Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12795807]OK, but that means that IF there is going to be doctrinal unity between Lutheranism and the Church, then it is Lutheranism that is going to have to bend. Since you respect that the Church cannot and will not change its’ dogmas, then you have to ‘respect’ that it is Lutheranism which will have to yield.

Of course that’s what you think it means. Many Lutherans think it means exactly the same in the opposite direction, and you are very critical of that position. What did Spock say? “Sauce for the goose.”

I think the that idea places both traditions in an inescapable box. When one reads “The Hope of Eternal Life”, for example, one doesn’t see either side “submitting”, but instead coming to a convergence, sometimes rephrased, where both sides find mutual agreement.

Jon, it was actualy YOU that I asked and the reason that I asked you is because I wanted your point of view. Turning the questions around without yourself answering them can only be done up to a point without the intent being obvious. I would suggest that we are WAY past that point.

Why would you ask me a question such as this, when it is the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity that makes that decision. I suspect it is because they feel that Lutheranism, more than any other western tradition within the Church (other than perhaps some Anglicans) is closest in teaching to the CC, and chances of improvement in relations are there.
.

Again Jon, when I asked the question I knew it was a ‘tough one’, and that you would struggle with it. Again, we are way past that point.

and you here dodge the tough one about Unam sanctam. When you accept our explanation for our teaching, I will gladly accept the CC’s, particularly as Abu has presented it. Until then, we are not “way past it”.

Again, we are way past that point. Avoiding the ‘tough questions’ only futhers our divisions.

Why duck the question with polemics? My point is our leaderships may be past the sniping about these issues, discussing it with charity and firmness, but not the polemics.

Jon, this would suggest that Luther, as an individual, and the Church as a whole, ‘schismed from each other’. That is ridiculous.

The CC schismed from the other patriarchates, and they from Rome. That is undeniable from history.

BTW, I made the claim that the Dialogue has not yet, in 50 years, addressed the issue of Papal Infallility. You claimed that they have. I asked you for specifics and you avoided the question. This is your second chance to prove that I was wrong. What are the specifics of that discussion?

I provided a number of sources.

If you have something you would like to make a point from this or that website, then quote it and take a position. Of course that means that your position could be scrutinized. But just posting a couple of links without making that point is not exactly compelling.

Whether or not you are compelled to read them is quite irrelevant to me.

That as opposed to Lutheranism which was named for a particular man, Martin Luther, 15 centuries later. In addition, I could point out that your communion is named the ‘Missouri Synod’, thereby admitting its being of very recent American origin rather than being a world-wide communion. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church was NOT named after a MAN who made his ‘name’ by defying the rightful authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Men of this ‘nature’ started the following heresies which became named for them PERSONALLY:

It is amasing how you miss the point completely. Both names were originally intended to be slurs, intended to marginalize them. In both cases, the simply chose to keep those names. You are no more Roman (unless you’re from Rome), than I am Luther.

As you know Jon, Pelikan was one of the brightest, most productive and best educated of the Lutheran Scholars of the last century. When you read what he wrote, it was very clear that he understood enough about the history of the early Reformation that his ‘defection’ from Lutheranism was a forgone conclusion. That fact that he chose to be EO rather than Roman Catholic is relatively unimportant. What he did with all of that wisdom, intellect and knowledge was LEAVE Lutheranism.

how many of the other Lutherans that you have quoted have left Lutheranism?

If you want an example of ‘laughable’ I have one for you. I was once told by a Lutheran that Pelikan chose to be an EO because he thought it was ‘more Lutheran’ than Lutheranism.

And Staltzman said he became Catholic because: *What I have always sought—since seminary on—is to be in a church that finally gives expression to the catholicity of the Augsburg Confession. There is no Lutheran expression doing that. Most of my 17 years as editor of Forum Letter was spent, so it seems, showing Lutherans how far we have fallen from the practice of parish life described in our own confession. *

The Catholicity of the Augsburg Confession

What bothers me Jon is that I cannot seem to get answers to very important questions

Says the man who will not click on a link to the USCCB.

Jon

 

[Tomyris]

I
Frankly, I’m not at all impressed by a bunch of quotes yanked out of their context. It’s the method of propaganda.

Here’s one of the wisest comment on Luther I’ve ever read here on Catholic Answers:

Regards,
" a valuable friend of Catholic Answers"

Dear Valuable Friend of Catholic Answers,

Aw, shucks.

(He ignores my posts, too!).

 

[SteveVH]

Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions’ identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy

So the Antichrist is an office? Yet those who occupy that office and exercise the authority under that office can be holy men? Sorry, Jon, but that makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Dear Valuable Friend of Catholic Answers,

Aw, shucks.

(He ignores my posts, too!).

Your posts don’t meet the criteria to push the intellectual property rights envelope.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Sorry to interrupt guys.
The finishing gate is in sight.
Granted, you all are moving toward it in slow motion, but you’ll be there soon.
Carry on.

 

[JustaServant]

That’s because they’re the Bionic Debaters.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Jon,

Why would you possible care anyway? Your confessions claim the Pope is the AntiChrist and further “progress” it’s the office not the Pope himself. Am I really to believe that any Lutherans cried in their German Beers over Unam Sanctam?

Plus you know the full understanding Jon of this document (Unum Sactam) and what it means and pertained to then and now. You can’t fool us. LOL

It would seem that this points to the bringing up (constantly) of Unum Santam as being disingenuous, a way to change the subject AWAY from the actual subject, which believe it or not is Martin Luther.

As you know Unum Santam was written long before Luther’s Revolt. If the Lutherans were all that bothered about it at the time, they could have objected to it in the sixteenth century. I don’t know of any record that they even considered it to apply to them, which of course it did not. Bringing it up again and again is pretty transparent.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That’s because they’re the Bionic Debaters.

Tananananana

 

[MaryT777]

As an ex-protestant my answer to your question, as to why people do not become Catholic after researching Luther, is because many people like the theology that tells them they can interpret scripture on their own. They like the idea that all they need to do is believe and they will be saved. It is the theology they like, good or bad, right or wrong. It feels good to be in control, to not have any tell me what the Bible means because I can figure it out myself. I can pick and choose what I like.

Many protestants have protested even away from Luther. Once the theology of sola scriptura spread and the belief became Scripture is what I choose it to be and I feel better about it, then it is not easy to turn back to someone who has authority, even if you are confused about some of the Scripture verses.

Many protestants feel Luther didn’t protest enough and that is why there is such a wide spectrum of protestant theology.

It wasn’t Luther or his problems that brought me to Catholicism, it was the beauty of the faith. It was all the Luthers out there. All the confusion after Luther and the admittance that I didn’t have all the answers. The admittance that I didn’t know what all the scripture verses meant but someone greater than I, left me a place to figure it out.

As far as the poster asking if there isn’t anything good in Catholicism, she is basing Catholicism off of one thread on a Catholic forum, that specifically asked about the reformation. There is much more to the faith than this one thread or even this one website.

In other words, it works both ways. The poster does not want Protestantism judged on Luther or the things he did, you can’t judge Catholicism by one thread on a Catholic forum, especially when the question is asking about the reformation.

God bless.

What an eloquent post. Well said.
God bless you as well.
Mary.

 

[GKC]

Hi Thor,

That being the case, I have a couple of recommendations you should appreciate.

Sam Kinnison, and Andrew Dice Clay

God Bless You Thor, Topper

I’ve heard that Guillielmus Rosseus can be very lively, too.

GKC

 

[Topper17]

Of course I do, Mary. I’ve read how the understanding is positively reformulated. Why is it that you do not accept what we tell you about our writings on the subject of the papacy?

The Catholic Church of course has the ‘authority’ to ‘positively reformulate’ Unam sanctam, which it has done, and as you have admitted, was not directed at Lutherans in the first place. I see the ‘use’ of Unam sanctam here as being to deflect attention away from Luther in a disingenuous manner. The issue of the pope being the antichrist was and still is directed at the Pope. The two cannot be compared.

Even if it HAD been written to be directed AT Lutherans at the time, which it was not as you know, the ‘positive reformulation’ would take it off the table as a ‘polemical tool’. Yet you constantly bring it up.

You have stated that Lutheranism needs a Pope, in fact, THE Pope. I agree and this is a perfect example. Nobody ‘speaks for’ Lutheranism the way that the Church speaks for the Church (so to speak). Lutheranism overall suffers from how many competing and doctrinally conflicting communions? Nobody has the authority to interpret your Confessions for ALL of Lutheranism. The LCMS can interpret the Confessions but the ONLY place where those intperrtations mean any thing is within the LCMS, which are about 2% of Lutheranism overall. Thus the response of the LCMS could POSSIBLY be a response, but not one that applies to the vast majority of Lutheranism.

The criticism here is directed at Lutheranism in general and specifically at the Confessions. The ‘explanation’ from the LCMS about the ‘antichrist’ issue cannot answer this criticism overall because the LCMS does not speak for Lutheranism overall.

Futhremore, the LCMS statement that the ‘antichrist’ refers ONLY to the office of the papacy is NOT supported by the text of the Confessions, which does not use the term ‘office’ at all.

I would think that the LCMS could, if it chose to, make a HUGE step towards reunification, by officially publishing on its website, the Confessions with the language about the antichrist and the ‘adherents’ OMITTED. To me that would be HUGE. It would really make me sit up and take notice of a completely different attitude on the part of the LCMS. Jon, do you think that is possible for the LCMS to take this action? (this is a question that calls for a yes or no.)

 

[Tomyris]

Well…let me ask you…Tomy…you are fond of citing our popes, pasting articles about Luther…

No, not fond. I am trying to do what I can to work towards reconciliation. I think it grieves our Father’s heart to see our animosity.

It seems there is a dissonance between what some Catholics are saying (seemingly in the name of their church) and what their popes are saying, a strong and severe one. Witness two posts of popes seeking reconciliation with one hot and heavy denunciation of Luther sandwiched between them. The contrast is effective, and startling,

So…do you (or your congregations or communion) celebrate and admire other church referomers like Catherine of Sienna, Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila?

Or you only talk about Luther?

Uh, the thread is about our Hero of the Wartburg, not about those other reformers. I hardly ever talk about Luther. And nothing Topper has posted is news to me, or to most Protestants. Maybe it is news to HIM and to Catholics, but generally, obediently following their popes, they have a higher opinion of Luther than Topper does.

Well…have you done what is said in this statement below (from a protestant) (in the bolded part):

For example, I often point out that at least Catholics have the magisterial office of the Bishop of Rome to remind them that disunity is a sin. You should not overlook the significance that in several important documents of late, John Paul II has confessed the Catholic sin for the Reformation. Where are the Protestants capable of doing likewise? We Protestants feel no sin for the disunity of the Reformation. We would not know how to confess our sin for the continuing disunity of the Reformation. We would not know how to do that because we have no experience of unity.

This is along the same lines as finding a quote from a Catholic where the Catholic admits Catholics worship Mary, and using it to condemn Catholicism.

I wasn’t here at the time of the Reformation. I confess my sins that I do today, including attitudes towards other believers. I really don’t see many of the Catholics on this thread forgiving the Lutherans for alleged wrongs. I see a lot of anger and bitterness. When I pointed out the terrible promise in Matthew about you don’t get your sins forgiven unless you forgive others, all the Catholics seemed to want to do was to point to the Lutherans as the ones with the problem! If you call yourselves Catholics, at least do what your popes have called you to do - forgive, forgive, forgive and then forgive some more.

I can’t make anyone else straighten up. I can’t peg forgiving someone on their behavior. I can only straight out forgive them, even at their meanest. At lot of that has to do with the FACT that what I have offended God with is far more than anyone else has offended me with. There is a parable about that.

One terrible result of the Reformation seems to be a wholesale lack of forgiveness all around, on both sides of the Catholic/Protestant divide. IF Catholics really are the one and only true church, they should set the example. They should forgive. They should ask for forgiveness. They should forgive Martin Luther. They should forgive Lutherans for the stuff about them being anti-Christs. They should ask God and the Lutherans forgiveness for the bad stuff they have happily entertained and quickly embraced about Martin Luther. They should act like Christians if that is what they say they are. Not, “well, they are worse than we are.” That won’t cut it when you are commanded “be ye perfect.” Forgive. It’s the basis of the Christian life and message.

 

[Abu]

JonNC #960
The CC schismed from the other patriarchates, and they from Rome. That is undeniable from history.

False.

As Christ clearly established His Catholic Church, the absurdity of trying to claim that Christ is wrong separates the wood from the trees, and renders the calumny atrocious, as Christ mandated:
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

That is what is undeniable from history.

Thus assuming the Christ to be a liar, and therefore not God, is the epitome of absurdity, but does exemplify the fatuous claims now being made.

 

[Topper17]

Mr. Topper, While I appreciate the kind words, this is not an accurate description of the article in question. When Luther spoke of the Catholic Church, he had something much different in mind than most people do today. Luther made a sharp distinction between the Church and the Papacy. That is, Luther often denied that those who defended the papacy were “Christians.”

As a matter of fact, I thought that your article claiming that Luther did not believe Catholics to be Christains was very convincing. I also noticed that you were using Luther’s view of Catholics as not being Christians to support your own view. That view is expressed very clearly in the last paragraph of the article:

**“I’ve been asked from time to time if I think Roman Catholics are fellow Christians. It certainly is possible that God has preserved a remnant of believers within the Roman church despite Trent’s anathematizing the Gospel. On the other hand, of those who zealously defend Rome, I do not consider these people to be Christians. I think such people are those who need to be either evangelized or refuted. Luther refers to Rome’s defenders as a “breed of men condemned long ago, with corrupted minds [1 Tim. 6:5 ]” (LW 60:216) .” **James Swan, (TertiumQuid)

This from the Beggers All article as follows:

***Sunday, June 09, 2013
Luther: The Roman Church is Basically Christian? ***

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/06/luther-roman-church-is-basically.html

With all due respect, I am a fan of Dave Armstrong and tend to agree with his judgments, which of course are very public. (refernces available upon request as always)

My time here on CA is limited, and over the years I have learned that there has to be a certain amount of agreement on the ‘fundamentals’ before productive dialogue can proceed.

I consider you to be a Christian, but given the fact that you believe that I am not because I am a Catholic, informs me that clearly we don’t have anywhere to go in dialogue. Basically, if we can’t agree about whether I am a Christian or not, and whether Catholics in general are Christians, then I’m not interested.

BTW I have noticed that you sometimes take my posts and publish them on your blog.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sorry to interrupt guys.
The finishing gate is in sight.
Granted, you all are moving toward it in slow motion, but you’ll be there soon.
Carry on.

 

[Topper17]

Hi pab,

Yes…my observation as well.

It seems that this is the consensus of the Catholic posters.

God Bless You pab, Topper

 

[Tomyris]

False.

As Christ clearly established His Catholic Church, the absurdity of trying to claim that Christ is wrong separates the wood from the trees, and renders the calumny atrocious, as Christ mandated:
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

That is what is undeniable from history.

Thus assuming the Christ to be a liar, and therefore not God, is the epitome of absurdity, but does exemplify the fatuous claims now being made.

This has been refuted. :yawn:

At LEAST incorporate the refutations of your refutations in your repeated posts!

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12798078]The Catholic Church of course has the ‘authority’ to ‘positively reformulate’ Unam sanctam, which it has done, and as you have admitted, was not directed at Lutherans in the first place. I see the ‘use’ of Unam sanctam here as being to deflect attention away from Luther in a disingenuous manner. The issue of the pope being the antichrist was and still is directed at the Pope. The two cannot be compared.

Not only can they be compared, they are precisely linked. To deny that denies history.

Even if it HAD been written to be directed AT Lutherans at the time, which it was not as you know, the ‘positive reformulation’ would take it off the table as a ‘polemical tool’. Yet you constantly bring it up.

It is not written specifically at Lutheranism. It is written specifically at “every human creature”.

That said, the positive reformulation does not, if we use your method of “dialogue”.

You have stated that Lutheranism needs a Pope, in fact, THE Pope. I agree and this is a perfect example. Nobody ‘speaks for’ Lutheranism the way that the Church speaks for the Church (so to speak)

Who speaks for Lutheranism is, first, no concern of yours. But that said, the Pope does not speak for all Catholics, either. Ex: PNCC.

Lutheranism overall suffers from how many competing and doctrinally conflicting communions? Nobody has the authority to interpret your Confessions for ALL of Lutheranism. The LCMS can interpret the Confessions but the ONLY place where those intperrtations mean any thing is within the LCMS, which are about 2% of Lutheranism overall. Thus the response of the LCMS could POSSIBLY be a response, but not one that applies to the vast majority of Lutheranism.

Again, part of your intentional misrepresentation. As I have told you before, the LCMS is a part of the ILC, as is in full communion with the member synods.

The criticism here is directed at Lutheranism in general and specifically at the Confessions. The ‘explanation’ from the LCMS about the ‘antichrist’ issue cannot answer this criticism overall because the LCMS does not speak for Lutheranism overall.

I will let the ELCA members speak for themselves, but the fact is you have consistently ignored what the LCMS says, in favor of your own misrepresentation.

Futhremore, the LCMS statement that the ‘antichrist’ refers ONLY to the office of the papacy is NOT supported by the text of the Confessions, which does not use the term ‘office’ at all.

And this is the entire purpose of my bringing up Unam sanctam. Topper, you don’t get to decide whether our statements are supported in the confessions, anymore than I get to claim that the positive reformulation of Unam sanctam is supported by the bull.
But so long as you do so, I will respond to you in kind.

I would think that the LCMS could, if it chose to, make a HUGE step towards reunification, by officially publishing on its website, the Confessions with the language about the antichrist and the ‘adherents’ OMITTED. To me that would be HUGE. It would really make me sit up and take notice of a completely different attitude on the part of the LCMS. Jon, do you think that is possible for the LCMS to take this action? (this is a question that calls for a yes or no.)

I have already stated that I don’t like the term, and I believe heterodox is an adequate description. But just like you have no say over what the Vatican says or does, I have none of the CTCR.
I think it is quite possible for the LCMS to take that step, when in dialogue our traditions come to agreement about the disputed doctrines. That’s how dialogue works. When we agree, the mutual condemnations are repudiated. But what difference does it make? After all, according to Unam sanctam, we have no chance of salvation anyway. Right, Topper?

Jon

 

[Tomyris]

I really believe the path to reconciliation is forgiveness. Don’t you pray the Lord’s prayer at Mass? Do you mean it when you say "

In Matthew 6:14 we read

If you do not forgive Martin Luther, will God forgive YOUR sins? You feel he has wronged you and your church. Forgive him. This bitterness and anger is the work of the devil, this division between brothers and sisters in Christ. It is easy to forgive someone who has not really hurt or wronged you, but real forgiveness is unwarranted and is given to someone who does not deserve it. It is unjustified. It is without anything on the part of the one you are forgiving. They DON’T deserve it, they are not necessarily contrite or right or penitent or ANYTHING that would merit forgiveness. That is the POINT. We have been forgiven, we are to go and do likewise and forgive those it is most difficult for us to forgive. For some of you that is Martin Luther.

It is GOOD NEWS we are concerned with. It is one thing to say that God justifies the righteous and condemns the wicked, but that is not good news for the wicked! Rather Jesus came to SAVE sinners, not the righteous. Forgiveness is a unilateral act. We are to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, willingly lay down our lives for others - and not because we have measured them and found them worthy.

I found this just now traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A438-Erfurt.html

Topper, I think you missed this post. Do you have a response?

 

[JonNC]

This has been refuted. :yawn:

At LEAST incorporate the refutations of your refutations in your repeated posts!

We may disagree with this, but at least Abu is posting from a Catholic POV. That is to be admired. Abu is speaking positively (I know, a dirty word to some) about the Catholic tradition, and why they believe as they do.

Jon