Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[Thorolfr]

I have seen several former Lutherans on these threads comment that one of the reasons that they left Lutheranism was because they either actually read Luther or became aware of what their Confessions said about things like the ‘AntiChrist’.

I was raised Baptist but became Lutheran and although I know that Luther had plenty of flaws, the more I read about him the more I like him. I’m actually quite happy to be a Lutheran and a lot of my ancestors on my mother’s side were Lutherans, too, from Germany and Sweden

 

[myway]

There are hundreds of books on the Reformation. Know matter what you read you will never know whether or not Martin Luther was a false witness.

 

[Topper17]

Jon,

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

Agreed. So how do you implement your recommendation about Lutheranism needing a Pope? According to Eric Gritsch, a Lutheran Professor, there are 63 million Lutherans ‘belonging to more than 220 church bodies, missions, or independent entities, with 38,000 congregations.” “A History of Lutheranism”, pg. xiii.

I am assuming that these 220 bodies are doctrinally independent at least to one degree or another, but the number isn’t critical. After all, given the amount of dissension within even Lutheranism, the 220 number is only an estimate. Let’s just say that there are ‘more than enough’ doctrinally independent Lutheran Communions.

Would the LCMS be willing to ‘sign on’ if it meant that they would have to hold to the doctrinal beliefs arrived at by the All Lutheran Council?

BTW, if you guys would like to have an ‘All Lutheran Council’, I could talk to Pope Francis and he would probably allow you to use all the facilities at the Vatican.

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.

In fact, Jon, you and I BOTH rail against ‘personal judgment’ when that means that one dissents from the teachings of one’s own Church. Somehow though you give Luther ‘a pass’, without explanation. I don’t.

I’ll put it to you this way. A papacy WITHOUT universal and immediate jurisdiction DOESN’T work in the real world, as evidenced by 220 doctrinally independent communions comprising only 3% of Christendom. If all of Protestantism were, statistically as fractured as Lutheranism, there would be 27,000 doctrinally independent communions, which is about what there are. This means that statistically, Lutheranism is just as fractured as is Protestantism as a whole.

Are you saying this time you believe him?

I’m going to say a very Protestant thing here Jon:

I believe Melanchthon when he was right and I don’t where he was wrong.

How’s that for taking a stand? Actually, in ALL cases, he appears to be weak and less interested in doctrine than what I would prefer. Hajo Holborn comments:

“Whether Melanchthon was of a religious nature in the truest sense, is debatable.” Holborn, “A History of Modern Germany”, pg. 195

In the past you have said that:

“Melanchthon was the “ELCA” of his time. I don’t think the ELCA is dishonest, just misguided.”

It seems that we might have somewhat similar opinions of Melanchthon’s ability to correctly understand Scripture.

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

How about MORE critical. If there are 220 independent Lutehran Communions now, then how many more will there be in a generation? Will it be somehow easier to unite everybody then that it is now? The best time to actually DO SOMETHING Jon, is NOW.

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

Let’s look at this in perspective Jon. Scripture and Tradition did a great job of protecting the unity called for by Christ, the Apostles, and Scripture – for 1,000 years. The break that siphoned off what is now 20% of Christendom has ‘morphed’ into I think 17 different doctrinally independent communions in the last 1000 years. In the last 500 years, the 30% of Christianity which is now “Protestant” has devolved into tens of thousands of doctrinally independent denominations. How is that NOT an obvious indictment against Luther’s radical teaching of Scripture Alone?

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…

It seems Jon that you don’t have a problem speaking for (or actually against) some other communions, including other Lutheran communions. My guess is that the ELCA, for example, believes that they hold to the Lutheran Confessions just fine.

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

As you know Jon, I am interested in sticking to the topic, which by the way is Martin Luther and what he would have done ‘if he had known’. Sorry.

On the other hand, if you are suggesting that we should each answer each other’s questions, then I am all for that. As you know I have asked you, probably at least a dozen times who, specifically and exactly, are the ‘adherents’ mentioned in your Lutheran Confessions. I have yet to receive an answer. All I can surmise is that I, and my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, are the ‘adherents’ who referred to in such an offensive manner.

That being said, if you would like to establish an arrangement under which we each answer the questions of the other, no matter how ‘difficult’ they are, and no matter whether they are ‘staying positive’ or not, then sign me up.

Given that my questions about the ‘adherents’ predate your request about Unam sanctam by months and months, how about as a show of good faith - you go first. When I have gotten a conclusive answer about who specifically the ‘adherents’ are, I promise I will post a response on Unam sanctam. Are you interested enough in my opinion to finally answer that question?

Topper

 

[MaryT777]

Hi Topper: Mice! Could not have said it better!

 

[JonNC]

=powerofk;12690251]Luther didn’t cause others to revolt. However, Luther’s success in revolting allowed others with divergent beliefs to be emboldened. These “reformers” (Calvin, Zwigli, and others) probably would not have dared to publish their ideas had Luther not been successful in publishing and dispersing his ideas and had been moderately successful in doing so. Honestly, though, there were primarily two reasons any of the “reformers” were successful in convincing people to follow them.

There is an element of truth here, in that the one thing Luther was able to do, with help of course, was *survive *his attempts at reform.

Number 1: the new-at-the-time invention of Gutenberg’s printing press (which, btw, is also the invention that made our new democratic-style (either republican or constitutional monarchy-style) governments possible). The printing press made large-scale publication easy. Before the printing press, ideas were passed along by word of mouth or by hand-written note. Books had to be copied by hand. This made the flow of ideas travel much slower. As such, the Church was more able to stop the spread of heterodox ideas. Remember, there were heterodox groups in England well before the Reformation, but due to much slower communication, the groups never grew very large.

Number 2: Northern European kings and princes (especially in what is today Germany, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries and Great Britain) seeing that making another version of Christianity official would allow them to reclaim Church property. For centuries, northern European kings and princes had been wanting to reclaim Church property as their own. But, as it belonged to the Church, it would have been scandalous for them to have done so. When the Protestant denominations came along, the Northern European kings made the new Protestant denominations the only legal version of Christianity in their respective kingdoms, and as such were able to confiscate all property belonging to the Catholic Church.

While I generally agree with #1 (Huss would say it was more than the lack of a printing press that made stopping him possible), in #2, again an element of truth, but it was also true that Rome was extracting wealth from these parts of Europe. My sense is financial grain was an underlying motivation on both sides.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12690339]Well…who do you think came up with Sola Scriptura?

It starts there…does it not?

Not Luther. Well, not all by himself, and not in a vacuum, to be sure.

"It stands to reason that Luther's attitude toward the scriptures would be influenced by the fact that when he studied theology in the cloister at Erfurt, Erfurt and Vienna were the chief exponents of the *via moderna*, i.e., of Occamism, and that he also becoame an adherent of this trend of thought,...

The Occamists, however, emphasized the authority of scripture more strongly than did other Middle-age theologians, though none of the latter denied it. They emphasized the facts that the Holy Scriptures are inspired by God, that they posit absolutely certain propositions of faith, that the Christian is obligated to believe only these, and that everyone who denies this faith must be a heretic."

---

“Occam emphatically declares: ‘What is not contained in scripture, or cannot with necessary and obvious consistency be deduced from the contents of same, no Christian needs to believe.’”

Luther and the Scriptures, Dr. M Reu

AFAIK, the teaching of theology in that time was the responsibility of the Church. One can only speculate how Luther and that time would have been different had Luther been taught in a Thomist environment. Again, the Catholic Church shares in the responsibility for the Reformation.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon: Luther was not the only one of the Reformation who revolted against the CC as history has so far shown . That being said in answer to your question how did Luther cause others to revolt? It seems to me that Luther’s revolt against the CC opened the door so to speak for others to revolt against the CC. They felt that seeing Luther being successful and having the backing of many of the princes in his endeavor to continue with his teaching, theology and interpretation of Scripture against what the CC taught, other felt that they too could also break away from the CC with their own doctrines and teachings and interpretations of Scripture they believed to be in line with their thinking.

 Even if Luther had not revolted against the CC the era was ripe for dissention of those who felt that the teachings and doctrines of the CC no longer applied to them, and part of the reason is due to the rise of nationalistic identity, and their own cultural traditions. Many had the backing of their princes of the regions they controlled seeing it as a way to break whatever power they thought the CC had. Many had differing idea's of what they thought Scripture meant and said and developed doctrines and theologies basing it on their own interpretations of Scripture. Many added to what they understood of many of Luther's writings and teachings, or changed them to suit their own theology, making new doctrines. Luther as history shows also attributes Luther as the Father of the Reformation leading to new ways of thinking different from what had been taught and understood, thereby causing others to rethink what they had been taught, and developing new doctrines and teachings.

Hi Spina,
This is a measured and well-thought out response, and I appreciate it. I think your mention of the political environment is particularly important.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Not Luther. Well, not all by himself, and not in a vacuum, to be sure.

Luther and the Scriptures, Dr. M Reu

AFAIK, the teaching of theology in that time was the responsibility of the Church. One can only speculate how Luther and that time would have been different had Luther been taught in a Thomist environment. Again, the Catholic Church shares in the responsibility for the Reformation.

Jon

No one on this thread has denied the Catholic Church shares in the responsibility for the reformation as far as abuses in the Church went.

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

My own opinion is that there is only one body of Christ, and that body began calling itself the Catholic Church as early as the end of the first century - middle of the second at the latest according to Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly.

Since anyone who is baptized has at least an imperfect communion with that Church, anyone who is a Christian AT ALL is technically a Catholic since that is the only Church.

Orthodox, Lutherans, Pentecostals…whatever. They are all Catholics because they are members of the one body of Christ.

Try telling that to them, however…

Hi Randy,
I have no problem with this. My point is not to counter current Catholic teaching regarding Unam sanctam. The CC has every right to “positively reformulate” their own writings:

“How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Reformulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846).

I believe the CC when it makes this statement.

OTOH, I expect the same courtesy in return when I quote our synod as saying:

Q: As a Methodist living in a new town, I have found a local LCMS church where I feel comfortable and fed. Seeking information, I have looked over your pages on the net and have developed some questions. The connection between the antichrist and pope are unclear to me. Do you believe the pope is the only enemy?

A: The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod’s Theological Commission:
The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt.24:5,23-24; Mark 13:6,21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ’s Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ. However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ” (Dan. 7:8,11, 20-21, 24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . . Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions’ identification of the Antichrist with the office of the
papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person’s heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.

In a footnote, the Commission adds: To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine “that justifying faith is nothing else
than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified,” the judgment of the Lutheran confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds.
At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Hi Spina,
This is a measured and well-thought out response, and I appreciate it. I think your mention of the political environment is particularly important.

Jon

Hi Jon: Thank you! I do think that the political environment is very important as it lends to how what was going on at the time of the Reformation. I also think that national identity emerging during that time may have led to bring the Reformation on. There were I think many causes going on which led to the Reformation and Luther was just one person among many who were somehow dissatisfied with the status quo of the day.

 

[JonNC]

So, Lutherans go out of their way to be nice to the Jews, but heaven forbid anything like that should be granted to your brothers and sisters in Christ, the Catholics.

Salvation of Catholics
Q: A non-Lutheran Christian friend of mine recently stated that he believes that Catholics are not saved and should not be considered Christians. What is the Synod’s belief regarding the salvation of Catholics who adhere to Roman dogma?

A: The LCMS recognizes all Trinitarian church bodies as Christian churches (in contrast to “cults,” which typically reject the doctrine of the Trinity and thus cannot be recognized as Christian). In fact, a primary “objective” listed in the Synod’s Constitution (Article III) is to “work through its official structure toward fellowship with other Christian church bodies”—which explicitly assumes that these “other church bodies” are “Christian” in nature. That does not lessen the Synod’s concern for the false doctrine taught
and confessed by these churches, but it does highlight the Synod’s recognition that wherever the “marks of the church” (the Gospel and Sacraments) are present—even where “mixed” with error—there the Christian church is present. Such a church is a heterodox church, that is, a church that teaches false doctrine.
Of course, personal salvation is not merely a matter of external membership in or association with any church organization or denomination (including the LCMS), but comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone. All those who confess Jesus Christ as Savior are recognized as “Christians” by the Synod—only God can look into a person’s heart and see whether that person really believes. It is possible to have true and sincere faith in Jesus Christ even while having wrong or incomplete beliefs about other doctrinal issues.
This explains why former Synod President A.L. Barry called members of the Roman Catholic Church “our fellow Christians” in his statement Toward True Reconciliation, which at the same time identifies and laments the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
The great danger is that believing things contrary to God’s Word can obscure and perhaps even completely destroy belief in Jesus Christ as one’s Savior. We pray that this will not happen to those who confess Jesus Christ as Savior and yet belong to heterodox church bodies, including fellow Christians in the Roman Catholic Church.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

By setting an example that emboldened others to act similarly?

Hi Randy,
Could it not be said that the OO set an example at Chalcedon? That Rome, or the EO depending on one’s POV, set that example in 1054?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Randy,

I have seen several former Lutherans on these threads comment that one of the reasons that they left Lutheranism was because they either actually read Luther or became aware of what their Confessions said about things like the ‘AntiChrist’.

As for what the Confessions says though, actually it gets worse. From the bookofconcord.org/whatarethey.php

Source:
Getting into The Theology of Concord by Robert D. Preus (Robert David Preus (October 16, 1924 – November 4, 1995) was an American Lutheran (LCMS) pastor, professor, author, and seminary president.)
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1977), pgs. 7-29.

---

All that being said Randy, the fact is that all Lutherans are supposed to be held to the beliefs expressed in the Lutheran Confessions. Lutheran Pastors, and those joining a Lutheran church, as I understand it, are required to profess their belief in ALL of the beliefs expressed by the Confessions. In other words, in order to be ordained in a Lutheran church, or to join a Lutheran church, you are required to proclaim that you believe all of the ‘things’ expressed in the Confessions, including those things said about the Pope, and for that matter, about the ‘adherents’.

What I think it extremely hopeful is that the Presbyterians have apparently eliminated all of that ‘antiChrist language’. That means that there actually is reason for hope.

God Bless You Randy, Topper

Do you actually believe that the Catholic Church expects anything less? I cannot count how many times I have heard here at CAF that the Catholic Church cannot “negotiate”, or “compromise” doctrine. Would you expect anything less from us?
How reliable a dialogue partner has the ELCA and LWF been in their willlingness to drift from the Confessional teachings. While they tell the CC one thing, they do things that satisfy the liberals in communions such as TEC, and secularists in the general population.
Articles have been linked here that, in fact, there is growing desire among Catholicsto further dialogue with ILC synods such as mine. Why? Because in many matters, we stand closer together than the CC does with the ELCA/LWF. Let’s remember who joined Bishop Lori at that congressional hearing regarding the HHS Mandate. I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t Bishop Hanson from the ELCA.
We’re the Lutherans who have stood by the CC in matters of morals, and supported those efforts. Its LCMS Lutherans, by and large, who march with Catholics, arm in arm, in defense of life.
Why is that? Because we stand steadfast to our confessions, and scripture.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12690953]Jon,

Agreed. So how do you implement your recommendation about Lutheranism needing a Pope? According to Eric Gritsch, a Lutheran Professor, there are 63 million Lutherans ‘belonging to more than 220 church bodies, missions, or independent entities, with 38,000 congregations.” “A History of Lutheranism”, pg. xiii.

I am assuming that these 220 bodies are doctrinally independent at least to one degree or another, but the number isn’t critical. After all, given the amount of dissension within even Lutheranism, the 220 number is only an estimate. Let’s just say that there are ‘more than enough’ doctrinally independent Lutheran Communions.

If they are true Lutherans, they are essentially doctrinally united, though it is not unusual for synods within the Lutheran tradition to vary.
To the question, we do what you have implied in the past to opposed to: dialogue between our leaders.

In fact, Jon, you and I BOTH rail against ‘personal judgment’ when that means that one dissents from the teachings of one’s own Church. Somehow though you give Luther ‘a pass’, without explanation. I don’t.

I’ll put it to you this way. A papacy WITHOUT universal and immediate jurisdiction DOESN’T work in the real world, as evidenced by 220 doctrinally independent communions comprising only 3% of Christendom. If all of Protestantism were, statistically as fractured as Lutheranism, there would be 27,000 doctrinally independent communions, which is about what there are. This means that statistically, Lutheranism is just as fractured as is Protestantism as a whole.

I’m going to say a very Protestant thing here Jon:
I believe Melanchthon when he was right and I don’t where he was wrong.
How’s that for taking a stand? Actually, in ALL cases, he appears to be weak and less interested in doctrine than what I would prefer. Hajo Holborn comments:
“Whether Melanchthon was of a religious nature in the truest sense, is debatable.” Holborn, “A History of Modern Germany”, pg. 195
In the past you have said that:
“Melanchthon was the “ELCA” of his time. I don’t think the ELCA is dishonest, just misguided.”
It seems that we might have somewhat similar opinions of Melanchthon’s ability to correctly understand Scripture.

That’s not merely protestant. Consider Origen, for example.

.

As you know Jon, I am interested in sticking to the topic, which by the way is Martin Luther and what he would have done ‘if he had known’. Sorry.

You made Unam sanctam part of the topic, by bringing up the Lutheran charge regarding the office of the papacy, and the author of the OP has responded to this part of the topic. Clearly, it is part of the topic.

On the other hand, if you are suggesting that we should each answer each other’s questions, then I am all for that. As you know I have asked you, probably at least a dozen times who, specifically and exactly, are the ‘adherents’ mentioned in your Lutheran Confessions. I have yet to receive an answer. All I can surmise is that I, and my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, are the ‘adherents’ who referred to in such an offensive manner.

Check out the preface to the Book of Concord, section 20, in part:

Thus, as it is in no way our design and purpose to condemn those men who err from a certain simplicity of mind, but are not blasphemers against the truth of the heavenly doctrine, much less, indeed, entire churches, which are either under the Roman Empire of the German nation or elsewhere; nay, rather has it been our intention and disposition in this manner openly to censure and condemn only the fanatical opinions and their obstinate and blasphemous teachers, (which, we judge, should in no way be tolerated in our dominions, churches, and schools,) because these errors conflict with the express Word of God, and that, too, in such a way that they cannot be reconciled with it. We have undertaken this also for this reason, viz., that all godly persons might be warned diligently to avoid them. For we have no doubt whatever that even in those churches which have hitherto not agreed with us in all things many godly and by no means wicked men are found who follow their own simplicity, and do not understand aright the matter itself, but in no way approve the blasphemies which are cast forth against the Holy Supper as it is administered in our churches, according to Christ’s institution, and, with the unanimous approval of all good men, is taught in accordance with the words of the testament itself.

And lest you decide to attack the simplicity of mind language, that is simply a way of referring to those not trained in theology, those not of the clergy. Further, unlike Unam sanctam, our writings make it clear that popes and clergy, being godly men, transfer to the Church triumphant.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

No one on this thread has denied the Catholic Church shares in the responsibility for the reformation as far as abuses in the Church went.

Mary.

Hi Mary,
That’s good. Topper has asked me in what ways the Catholic church might have modified, and I think this is something they might have done. This, however, goes beyond “abuses”. It also goes to the education of priests and theologians.
In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon make reference to this situation:

Article XVIII: Of Free Will.

67] The Eighteenth Article, Of Free Will, the adversaries receive, although they add some testimonies not at all adapted to this case. They add also a declamation that neither, with the Pelagians, is too much to be granted to the free will, nor, with the Manicheans, is all freedom to be denied it. 68] Very well; but what difference is there between the Pelagians and our adversaries, since both hold that without the Holy Ghost men can love God and perform God’s commandments with respect to the substance of the acts, and can merit grace and justification by works which reason performs by itself, without the Holy Ghost? 69] How many absurdities follow from these Pelagian opinions, which are taught with great authority in the schools!

Was the fact that Luther was taught this way at Erfurt a doctrinal abuse, or was it in keeping with Church teaching at the time? I’ll let others answer, but certainly it had a profound impact on Luther’s understanding of Church teaching.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Jon, I’ll let others answer your question. I have no real affinity for Luther and feel he was deeply troubled and no teaching would soothe his own scrupulosity issues except the doctrine I feel was created in part to help him personally.

That is my personal opinion. I don’t feel he would have done anything different even if he knew the outcome of his doctrine because I believe as above. His writings about the Pope and his “adherents” speaks for itself.

FWIW,
Mary.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I’ll let others answer your question. I have no real affinity for Luther and feel he was deeply troubled and no teaching would soothe his own scrupulosity issues except the doctrine I feel was created in part to help him personally.

That is my personal opinion. I don’t feel he would have done anything different even if he knew the outcome of his doctrine because I believe as above. His writings about the Pope and his “adherents” speaks for itself.

FWIW,
Mary.

Thanks, Mary. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Jon

 

[Tomyris]

Was the fact that Luther was taught this way at Erfurt a doctrinal abuse, or was it in keeping with Church teaching at the time? I’ll let others answer, but certainly it had a profound impact on Luther’s understanding of Church teaching.

Jon

Alistair McGrath explored what Luther was taught in his Theology of the Cross. You might be interested in reading it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Only if they those Catholics don’t want to listen.

Our confessions are conditional - IF the Papal office has the four qualifications in our confession THEN the office is anti-christ. Catholics claim those marks are not true, so therefore Catholics shouldn’t be offended because it doesn’t pertain to the Pope.

Lutherans obviously disagree, but then again, why should Catholics care what Lutherans think about the Papal office.

Oh, well, in that case, why do Lutherans care what’s in Unam Sanctam?

The point of this sidebar is that Lutheran documents contain language that calls the holder of the office of the papacy “anti-Christ”. This has not been softened or explained in less offensive language.

OTOH, Lutherans may be offended by Unam Sanctam - until they read the less offensive explanations produced by the same Church that issued Unam Sanctam.

How is this distinction not obvious?

If we’re going to go down the “who’s the most offended” game - Lutherans would clearly win.

Our document say really nasty things about the (one person) modern papal office, and your documents condemn us (70 million Lutherans) to damnation with some small hope - and then only if we’re invincibly ignorant.

And Lutherans don’t even claim that the holder of the Papal office is destined for anything other than an everlasting life with Christ!

No, our documents only appear to say that to those who do not know how the Church has interpreted and clarified Unam Sanctam. IOW, if you are ignorant of EVERYTHING that the Church has said about Unam Sanctam, then you might be offended. But if you know the full story, there is nothing for you to take offense at.

Conversely, 1.2 billion people can be offended because you say we are following the anti-Christ. And there is no alternative explanation forthcoming from the Lutheran churches.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jon

Where was this Q&A published?