveness of your sins."
davidv From the scriptures, Baptism removes sins!
>>>>>“Baptism removes sins”!<<<<<<

It continues…
Acts 2:40
With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.”
41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand** were added** to their number that day.

Do you see it? Baptism; “**ADDED **Three Thousand to the Church, that day!”
davidv Baptism “ADDED 3000 to the Body Of Jesus that day”!
Baptism “ADDED” three Thousand, the Church GROWS by Baptism!
davidv The CHURCH is the Body Of Jesus!

All IN the Body Of Jesus are the Children of God!
God has only one son, so if you are NOT in the Body Of Jesus, then you can’t be God’ Child!

davidv Jesus formed his Holy CATHOLIC Church, he never ever formed any protestant churches, NO not even one!

 

[JonNC]

You mention successes and dramatic statements between Lutheranism and Rome. Fine! Well! Good!

But my inquiry at this point is for you to show us where have there been successes and dramatic statements between orthodox Lutherans, such as yourself, and other Lutherans which you have implied to be heterodox.

You still haven’t really addressed the internal situation of worldwide Lutheranism and who within worldwide Lutheranism definitively decides what it will take for complete and total unity within Lutheranism.

I’m not saying there is one. Lutheran polity is obviously different than Catholic polity, and the fact is that it may well not be, when it comes, universal. But if it is not, why and would that be an issue? Is the fact that Lutheranism has its internal issues, troubling for me though they may be, a particular reason not to continue with dialogue?

JOn

 

[JonNC]

Jon, please, which leaders are you referring to? How did they come to be your leaders? .

Each synod has its leaders, and they are chosen in a fashion prescribed by those synods.

It is my understanding that everyone within Lutheranism is a member of the priesthood. By what authority do these leaders claim to be leaders and are their decisions binding on the rest of the priesthood of believers

Not sure why the belief that we are of a royal priesthood would be an issue, but yes.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I don’t want to come across as being hostile but I really don’t think Jon would appreciate anyone calling him a Protestant.

It would depend on how the term is used. In the general, broad sense that western non-Catholic communions of the Reformation era are referred to as Protestant is a convenient term. If it is used to lump all of these commuions together as if they are/were some sort of monolithic communion would be innaccurate.
In the end, it is not the term I would use to define myself, as my profile indicates. For Scott to use protestant in the way he did was not offensive, anymore than the use of “Roman Catholic” can either be offensive or not, even if you as a Catholic might not choose the term for yourself.

Jon

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I don’t want to come across as being hostile but I really don’t think Jon would appreciate anyone calling him a Protestant.

Having been in many conversation with Jon, I firmly believe that Jon knows me well enough to know that I used the word protestant as a means of identifying him, or others for that matter as members of christian communities that came out of the reformation not in union with Rome. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Etc…

We have people on here saying that he is not a christian because he is not catholic and I am defending him and other of protestant brothers against those attacks and you think he would be offended by that? Given that fact that in the statement that I used it I was thanking him for finding a piece of Church teaching that I had not be able to locate and that is being ignored by some Catholics on this thread, I would think it goes without saying that it was not used in a derogatory way.

Having gotten to know Jon some what here on these forums, I have often referred to him as a closet catholic. He is more sound in Church teaching and in faith than an lot of Catholic. I know his reasons for not, at this point, coming into full communion with Rome and I respect and understand them. In my eyes I see a wonderful christian that his not being catholic is a sad lost to the Church and from the tone of some of the post on here I can understand why him and others would not look to come home to Rome.

It is maddening to see people claim one thing then twist the words and teaching of what they claim to love and believe into what they want it to say. Which is just what they accuse protestants of doing.

So to Jon and any other of out separated Brethren I am happy to call you a brother/sister in Christ and pray that one day soon we can kneel together at the alter of the Lord and receive him in the Holy Eucharist. Until that day may God’s peace be with us all.

 

[Tomster]

Jon,

To gain a better understanding of your position, I will break down the following paragraph into numbered sentences. Please comment on them telling us if each sentence is:

a) orthodox according to your understanding

b) orthodox according to Lutheran teaching

c) orthodox according to Lutherans separated from your particular brand of Lutheranism

---

1. Since the Son of God in assuming human nature has united the human to the divine, a totally new and vital relationship has arisen between God and man.
2. However immeasurable the distance between Creator and creature, between the All-holy God and fallen man, it has been bridged by the Incarnation of God’s Son.
3. St. Athanasius in the East and St. Augustine in the West both consider that the foundation of the redemption and restoration of fallen man lies in this: that God became man in order that man might become divine.
4. The fact of the Incarnation, the central fact of the history of the human race, inspires a sense of awe and mystery, not only because it shows that what is impossible with man is possible with God, but also because of its immense and far reaching consequences for the whole of creation and, in particular, for man.
5. Just as the Incarnation is the visible manifestation of God, whom no man has ever seen, so also in the holy sacraments Christ has rendered visible the invisible working of the divine Spirit.
6. It is because of this that the normal way of return to God leads through visible realities to those which are invisible.
7. Such is the way of salvation determined by Christ in God’s name, and the mystery of the Church and all the circumstances of that reality form the counterpart of the mystery of the Incarnation.
8. Christ’s work of salvation in the individual believer is based, it is true, on an action accomplished once at a certain point in history, on the sacrifice of the Cross by which fallen man was, in principle, reconciled to God; yet it is achieved in each one in a manner resembling the Incarnation itself, that is, in and through the Holy Church which is the body of Christ.

Jon ?

 

[Tomster]

Tomster,
You speak of Protestant as if it were a communion. It is not. Protestant is a broad, general term with frankly little value other than to distinguish western Christian communions that either have their individual roots in the CC during the Reformation era, or consequently, their roots in those reformation era movements. Whether they have found common ground is an issue for ecumenism, not grounds against it.
The fact is, however, I am not on a Calvinist forum or a Baptist forum, and it should be obvious that my interest is here, not there. I am much more concerned about unity efforts between our two communions than that of Calvinists and Baptists, for example.

All Christians are of a royal priesthood, yes, but not all Christians can administer the sacraments. I think you know that Lutherans maintain a ministerial priesthood, even if you don’t agree with validity.

Pardon if I disagree.

Without intending to be harsh, I frankly don’t care what other protestant communions say about it, particularly those that do not discern sacraments in the first place.

The only place it has plagued Lutheranism is in those groups who claim to be Lutheran but have strayed from Lutheran orthodoxy.

Sorry to have stressed you out.

Jon

 

[Tomster]

I’m not saying there is one. Lutheran polity is obviously different than Catholic polity, and the fact is that it may well not be, when it comes, universal. But if it is not, why and would that be an issue? Is the fact that Lutheranism has its internal issues, troubling for me though they may be, a particular reason not to continue with dialogue?

JOn

Jon,

Since you can’t figure out why that would be an issue, and it appears that the rest of your Lutheran brethren, orthordox and liberal can’t figure it out either, I would say that any efforts in regard to ecumenical discussions among your fellow dissenters within worldwide Lutheranism would be pretty much a waste of time. The Lutheran dogma of private judgment would bring all discussions to a end.

 

[Tomster]

Jon,

To gain a better understanding of your position, I will break down the following paragraph into numbered sentences. Please comment on them telling us if each sentence is:

a) orthodox according to your understanding

b) orthodox according to Lutheran teaching

c) orthodox according to Lutherans separated from your particular brand of Lutheranism

---

1. Since the Son of God in assuming human nature has united the human to the divine, a totally new and vital relationship has arisen between God and man.
2. However immeasurable the distance between Creator and creature, between the All-holy God and fallen man, it has been bridged by the Incarnation of God’s Son.
3. St. Athanasius in the East and St. Augustine in the West both consider that the foundation of the redemption and restoration of fallen man lies in this: that God became man in order that man might become divine.
4. The fact of the Incarnation, the central fact of the history of the human race, inspires a sense of awe and mystery, not only because it shows that what is impossible with man is possible with God, but also because of its immense and far reaching consequences for the whole of creation and, in particular, for man.
5. Just as the Incarnation is the visible manifestation of God, whom no man has ever seen, so also in the holy sacraments Christ has rendered visible the invisible working of the divine Spirit.
6. It is because of this that the normal way of return to God leads through visible realities to those which are invisible.
7. Such is the way of salvation determined by Christ in God’s name, and the mystery of the Church and all the circumstances of that reality form the counterpart of the mystery of the Incarnation.
8. Christ’s work of salvation in the individual believer is based, it is true, on an action accomplished once at a certain point in history, on the sacrifice of the Cross by which fallen man was, in principle, reconciled to God; yet it is achieved in each one in a manner resembling the Incarnation itself, that is, in and through the Holy Church which is the body of Christ.

Jon,

I really would appreciate your analysis of the above.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

I really would appreciate your analysis of the above.

On first blush, I see no problem with it, but I would like its source.

Jon