Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

My comment, early on, was, essential, that I believe that had Luther and Catholic leaders had the benefit of foresight, both probably would have changed their approach.

We all agree that Luther was right to challenge the Church on the abuses on matters of practice that were then being committed. However, your above statement infers that the Catholic Church made mistakes in dealing with Luther. After Luther’s ‘posting’ of the 95 Theses then, what should the Church have done differently in response to Luther’s challenges regarding SO MANY different doctrines?

To help flesh this question out, so that it doesn’t get ‘overly general’, let’s look at the specific issue of the number of Sacraments. The Church held to 7 and Luther vacilated between 2 and 3. Should the Church have negotiated with Luther on the number of Sacraments? Do you think Luther would have been satisfied if the Church had agreed to reduce them down to 6? What about 5? How about 4?

On this specific issue Jon, what do you think the Church should have done to ‘change their approach’ as you put it?

Now, multiply this times at least 4 dozen, and specifically and exactly Jon, what do you think the Church should have done differently? How much do you think the Church would have had to ‘give up’ to satisfy Martin Luther?

You also mention that you think Luther probably would have changed his approach. Specifically and exactly Jon, what do you think Luther would have done differently (had he known ahead of time the ‘results’, and why?

Topper

 

[pablope]

Sounds like you are in full agreement with this:

A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod
Adopted 1932 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.)

1. As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation — these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) **Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” **(Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)

Source: lcms.org/doctrine/doctrinalposition#antichrist

So, in re-reading this…this is contrary to what Lutherans here have professed…the Pope of rome…the very papacy is indeed the anti-Christ described in the Bible…

This they seek and confess and affirm with their confessional documents…

 

[spina1953]

So, in re-reading this…this is contrary to what Lutherans here have professed…the Pope of rome…the very papacy is indeed the anti-Christ described in the Bible…

This they seek and confess and affirm with their confessional documents…

Hi Pablope: I have to agree with you after reading the confessions that you gave a link to.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12683876]
You also mention that you think Luther probably would have changed his approach. **Specifically and exactly Jon, what do you think Luther would have done differently (had he known ahead of time the ‘results’, and why? **

How on Earth would I be able to know “specifically and exactly” what Luther would or would not have done, not having known him, not having lived in his era?

I just have a general sense that both he and the leaders of the Catholic Church, all of them men who cared about the faith, regardless of their differences, would have considered their actions with perhaps greater care had they been aware of the impact it would have on the future. We can sit here 500 years later and claim we know what they might have done, “specifically and exactly”, and it would all be no more than speculation.

I would, however, like to read your thoughts on Unam sanctam, and its negative impact on Church unity, not only within the west, but also with the East.

Jon

 

[Tomyris]

How on Earth would I be able to know “specifically and exactly” what Luther would or would not have done, not having known him, not having lived in his era?

I just have a general sense that both he and the leaders of the Catholic Church, all of them men who cared about the faith, regardless of their differences, would have considered their actions with perhaps greater care had they been aware of the impact it would have on the future. We can sit here 500 years later and claim we know what they might have done, “specifically and exactly”, and it would all be no more than speculation.

I would, however, like to read your thoughts on Unam sanctam, and its negative impact on Church unity, not only within the west, but also with the East.

Jon

Just a comment.

Luther had nothing on John Knox in terms of anti-pope invective,from what I have heard. Most of us Presbyterians took out the part about the pope being Anti-Christ in 1933 from the Westminster Confession of Faith.

 

[jmcrae]

I certainly have a problem with the part of Unam sanctum that you bolded:

To me this seems to contradict John 14:6: “No one comes to the Father except through me.” It doesn’t say, “except through the Roman pontiff”.

It also seems to contradict Hebrews 4:14: “Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession.” If Jesus is our great high priest, why do we need a pope?

For the same reason that we needed the Apostles - to faithfully pass the message of Christ to the next generation, without distortion.

Jesus is in Heaven, and most of us cloud our judgement with our own opinion of how things ought to be. We need someone to guard the Tradition for us, so it doesn’t get lost in our own opinions.

 

[Topper17]

Hi ben,

http://classicfilmaficionados.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/dr102.gif

Now THAT was a good movie!

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Jon,

I think we need a pope, one like those early popes that we as Lutherans honor on our calendar. We need a pope who recognizes his position as they did, one of primacy, not supremacy. But in a larger sense we need a pope because frankly, we are seeing Lutherans losing their way, lured by liberal secularism.
My biggest complaint about the LCMS is it is too congregational. We need a pope, but one in the mold of Nicea canon 6.

Ok Jon, let’s go with that. How would you go about obtaining or develop or finding a Pope? Which communions would that one man ‘cover’ and what would be the limits of his authority?

With all that being said, why not just adhere yourselves to THE Pope, the way that so many of your PHD Theologians have chosen to do by their conversions? After all, the Pope actually DOES have a place in Apostolic Succession. Certainly having a Pope from WITHIN the Succession would be preferable to one what is ‘created’ outside the Succession 2000 years after the fact. It would seem that that would be the simplest way to go.

ISTM that if you go out and create some ‘office’ that is not in unity with the Bishop of Rome, then you will have absolutely NO credibility when somebody decides to break away from your newly appointed ‘pope’. In fact, that is exactly what happened to Luther’s “Reformation”. Once he established the precedent of defying the authority of the Pope (and the Church and the Councils), he really couldn’t expect anything other than people defying HIS authority. The only logical conclusion was going to be an ever expanding denominalization. He WAS warned that that was exactly what was going to happen.

As you know, Melanchthon was so upset by the denominalization that was occurring during his lifetime that he seriously contemplated returning Lutheranism to the jurisdiction of the Pope. (references upon request as always).

Is it not even more clear today that it was in his time?

I think that you will continue to see “Lutherans losing their way” and that is because there is nothing here on earth to rally around. You can claim that your Confessions serve that purpose but it hasn’t really worked out all that well has it? It’s like saying that the Scriptures should be the final authority, which REALLY has not worked out all that well for Protestantism overall.

Christ established an earthly Church with an earthly authority, and once you stray outside that authority, you will end up with tens of thousands of denominations full of people whose descendants are probably going to be, in general, A LOT less devout than they are.

Topper

 

[Takemine]

Luther’s ego got in his way.
He came up with sola scriptura because of his disobedience to the pope. He rejected the idea of purgatory and threw out the book of Mackabees because it describes purgatory and praying for the dead.
It follows that there is no authority but the Bible if you reject the Magisterium and Tradition.

Because of his disagreement over indulgences, he couldn’t believe in purgatory.
His story has been watered down and people claim the RCC was corrupt and Luther was a good guy for calling them on it. There was corruption, but we mustn’t forget that the Holy Spirit guides the church. There was none more corrupt than Luther.
Read his life story and see what a mean spirited, self indulgent, power hungry man he was.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Thor,

Thanks for your response.

Just out of curiosity, is new Catholic church construction booming in comparison to all these non-denominational congregations meeting in schools, community centers, etc.?

The article didn’t break it out by Church and denomination. I do know this though, I have been paying big money for the last 8 years to pay off our new Church building, new community center, and additions to virtually every building. Our parish has 8000 for some weekends, up about double from 10 years ago when we had to build our beautiful 1000 seat Church.

I also know that the Diocese spends a TON of money on construction. When I get home tomorrow I will try to remember to look at that article and maybe the contact info for the author. I’ll pass it along to you so you can contact him if you want.

God Bless You Thor, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12684464]Jon,
Ok Jon, let’s go with that. How would you go about obtaining or develop or finding a Pope? Which communions would that one man ‘cover’ and what would be the limits of his authority?

It isn’t something you obtain. There is only one pope, and he happens to be the western patriarch, the Bishop of Rome.

With all that being said, why not just adhere yourselves to THE Pope, the way that so many of your PHD Theologians have chosen to do by their conversions? After all, the Pope actually DOES have a place in Apostolic Succession. Certainly having a Pope from WITHIN the Succession would be preferable to one what is ‘created’ outside the Succession 2000 years after the fact. It would seem that that would be the simplest way to go.

And some have gone to Orthodoxy, but I have already answered that question, ISTM, on this thread and many others. The claim of the papacy as having universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction in inconsistent with the early Church and councils. If you read what I wrote in that post, I mentioned this.
I do find it interesting, though, that as often as you rail against “personal judgement”, here you are suggesting I do so.

As you know, Melanchthon was so upset by the denominalization that was occurring during his lifetime that he seriously contemplated returning Lutheranism to the jurisdiction of the Pope. (references upon request as always).

Are you saying this time you believe him?

Is it not even more clear today that it was in his time?

I tend to agree that the need for unity is as critical today as ever.

I think that you will continue to see “Lutherans losing their way” and that is because there is nothing here on earth to rally around. You can claim that your Confessions serve that purpose but it hasn’t really worked out all that well has it? It’s like saying that the Scriptures should be the final authority, which REALLY has not worked out all that well for Protestantism overall.

Clearly scripture and Tradition haven’t been entirely successful, either. 1,000 years!

Christ established an earthly Church with an earthly authority, and once you stray outside that authority, you will end up with tens of thousands of denominations full of people whose descendants are probably going to be, in general, A LOT less devout than they are.

Well, I can’t speak for other protestant communions, anymore than you can, but for me, I think what Saltzman sad speaks to the issue: does the Synod reflect the catholicity of the CA. So far, it does. If that changes…

I have answered you question here, how about answering mine regarding Unam sanctam.

Jon

 

[steido01]

We all agree that Luther was right to challenge the Church on the abuses on matters of practice that were then being committed. However, your above statement infers that the Catholic Church made mistakes in dealing with Luther.

Does your statement infer that Catholics did not make any mistakes in “dealing with” Luther? Is that the Catholic Church’s official view?

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”

-Catechism of the Catholic Church

As you know, Melanchthon was so upset by the denominalization that was occurring during his lifetime that he seriously contemplated returning Lutheranism to the jurisdiction of the Pope. (references upon request as always).

Let me get this straight. In one thread, you bring up the topic of Melanchthon’s ecumenical efforts, dismissing them as dishonest and proclaiming Melanchthon himself to be a “LIAR” (quotations mine; emphatic use of all-caps yours). Yet in this thread, you’re saying he was sincere. Well, which is it? I just don’t know which of your “FACTS” you’d have us believe.

Looking forward to reading your thoughts on Unam Sanctam and its affect on today’s protestant communions.

 

[pablope]

Does your statement infer that Catholics did not make any mistakes in “dealing with” Luther? Is that the Catholic Church’s official view?

Quote:
817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”

-Catechism of the Catholic Church

And how about a Lutheran statement reflective of that quote from the CCC?

calledtocommunion.com/2009/10/stanley-hauerwas-on-reformation-sunday/

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.

 

[pablope]

Mary,
If you can find where I’ve made such a comment about Catholic worship, or Catholic piety and devotion, by all means I will accept that criticism.

I have had my share of “disappointing posts”, to be sure. I am not a perfect person, nor do I play one on the internet, but I think, over the years, I have represented my communion with respect and charity. If you and others no longer believe that to be the case, well then perhaps I have worn out my welcome, a welcome that used to be rather warm for us grumpy Lutherans.

Jon

Hmmm…I think this is your purgatory here on earth…this is what you get for not believing in purgatory in the after life…

 

[JonNC]

Hmmm…I think this is your purgatory here on earth…this is what you get for not believing in purgatory in the after life…

Seems I need a plenary indulgence.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

And how about a Lutheran statement reflective of that quote from the CCC?

calledtocommunion.com/2009/10/stanley-hauerwas-on-reformation-sunday/

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.

Oh, I think many thoughtful Lutherans recognize the sins of the Reformers, and more so, the current sins on our side that continue and maintain the disunity.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

And how about a Lutheran statement reflective of that quote from the CCC?

calledtocommunion.com/2009/10/stanley-hauerwas-on-reformation-sunday/

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.

Hi Pablope: I like the link you gave makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Topper17]

So, in re-reading this…this is contrary to what Lutherans here have professed…the Pope of rome…the very papacy is indeed the anti-Christ described in the Bible…

This they seek and confess and affirm with their confessional documents…

Hi pab,

There is no doubt that the way that we are seeing the Confessions represented here is in opposition to the actual text. Lutheran Professor James Kittelson offers the following analysis, which I think deals with the reality of the Confessions.

“Luther and Modern Church History”, by James Kittelson, Lutheran Professor of Church History, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN, all quotes from pages 259-60, in “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”,

**“There are at least two respects in which this subject (Luther and modern church history) can easily conceal more than it elucidates. The more obvious of these is the all too-tempting impetus to ascribe to Luther everything in contemporary Christianity of which the author approves. This tendency is most obvious in the pictures of Luther that derive from German Protestants and Lutherans in particular………” **

Here Kittleson describes a form of what I call the “Legend of Luther”.

Kittleson continues:

"From the perspective of** those who seek the most precise and unvarnished truth about Luther possible, the currently most guilty party on this score is the ecumenical movement** as it has been pursued in many quarters since Vatican II. Those among them who seek the formal reuniting of separated churches and at the same time carry the label “Lutheran” are particularly prone to seek in him elements that might be used to service their agenda of contemporary institutional ecumenism**……One group (which is very prone to ‘find the good’ in Luther), North Americans all, pursue one version or another of the argument that in his heart of hearts Luther wanted to reform the Church of Rome and deeply regretted the division that nonetheless followed and remains characteristic to this day. Roughly speaking, this party, which calls itself ‘evangelical catholics’, divides into two groups.”**

It is worth noting that Kittelson does not refer to these two groups as ‘Evangelical Catholics’ with a capitol ‘C’. The one group according to Kittelson “is very prone to ‘find the good’ in Luther.” Interestingly, Kittelson says that this is strictly a North American phenomenon, which means that it is not a larger Lutheran phenomenon.

**“One seeks accommodations between evangelical and Roman Catholic teaching on the central subjects of justification, faith, grace, and the like, while the other gives up on the core of Luther’s theology and turns directly to his (allegedly) undeveloped understanding of ‘the church’ as both spiritual and this-worldly reality.” **Kittelson

I have always said that one of the things I appreciate about Lutherans is that they are extremely doctrinal, meaning that they understand the importance of doctrine, and are willing to defend what they believe against what they ‘know’ to be wrong. However, Kittleson states that the two different types of ‘Lutheran Evangelical Catholics’ are much more willing to cave in on doctrinal matters in hopes of reaching accommodation with Rome. The one group is willing to back down on even justification, while the other is willing to redefine (at least for Lutherans) the definition of ‘the church’ as being more in line with a Catholic understanding.

“Some of course take both avenues toward their goal, which is, quite simply, full reunion with the Church of Rome. In each case, the historical record blocks their path of seeking support from Luther for their fondest undertaking, unless they falsify, distort, or minimize it.” ****James M. Kittelson, Lutheran Professor of Church History, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN, in “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”, pg. 260

This last passage from Kittelson is the money quote (as if the first few weren’t). He admits that the history of Lutheranism itself is an obstacle to reunion with Rome. In fact Luther himself is an impediment to the unity desired by ‘Evangelical Catholics’, that is, ‘unless they falsify, distort, or minimize it’. I would suggest that the Lutheran Confessions are part of the ‘historical record’ which reduces the possibility of reunification.

I think that Kittelson deals with the issue as it is, and not as he wishes it to be.

Topper

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually the Catholic teaching does include the possibility of salvation to those who are not members of the Church, it just considered to be an exception, but still, salvation outside of the church is possible according to our doctrine.

So I would say that the protestant objection has some basis regarding the necessity of being catholic in order to be saved, but not because of the reasons they normally state… Just because God’s grace operates in a way that cannot be described in terms of a formal membership to a specific church/organization, neither limited by it.

Normatively necessary, but not absolutely necessary.

Follow the link I gave to read the full article for a complete explanation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, in re-reading this…this is contrary to what Lutherans here have professed…the Pope of rome…the very papacy is indeed the anti-Christ described in the Bible…

This they seek and confess and affirm with their confessional documents…

I think it would be very interesting if more Lutherans AND more Catholics knew that this stuff is part of current Lutheran beliefs. :sad_yes: