LCMS and JDDJ (Joint Declaration the Doctrine of Justification)

  • Thread starter Thread starter MaryT777
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DelsonJacobs said:
My words are strong because they defend the office instituted by the Light of the World, the Papacy which is pro-Christ and not anti-Christ as you say.

If you hold a low opinion of the Office of Pope but the Roman Catholic faith holds it in the highest regard, why do you keep arguing with me that you are not anti-Catholic? Are you pro-Papacy or anti-Papacy? If you call the Papacy the Antichrist, what does that make you?

If you are anti-Papacy you are definitely not being pro-Catholic, and that is the point I keep making and the point you keep denying. He who is not pro-Catholic is what?

Strong words? I do not believe my words are* strong enough.* The Papacy is of Christ. The one who holds the office is one with the office. Those who view things otherwise are not pro-Catholic. The LCMS did not join the JDDJ because they don’t make deals with the office of the Antichrist (or the Papacy, as they believe) and those that follow the Antichrist (Catholics). That is what I said in my original post on this thread and that you have been arguing against.
Click to expand...
The LCMS here taught in their Basics of the Lutheran Faith class that was 10 weeks (I attended to Learn more because my friend was the Pastor) that anyone who adds to the Gospel with works, indulgences, Mary and Saint worship etc is anti Christ, That applies to all popes that held to authentic Catholic teaching including the current one IF he personally believes as such. Of course he does; it’s like a disclaimer though to appease Catholics.
I don’t care for Lutherans are not the only ones that hold to that belief however it
is a stumbling block to real dialogue.

The Concord Book says it all. It’s obvious there will never be a joint reunion so to speak
given the office of Peter was established by Jesus unless that is taken out of the Concord Book as an exposition of Lutheran teaching.

It won’t “work”
 
I have just been reminded of something that may be occurring on this post between me and the LCMS members.

When I say they are being “anti-Catholic” they may be using their own view of the term “Catholic” which, technically speaking, includes themselves. So technically they may feel no qualm standing by their claim that they are not “anti-Catholic” as they are not anti-themselves.

Of course I am using “Catholic” in the sense of the name of this site “Catholic Answers” which means Roman Catholic. This site above all is a place to “explain and defend the faith,” meaning the Roman Catholic faith in obedience to the Office of the Papacy.

The views of the LCMS members who voiced their opinions on this thread are perfectly allowable, but I am not in the wrong because I want to hold to the Mission & Vision of this website and forum.

Along the lines of what should be clear on this site, being anti-Papacy is being anti-Catholic, and it should be quite clear by the title, vision, and countless articles and posts on this site that the term Catholic is being used to mean “Roman Catholic.”

While I cannot judge the sincerity of the apology given by some for any hurt caused by the words and/or actions of other LCMS members, the fact remains that such speech against the Papacy is some of the most hurtful speech I have ever encountered and I find personally offensive. One who apologizes for behavior they have no desire to stop will place the sincerity of the apology in question.
 
=DelsonJacobs;11050493]There are no “anathemas” directed at Lutherans or claims that your teachings are heretical. If we viewed it as so the Catholic Church would not be trying to build bridges with such things as the JDDJ, would we? Who wants to be in communion with people they view as heretics? That wouldn’t make sense now, would it?
Click to expand...
While I think you are incorrect about anathemas (see council of Trent), I agree that the mood has changed since Vat ll between our communions. By the same token, why would we lutherans want to be in communion with “the antichrist”? Lutherans and Catholics have a harsh history. It doesn’t need to be a harsh future.
While in the past Catholics and Lutherans held such views, the JDDJ clearly explains and demonstrates that both sides of the declaration now agree that such views of the past by both Lutherans about Catholics and Catholics about Lutherans were incorrect, regrettable and no longer apply.
Click to expand...
The argument that I have presented was that the LCMS is anti-Catholic in that it holds Catholicism’s central office as anti-Christ. Posters from the LCMS claimed that such was not being anti-Catholic. But is it being pro-Roman Catholic to call the office held by Pope Francis the office of the Antichrist?
Click to expand...
Only in terms of what’s been explained by others. And with the understanding that it is a 500 year old document. Changes are occurring between us. Also, so far as I know, the LWF has not expunged the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope from the confessions.
And now in your post you want me to admit that I am being anti-Lutheran?
Click to expand...
I didn’t say you. I said the anathemas and charges of heresy, as per Trent.
After admitting that the LCMS believes that my religion looks to the office of the Antichrist for leadership and direction you feel I need to admit to being anti-Lutheran? How is that reasonable?
Click to expand...
All I said is that a Lutheran, any Lutheran, would not consider the anathemas and charges of heresy as pro-Lutheran, anymore than you consider the charge of being opposed to Christ with the teaching of the office of the Papacy as being pro-Catholic.

I wonder how many threads have been run here at CAF about how can Protestants be saved without being in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Are you sure that Lutherans are not offended when we’re told that our our ordained clergy are simply laymen pretending to be clergy? Or that we Lutherans only receive a wafer and wine, not the body and blood of Christ?
The fact is that both sides have much we can be offended about. Looking past our offenses toward mutual respect and charity should be our goal.

Jon
 
MaryT777 said:
The LCMS here taught in their Basics of the Lutheran Faith class that was 10 weeks (I attended to Learn more because my friend was the Pastor) that anyone who adds to the Gospel with works, indulgences, Mary and Saint worship etc is anti Christ, That applies to all popes that held to authentic Catholic teaching including the current one IF he personally believes as such. Of course he does; it’s like a disclaimer though to appease Catholics.
I don’t care for Lutherans are not the only ones that hold to that belief however it
is a stumbling block to real dialogue.

The Concord Book says it all. It’s obvious there will never be a joint reunion so to speak
given the office of Peter was established by Jesus unless that is taken out of the Concord Book as an exposition of Lutheran teaching.

It won’t “work”
Click to expand...
We’re we in agreement regarding the role of the papacy in the Church, which I don’t think is impossible, then that part of the confessions would be moot.

Jon
 
DelsonJacobs said:
My words are strong because they defend the office instituted by the Light of the World, the Papacy which is pro-Christ and not anti-Christ as you say.
Click to expand...
Yes, most every action of the recent popes would be considered by both our communions to be “pro-Christ.” Please understand that we, and many other Christians, do not agree that the papacy itself was established by Christ to be lord over all other bishops. There are other threads where the Orthodox and various protestant groups explain their reasoning, with evidence from the ECF. Being Roman Catholic, I would not expect you to share this view. But you need not antagonize. Simply disagreeing with the Roman Catholic church does not make us anti-Catholic.
If you hold a low opinion of the Office of Pope but the Roman Catholic faith holds it in the highest regard, why do you keep arguing with me that you are not anti-Catholic? Are you pro-Papacy or anti-Papacy? If you call the Papacy the Antichrist, what does that make you?
Click to expand...
If you are anti-Papacy you are definitely not being pro-Catholic, and that is the point I keep making and the point you keep denying. He who is not pro-Catholic is what?
Click to expand...
Um, not Roman Catholic? Look, I’ll try to say this another way: most of the time, we admire what the pope does and proudly share his charitable acts as an example for Christians of all denominations to follow - so in that regard, we are “pro-papacy.” In so far as the pope obscures the Gospel (in out view, of course, not yours) by requiring submission to Rome for salvation, we consider him to be acting anti-to-Christ. If you fail to see the distinction, perhaps the fault lies in my explanation.
Strong words? I do not believe my words are* strong enough.* The Papacy is of Christ. The one who holds the office is one with the office. Those who view things otherwise are not pro-Catholic. The LCMS did not join the JDDJ because they don’t make deals with the office of the Antichrist (or the Papacy, as they believe) and those that follow the Antichrist (Catholics). That is what I said in my original post on this thread and that you have been arguing against.
Click to expand...
Now you’re simply spewing garbage. As I’ve noted, there have been 11 formal rounds of dialogue between Lutherans and Rome. The LCMS has taken part in 10 of 11. We continue to stand with our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters whenever possible.

Also, I’ve noted that we Lutherans do not consider the pope to be THE Antichrist. Please stop putting words into our mouths.
There are no “anathemas” directed at Lutherans or claims that your teachings are heretical.
Click to expand...
More garbage. Have you read the decrees from the Council of Trent? heritagebiblechurch.com/PDFs/Facts/Trent.pdf Did you know that Luther was excommunicated as a heretic?
If we viewed it as so the Catholic Church would not be trying to build bridges with such things as the JDDJ, would we? Who wants to be in communion with people they view as heretics? That wouldn’t make sense now, would it?
Click to expand...
Rather curious, isn’t it? The truth is that each side has beliefs that are, at present, irreconcilable. That does not mean we cannot work together when appropriate or work towards a better union between us.
 
JonNC said:
We’re we in agreement regarding the role of the papacy in the Church, which I don’t think is impossible, then that part of the confessions would be moot.

Jon
Click to expand...
It’s important now for it speaks to authority in Church; we have a Magisterium as you know that is an inherent part of our Faith given to us by Jesus.
 
JonNC said:
While I think you are incorrect about anathemas (see council of Trent), I agree that the mood has changed since Vat ll between our communions. By the same token, why would we lutherans want to be in communion with “the antichrist”? Lutherans and Catholics have a harsh history. It doesn’t need to be a harsh future.

Only in terms of what’s been explained by others. And with the understanding that it is a 500 year old document. Changes are occurring between us. Also, so far as I know, the LWF has not expunged the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope from the confessions.

I didn’t say you. I said the anathemas and charges of heresy, as per Trent.

All I said is that a Lutheran, any Lutheran, would not consider the anathemas and charges of heresy as pro-Lutheran, anymore than you consider the charge of being opposed to Christ with the teaching of the office of the Papacy as being pro-Catholic.

I wonder how many threads have been run here at CAF about how can Protestants be saved without being in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Are you sure that Lutherans are not offended when we’re told that our our ordained clergy are simply laymen pretending to be clergy? Or that we Lutherans only receive a wafer and wine, not the body and blood of Christ?
The fact is that both sides have much we can be offended about. Looking past our offenses toward mutual respect and charity should be our goal.

Jon
Click to expand...
You are trying to argue something different from what I said and take it in another direction. And I know I will never get you to believe that this is what is happening.

In fact I know that will not occur.

I stand by what I said, and you keep clouding it up. The point is not whether or not some Lutherans are or are not offended by Catholic doctrine or the like.

The argument is that you don’t admit you are anti-Catholic.

So you cloud the argument by saying I am offending others by my Catholic stand.

But that was never the argument to begin with.

It was that the LCMS was being anti-Roman Catholic. The question is not whether my views are pro- or anti-LCMS. If my views were pro-LCMS they would agree that the Papacy is the office of the Antichrist. I don’t deny what my views are.

I have nothing further to say on this matter.
 
40.png
steido01:
Quote:

Originally Posted by DelsonJacobs

My words are strong because they defend the office instituted by the Light of the World, the Papacy which is pro-Christ and not anti-Christ as you say.

Yes, most every action of the recent popes would be considered by both our communions to be “pro-Christ.” Please understand that we, and many other Christians, do not agree that the papacy itself was established by Christ to be lord over all other bishops. There are other threads where the Orthodox and various protestant groups explain their reasoning, with evidence from the ECF. Being Roman Catholic, I would not expect you to share this view. But you need not antagonize. Simply disagreeing with the Roman Catholic church does not make us anti-Catholic.

Quote:

If you hold a low opinion of the Office of Pope but the Roman Catholic faith holds it in the highest regard, why do you keep arguing with me that you are not anti-Catholic? Are you pro-Papacy or anti-Papacy? If you call the Papacy the Antichrist, what does that make you?

If you are anti-Papacy you are definitely not being pro-Catholic, and that is the point I keep making and the point you keep denying. He who is not pro-Catholic is what?

Um, not Roman Catholic? Look, I’ll try to say this another way: most of the time, we admire what the pope does and proudly share his charitable acts as an example for Christians of all denominations to follow - so in that regard, we are “pro-papacy.” In so far as the pope obscures the Gospel (in out view, of course, not yours) by requiring submission to Rome for salvation, we consider him to be acting anti-to-Christ. If you fail to see the distinction, perhaps the fault lies in my explanation.

Quote:

Strong words? I do not believe my words are strong enough. The Papacy is of Christ. The one who holds the office is one with the office. Those who view things otherwise are not pro-Catholic. The LCMS did not join the JDDJ because they don’t make deals with the office of the Antichrist (or the Papacy, as they believe) and those that follow the Antichrist (Catholics). That is what I said in my original post on this thread and that you have been arguing against.

Now you’re simply spewing garbage. As I’ve noted, there have been 11 formal rounds of dialogue between Lutherans and Rome. The LCMS has taken part in 10 of 11. We continue to stand with our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters whenever possible.

Also, I’ve noted that we Lutherans do not consider the pope to be THE Antichrist. Please stop putting words into our mouths.

Quote:

There are no “anathemas” directed at Lutherans or claims that your teachings are heretical.

More garbage. Have you read the decrees from the Council of Trent? heritagebiblechurch.com/PDFs/Facts/Trent.pdf Did you know that Luther was excommunicated as a heretic?

Quote:

If we viewed it as so the Catholic Church would not be trying to build bridges with such things as the JDDJ, would we? Who wants to be in communion with people they view as heretics? That wouldn’t make sense now, would it?

Rather curious, isn’t it? The truth is that each side has beliefs that are, at present, irreconcilable. That does not mean we cannot work together when appropriate or work towards a better union between us.
Click to expand...
I have read the word “charity” in this thread and another thread. To be clear, charity is not being nice and politically correct. Charity demands truth. That truth is to be proclaimed in a loving and Christ like manner.

To be clear, the bridge that is being built must be traversed by Lutherans. They must come to Rome. Mis-conceptions need to be dealt with but make no mistake, Lutherans must swim the Tiber. Are you OK with that?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
MaryT777 said:
It’s important now for it speaks to authority in Church; we have a Magisterium as you know that is an inherent part of our Faith given to us by Jesus.
Click to expand...
Two things, Mary.
  1. Does the pope have universal jurisdiction over all the bishops? Our view is this is a heterodox teaching, against scripture and the early Church.
  2. is salvation contingent on being in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Our view is this too is contrary to the teaching of scripture and the early Church.
Now, I personally don’t like the term antiChrist, and have said so since my early days here.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=250002
It has connotations in modern America not intended by the reformers. It is offensive to the modern ear. But, I am not willing to back away from the belief I stated just above. I believe, as it is presented by Rome, these two teachings are heterodox.

Jon
 
concretecamper said:
I have read the word “charity” in this thread and another thread. To be clear, charity is not being nice and politically correct. Charity demands truth. That truth is to be proclaimed in a loving and Christ like manner.
**
To be clear, the bridge that is being built must be traversed by Lutherans. They must come to Rome. Mis-conceptions need to be dealt with but make no mistake, Lutherans must swim the Tiber. Are you OK with that?**

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
Click to expand...
Sure, I’m ok with that, though I perceive more the Tiber and Elbe flowing together again. It is within the Communion of the Bishop of Rome that we have our roots. However, it will be as the result of a reconciliation, not some kind of submission by one side or the other, quite frankly.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Two things, Mary.
  1. Does the pope have universal jurisdiction over all the bishops? Our view is this is a heterodox teaching, against scripture and the early Church.
  2. is salvation contingent on being in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Our view is this too is contrary to the teaching of scripture and the early Church.
Now, I personally don’t like the term antiChrist, and have said so since my early days here.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=250002
It has connotations in modern America not intended by the reformers. It is offensive to the modern ear. But, I am not willing to back away from the belief I stated just above. I believe, as it is presented by Rome, these two teachings are heterodox.

Jon
Click to expand...
 
JonNC said:
Sure, I’m ok with that, though I perceive more the Tiber and Elbe flowing together again. It is within the Communion of the Bishop of Rome that we have our roots. However, it will be as the result of a reconciliation, not some kind of submission by one side or the other, quite frankly.

Jon
Click to expand...
reconciliation vs submission, you can choose the term that fits your personality best. But in the end, it is the same thing…swimming the Tiber
 
40.png
MaryT777:
Jon,
I understand your views but disagree with them for I am Catholic. We’re as different as Catholic and Lutheran but as similar as two believing Christians.

I agree with every drop and drip of Catholic teaching.
I assume you believe in every drop of the Concord book.
 
JonNC said:
Sure, I’m ok with that, though I perceive more the Tiber and Elbe flowing together again. It is within the Communion of the Bishop of Rome that we have our roots. However, it will be as the result of a reconciliation, not some kind of submission by one side or the other, quite frankly.

Jon
Click to expand...
I don’t believe we should submit to teachings we don’t believe in for the sake of unity.
 
=DelsonJacobs;11050748]You are trying to argue something different from what I said and take it in another direction. And I know I will never get you to believe that this is what is happening.
Click to expand...
In fact I know that will not occur.
Click to expand...
I stand by what I said, and you keep clouding it up. The point is not whether or not some Lutherans are or are not offended by Catholic doctrine or the like.
Click to expand...
The argument is that you don’t admit you are anti-Catholic.
Click to expand...
That’s because I’m not… Why would I admit to something I am not. I have a pretty large post count if you wish to search through to find antiCatholic behavior.
So you cloud the argument by saying I am offending others by my Catholic stand.
Click to expand...
Show me where I have said that, where I have made a personal comment about you. I don’t know you, and you don’t know me. I assume that you are a good Catholic Christian. I also think you misunderstand the Lutheran POV.
It was that the LCMS was being anti-Roman Catholic. The question is not whether my views are pro- or anti-LCMS. If my views were pro-LCMS they would agree that the Papacy is the office of the Antichrist. I don’t deny what my views are.
Click to expand...
I think it is a matter of a definition of anti-catholic. The Lutheran confessions could be seen that way, just like Trent could be seen as anti-Lutheran. ISTM that, aside from apologists from both sides, the communions are beyond that reaction to our old documents ( as important as they are).
American Lutherans, including the LCMS recently completed another dialogue document called, The Hope of Eternal Life, signed on by all parties.
LCMS President Matthew Harrison stood shoulder to shoulder with Bishop Lori I. Front of Congress last year, referring to “our Catholic friends” and defended the Catholic position regarding the HHS Mandate.
I have nothing further to say on this matter.
Click to expand...
Well, I hope we get to chat again soon.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top