Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[JonNC]

Thanks. BTW, that page has this:

Q: What’s the Lutheran response to the Roman Catholic teaching of purgatory?

A: Lutherans have always rejected the traditional Roman Catholic teaching regarding purgatory because 1) we can find no scriptural basis for it, and 2) it is inconsistent, in our view, with the clear teaching of Scripture that after death the soul goes directly either to heaven (in the case of a Christian) or hell (in the case of a non-Christian), not to some “intermediate” place or state.

What Scripture teaches concerning the death of the Christian is summarized as follows by Lutheran theologian Edward Koehler in his book, A Summary of Christian Doctrine:

In the moment of death the souls of the believers enter the joy of heaven. Jesus said to the malefactor: “Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Stephen said in the hour of death: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). Whoever dies in the Lord is blessed “from henceforth” (Rev. 14:13).

Is paradise “heaven”?
Stephen did ask Jesus to receive his spirit, but there is nothing in that verse to suggest how quickly that request would be granted, is there? Be honest…
People in Purgatory are blessed “henceforth” because they have assurance of heaven.

Is this the scriptural basis for believing that Purgatory does not exist???

That’s kinda thin…

Hi Randy,
Just now getting to his. The key here is the term “traditional Roman Catholic teaching”, the idea of an intermediate state/place, and the need for satisfactions following forgiveness of sins, not to mention indulgences.
Recent dialogue which included the LCMS produced this document, which indicates that our teachings are much closer than one might think.
One can read the section on Purgatory starting at paragraph 156, but some of the conclusions drawn from the discussion are:

Catholics and Lutherans agree:

1. During this life, the justified “are not exempt from a lifelong struggle against the
   contradiction to God within the selfish desires of the old Adam (see Gal. 5:16;
   Rom. 7:7-10).”285
2. This struggle is rightly described by a variety of categories: e.g., penitence, healing,
   daily dying and rising with Christ.
3. Borne in Christ, the painful aspects of this struggle are a participation in Christ’s
   suffering and death. Catholic teachings call these pains temporal punishments;
   the Lutheran Confessions grant they, “in a formal sense,” can be called
   punishments.286
4. This ongoing struggle does not indicate an insufficiency in Christ’s saving work, but
   is an aspect of our being conformed to Christ and his saving work.287
5. The effects of sin in the justified are fully removed only as they die, undergo
   judgment, and encounter the purifying love of Christ. The justified are
   transformed from their condition at death to the condition with which they will
   be blessed in eternal glory. All, even martyrs and saints of the highest order,
   will find the encounter with the Risen Christ transformative in ways beyond
   human comprehension.
   6**. Christ transforms those who enter into eternal life. This change is a work of God’s
   grace. It can be rightly understood as our final and perfect conformation to
   Christ (Phil 3:21). The fire of Christ’s love burns away all that is incompatible
   with living in the direct presence of God. It is the complete death of the old
   person, leaving only the new person in Christ.
6. Scripture tells us little about the process of the transformation from this life to
   entrance into eternal life. Categories of space and time can be applied only
   analogously.**

Further, the document mentions Spe salviin which Pope Benedict says:

1. Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ’s Passion. At the moment of judgement we experience and we absorb the overwhelming power of his love over all the evil in the world and in ourselves. The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy. It is clear that we cannot calculate the “duration” of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming “moment” of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart’s time, it is the time of “passage” to communion with God in the Body of Christ[39].

Described as a moment leaves room, at least for this Lutheran, for closer agreement.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy,
Just now getting to his. The key here is the term “traditional Roman Catholic teaching”, the idea of an intermediate state/place, and the need for satisfactions following forgiveness of sins, not to mention indulgences.
Recent dialogue which included the LCMS produced this document, which indicates that our teachings are much closer than one might think.

I see the ELCA mentioned on a title page…where are the LCMS?

 

[JonNC]

I see the ELCA mentioned on a title page…where are the LCMS?

Not sure why, but this article confirms our involvement. freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1817877/posts

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Jon,

First of all, I committed in post number 224 to writing a post on Unam sanctam, and so I am in the process of doing so. It might take me a few days to do the research necessary to do the subject justice though. Not coincidently I think, in post number 228, you answered the question about the adherents:

The adherents being talked about are, primarily bishops and clergy.

This of course leads to some follow-up questions but I will get to those as they come up chronologically.

For now, a response your post number 209:

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?

As I have stated several times, one of the things I appreciate about Lutherans is that they really care about Doctrine (Lutherans of the Melanchthon type excepted of course). I do appreciate how Lutherans are willing to stick up for what they believe. On the other hand, that ‘certainty’ that Lutherans exhibit, must be explainable. In other words, that certainty should be justified.

What was it that made Luther’s doctrines ‘right’ and those of the Church ‘wrong’? The certainty though that Lutherans demonstrate is obvious. In one of your recent posts you quoted from the LCMS website as follows:

“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 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.”

What is that degree of certainty based on? Why should the Catholic Church be expected that, in order to achieve doctrinal unity with Catholics, it is the Catholics who must change.

While I appreciate the Lutheran importance of doctrine, I question the justification for this Lutheran stand. Historically, it is MUCH easier to make the case that Luther was wrong to doctrinally Revolt against the Church than it is to suggest that Luther was correct to Revolt doctrinally.

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.

Jon, this presumes that those ‘other’ Lutheran communions are not holding to the Confessions properly and you are. Do THEY agree that they are not responding properly to the Confessions?

Who within Lutheranism has the Authority to settle these intra-Lutheran doctrinal disputes? The answer – nobody. And because there is nobody to settle doctrinal disputes, they will continue to increase. These doctrinal dissensions are ‘built into the system’, ‘baked into the cake’ so to speak. Unless Lutheranism can (somehow) establish some sort of overarching earthly authority, whether it be a person, or some sort of ‘All Lutheran Ecumenical Council’, there is nothing ahead but further dissension. Whatever the current number of doctrinally independent Lutheran communions, there will be more, and the slide towards liberal secularism will continue – UNTIL……………………….what should be, by now, an obvious ‘conclusion’.

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.

Of course there is willingness to dialogue on both sides. But what is the goal? Is it just to ‘get along’ and dialogue, or is it to actually HEAL the wounds to Christian doctrinal unity? My position is that we should NOT aim low, and we should be willing to deal with the difficult issues.

After 50 years now, we don’t have anything more substantial to point to than a couple of encouraging statements, a few Bishops joining forces on common issues, and NO doctrinal movement. The fact that we agree on many moral issues is not unimportant, but will take MUCH MORE than that to achieve doctrinal agreement.

Given that it was Luther who ‘set the course’ for Lutheran doctrinal disagreement with Catholicism, it only makes sense that we determine whether, in the 16th century, it was Luther or the Church that was ‘right’ to oppose the other.

I believe that it is telling that it was Luther who created the doctrinal ‘system’ which INSURED doctrinal dissension, and that now we have Lutherans complaining here about the doctrinal beliefs of other Lutherans.

Luther wanted to be that ‘overarching’ authority, but others, having ‘noticed’ his ‘success’, used his rebellion as the precedent to justify their own. As we know, it was all very predicable.

Topper

 

[Topper17]

Jon,

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.

Actually that wasn’t what I asked. It seems that you think that the Church should have done something different AFTER Luther’s 95 Theses. What do you think the Church should have done differently to reach some kind of agreement with Luther? Specifically. Should it have been willing to ‘negotiate’ on doctrine?

Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Randy,

Thanks. BTW, that page has this:

Q: What’s the Lutheran response to the Roman Catholic teaching of purgatory?

A: Lutherans have always rejected the traditional Roman Catholic teaching regarding purgatory because 1) we can find no scriptural basis for it, and 2) it is inconsistent, in our view, with the clear teaching of Scripture that after death the soul goes directly either to heaven (in the case of a Christian) or hell (in the case of a non-Christian), not to some “intermediate” place or state.

What Scripture teaches concerning the death of the Christian is summarized as follows by Lutheran theologian Edward Koehler in his book, A Summary of Christian Doctrine:

In the moment of death the souls of the believers enter the joy of heaven. Jesus said to the malefactor: “Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Stephen said in the hour of death: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). Whoever dies in the Lord is blessed “from henceforth” (Rev. 14:13).

Is paradise “heaven”?
Stephen did ask Jesus to receive his spirit, but there is nothing in that verse to suggest how quickly that request would be granted, is there? Be honest…
People in Purgatory are blessed “henceforth” because they have assurance of heaven.

Is this the scriptural basis for believing that Purgatory does not exist???

That’s kinda thin…

Not surprisingly, I think that some historical context would be helpful in understanding this issue.

“Perhaps the gravest doctrinal threat in the Reformation’s attack on indulgences was its eventual damage to the idea of purgatory. **Luther had, Thomas More charged, “done away” not only with indulgences but with purgatory itself. Opponents like More recognized this more clearly than Luther, especially the contradiction between his continued acceptance of purgatory and his doctrine of the sole authority of Scripture. ** **When he eventually did reject purgatory, they were in a position to remind him of his earlier protestations of loyal adherence to it and to call him back to his Original Catholic orthodoxy.” **Jaroslav Pelikan, Reformation of the Church and Dogma (1300-1700), pg. 250

Here Pelikan, a (then) Lutheran admits that Luther held contradictory positions at the Leipzig Debate in 1519, and in fact for the next decade. Because He was not “systematic” in his “theology”, he didn’t understand how the belief in Salvation by Faith Alone contradicted the belief in Purgatory. In spite of being ‘informed’ of this by Catholics, it took Luther until 1530 to have this ‘sink in’ sufficiently to finally reject Purgatory. BTW, More was as a Catholic who was martyred for his faith in England.

**“Indeed, Luther himself continued to accept the existence of Purgatory until around 1530, when he finally realized that his soteriological revolution had abolished it (a change of mind which then necessitated a certain amount of re-editing of some of his earlier writings). ** MacCulloch, “The Reformation”, pg. 122

Needless to say, Luther was not the best at recognizing how various parts of a theology worked (or didn’t) with others.

God Bless You Randy, Topper

 

[PaulDupre1]

I would add that I think Luther was dealing with issues that, if he were around today would have been helped by medication and interaction with a mental health professional.

Yes. Luther’s extreme scrupulosity is a form of mental illness. I think he took refuge in the solas as a personal defense mechanism.

Paul

 

[JonNC]

Hi Randy,

Not surprisingly, I think that some historical context would be helpful in understanding this issue.

“Perhaps the gravest doctrinal threat in the Reformation’s attack on indulgences was its eventual damage to the idea of purgatory. **Luther had, Thomas More charged, “done away” not only with indulgences but with purgatory itself. Opponents like More recognized this more clearly than Luther, especially the contradiction between his continued acceptance of purgatory and his doctrine of the sole authority of Scripture. ** **When he eventually did reject purgatory, they were in a position to remind him of his earlier protestations of loyal adherence to it and to call him back to his Original Catholic orthodoxy.” **Jaroslav Pelikan, Reformation of the Church and Dogma (1300-1700), pg. 250

Here Pelikan, a (then) Lutheran admits that Luther held contradictory positions at the Leipzig Debate in 1519, and in fact for the next decade. Because He was not “systematic” in his “theology”, he didn’t understand how the belief in Salvation by Faith Alone contradicted the belief in Purgatory. In spite of being ‘informed’ of this by Catholics, it took Luther until 1530 to have this ‘sink in’ sufficiently to finally reject Purgatory. BTW, More was as a Catholic who was martyred for his faith in England.

**“Indeed, Luther himself continued to accept the existence of Purgatory until around 1530, when he finally realized that his soteriological revolution had abolished it (a change of mind which then necessitated a certain amount of re-editing of some of his earlier writings). ** MacCulloch, “The Reformation”, pg. 122

Needless to say, Luther was not the best at recognizing how various parts of a theology worked (or didn’t) with others.

God Bless You Randy, Topper

The document to which I linked also provides a good deal of historical context, from theologians of far higher stature than you or I.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

Actually that wasn’t what I asked. It seems that you think that the Church should have done something different AFTER Luther’s 95 Theses. What do you think the Church should have done differently to reach some kind of agreement with Luther? Specifically. Should it have been willing to ‘negotiate’ on doctrine?

Topper

And that’s not actually what I said. I didn’t make any distinction before or after the 95 Theses.

I said in post #5:

** “Knowing of the divisions would have been valuable information, not only for Luther, but the whole of the western Church. Mistakes on both sides could have been avoided.”**

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Jon,

We’re any of these comments in his last sermon?

Please let it be noted, again, that it was you who brought up the issue of Luther and the Jew,s and also the 1983 statement of the LCMS Synod on the subject. It appears that you don’t have any problem with the way that the statement characterizes Luther’s ‘final attitude’.

As we all know, Luther’s very negative statements about the Jews began virtually his first known writings, and continued throughout his life, until the last few weeks of his life, with the only debatable change in ‘attitude’ being between 1523 and 1526 or so. Yet the LCMS statement refers to Luther’s to his “few regrettable (and uncharacteristic) negative statements”

The fact is that Luther’s negative statements about the Jews ARE characteristic.

The LCMS statement goes on, as you know, to say that:
**
“……we personally and individually adopt Luther’s final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon.”**

This would infer that Luther, after some ‘negative statements’ about the Jews, finally got his attitude ‘straightened out’, and had a ‘final attitude’ that was admirable. That is not the case.

As we know, in his last two letters written home, and within the last few weeks of his life, Luther stated that:

**“I have to start expelling the Jews.” **

Here we see Luther stating that he is going to personally take a role in the expulsion of the Jews. He goes on to complain that: “……**no one harms them as yet.” **

A few days later and within two weeks of his death, he again complains that:

“as yet no one wants to do them any harm.” He then makes it very clear that he has done what he can to influence the situation.
**
“Today I made my opinion known in a sufficiently blunt way if anyone wishes to pay attention to it.” **

Read what the resolution says. What luther said in his last homily is what we accept.

Jon, does this mean that you accept the resolution and believe that it is fair, both to Luther and to his opponents, to portray Luther’s ‘final attitude’ as being something that we should all emulate?

In other words, do you think that that statement from that 1983 Synod would be misleading to people who didn’t happen to already know about those last letters?

Personally I think it is wrong of the LCMS to just skip over these incriminating statements and focus on ONLY Luther’s last sermon, representing it as Luther’s ‘final attitude’. That is misleading and is, quite frankly, **extremely unfair to both Luther AND to his opponents. **

Again, it was you who introduced the subject and offered up the LCMS statement. Personally I am hoping that this will be the end of our discussion of Luther and the Jews on this thread. The choice is yours. However, there are many dozens of noted Scholars who can be brought to the discussion, if you insist… It is your choice as to whether we drop the subject or not.

I would like to point out though a statement from Richard Marius, whom I consider to be the best biographer of Luther:

“….it seems foolish and even immoral to seek to mitigate or explain away, or cover over his (Luther’s) prevailing hatred of the Jewish people.” Marius, pg. 372

Topper

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12699340]Jon,
Please let it be noted, again, that it was you who brought up the issue of Luther and the Jew,s and also the 1983 statement of the LCMS Synod on the subject. It appears that you don’t have any problem with the way that the statement characterizes Luther’s ‘final attitude’.

Yes, as an example for Mary’s question.

I had written a response to your post, and am here deleting it. I frankly find your accusation against the LCMS here unworthy of a response.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi PD,

Yes. Luther’s extreme scrupulosity is a form of mental illness. I think he took refuge in the solas as a personal defense mechanism.

Your assessment is echoed by many academics, including many Lutherans. Lutheran Professor Mark U. Edwards:

**“Most scholars freely concede the unusual and perhaps even abnormal aspects of Luther’s personality, **without, or course, accepting the diagnosis that attributes those traits to an underlying psychosis. **By most standards, the younger Luther was a neurotic man. Given all the evidence of productivity, clarity of thought, and ability to work with others, however, it is highly doubtful that he can be properly diagnosed as psychotic.” **Mark U. Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles, Politics and Polemics”, pg. 8-9

The issue here is whether Luther’s rather unique psychology actually impacted his theology. Whether Luther was psychotic or not is not really the issue. The question is whether his terrors, fears and his “abnormal personality” could have influenced the theology that he personally developed? In other words, did this “neurotic man” develop his radical theology as a result of that neurosis?

BTW, the fact that a Lutheran Scholar even brings up the possibility of Luther’s being psychotic is significant.

Edwards continues:

”As it is seen in later chapters, **apocalyptic views and his vision of his own role in the final drama of the world play a highly significant role in his polemics. **At this point there is need only to consider whether these views might in themselves be regarded as symptoms of psychological imbalance: an odd mixture of paranoia and delusions of grandeur. ”The older Luther did firmly believe that he was living on the eve of the Last Judgment. **Once the papacy had been exposed by the Reformation as the antichrist seated within the church, the final battle had been joined. **Satan had unleashed all his minions in a last, desperate attempt to defeat the servants of Christ. Luther’s polemics were part of this final struggle. He saw this struggle as involving a recurrent contest between true and false prophets and apostles. Believing that mankind did not change and that the devil never slept, he could trace this struggle from the biblical histories into his own time. What happened to the prophets and apostles in their day could and would happen to the church of his day. Their experiences established a paradigm of the dynamics of all sacred history. Within this paradigm the papacy was the antichrist described in Scripture, the Turks were Gog and the little horn in the Book of Daniel, contemporary Jewry was the remnant of a rejected people suffering under God’s wrath, and his Protestant opponents were contemporary false prophets and apostles, like those who had plagued the true prophets and apostles. Furthermore, since **Luther was always drawing comparisons and parallels between these opponents and the opponents of the prophets and apostles, it was only natural that he would see the true prophets and apostles as having provided a precedent for the way in which one should deal with such opponents. As a result he could explain and justify his polemics and his stubbornness on points of doctrine by pointing to the example set by these men of God.” **Edwards, LLB, pg. 16-17

I think this substantiates the idea that Luther would NOT have done anything different, even if he had been able to foresee the results of his teachings. His ‘stubbornness’ would not allow him to backtrack or listen to reasonable warnings.

Maybe the bigger question is whether this is the kind of man who should be trusted to go charging off challenging dozens of established Christian doctrines.

God Bless You PD, Topper

 

[Tomyris]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=909484

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=909024&highlight=wisdom+of+personal+attacks%27

 

[Topper17]

Jon,

The adherents being talked about are, primarily bishops and clergy.

OK, so it is the bishops and clergy PRIMARILY who are the adherents. Who are the ‘adherents’ secondarily? After all, the word ‘primarily’ means that there ARE others. Who are those others? On what basis do non-Bishops and clergy ‘qualify’ as “adherents”?

BTW, how did you determine that the ‘adherents’ were ‘primarily bishops and clergy’ when your confessions infer nothing of the kind? The language makes absolute no distinction between bishops, clergy AND laypeople as being the ‘adherents’.

I guess though that under the most ecumenical understanding of the term ‘adherents’, Bishop Lori, whom you mentioned a day or so ago, would be an ‘adherent’. Without equivocation, is he, yes or no?

Maybe the issue of who is and who is not an ‘adherent’ could be better determined up by looking at what the authors of your Confessions documents intended them to mean, including Luther.

Topper

 

[steido01]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=909484

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=909024&highlight=wisdom+of+personal+attacks%27

Yup. You’ll notice most of the regular Lutherans here have simply stopped responding.

 

[MaryT777]

Yes, as an example for Mary’s question.

I had written a response to your post, and am here deleting it. I frankly find your accusation against the LCMS here unworthy of a response.

Jon

Actually my question was intended to inquire if any LCMS documents show regret over Luther’s part in the division of the Church. It has been noted that there are Catholic documents that note we are partially to blame. Are there any Lutheran official documents that say the same regarding the Lutheran part of this?

I was not looking to hear about the Jews as that’s not the topic at hand.

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

Jon,

OK, so it is the bishops and clergy PRIMARILY who are the adherents. Who are the ‘adherents’ secondarily? After all, the word ‘primarily’ means that there ARE others. Who are those others? On what basis do non-Bishops and clergy ‘qualify’ as “adherents”?

BTW, how did you determine that the ‘adherents’ were ‘primarily bishops and clergy’ when your confessions infer nothing of the kind? The language makes absolute no distinction between bishops, clergy AND laypeople as being the ‘adherents’.

I guess though that under the most ecumenical understanding of the term ‘adherents’, Bishop Lori, whom you mentioned a day or so ago, would be an ‘adherent’. Without equivocation, is he, yes or no?

Maybe the issue of who is and who is not an ‘adherent’ could be better determined up by looking at what the authors of your Confessions documents intended them to mean, including Luther.

Topper

Topper I was thinking the same thing when I read this post.

“Primarily” leaves door open for others in this category.

It seems we are referred to the Lutheran Confessions for the official Lutheran doctrine
yet we read the Pope and his adherents, and get “primarily” from this thread as an explanation which is not was the document says.

We ask about the AntiChrist and get that is the “office” not the Pope, but perhaps some early popes were Anti Christ. We get well universal jurisdiction etc. are teachings against Christ but yet some .express a fondness for Pope Benedict who teaches the same as any other Pope regarding universal jurisdiction. We had a most interesting comment from a Lutheran that they believe we might need or could use a Pope like the early ones. I might think that Luther and all his adherents would roll over in their grave to hear a Lutheran elder say any such thing.

Thus the confessions in my opinion are blatantly clear and we are hearing a watered down version of personal opinions regarding Lutheranism by some here who are in direct contradiction to what they profess and teach officially.

Hmmm.
Why? I don’t know. That said not all Catholics agree with the doctrine of the Catholic Faith but it’s weird to refer to the confessions and then “explain away” what they really directly say. Luther did not mince words nor the writers of the confessions. I am convinced they mean what they say, and say what they mean.

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12699682]Jon,

OK, so it is the bishops and clergy PRIMARILY who are the adherents. Who are the ‘adherents’ secondarily? After all, the word ‘primarily’ means that there ARE others. Who are those others? On what basis do non-Bishops and clergy ‘qualify’ as “adherents”?

Read what the preface to the Book of Concord says. Its pretty clear.

I guess though that under the most ecumenical understanding of the term ‘adherents’, Bishop Lori, whom you mentioned a day or so ago, would be an ‘adherent’. Without equivocation, is he, yes or no?

If instead of being singularly focused on an anti-Lutheran apologia, you actually read any of the articles I have posted about this issue to you, or in threads in which you were active, you would know the answer. Anyone who teaches something in error can be said to be opposed to Christ. To the extent that Bishop Lori, or President Harrison, or you, or me, is in error, that is being opposed to Christ.
Does that mean that Bishop Lori is condemned? No.

Maybe the issue of who is and who is not an ‘adherent’ could be better **determined up by looking at what the authors of your Confessions documents **intended them to mean, including Luther.

.

Why not look in the preface to the Book of Concord? Oh wait, I already suggested that.
Just remember, however, that what you propose is the precise standard you must then use in your post regarding Unam sanctam. The author was Pope Boniface VIII. Using your narrow parameters, no other writings apply.

**Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff **

I await the words of Pope Boniface VIII himself where he states the equivocations to the words “every human creature”, and “subject to the Roman Pontiff”.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Actually my question was intended to inquire if any LCMS documents show regret over Luther’s part in the division of the Church. It has been noted that there are Catholic documents that note we are partially to blame. Are there any Lutheran official documents that say the same regarding the Lutheran part of this?

I was not looking to hear about the Jews as that’s not the topic at hand.

Mary.

Hi Mary,
Your actual question was:

Is there a document that notes and recognizes the above statement you make that the there were sins in the past and currently that you can link to that the LCMS as well agrees with?

You asked the question in response to my post, which said,

** 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. **

Clearly, Luther’s anti-judaism was sinful, and the statement from the LCMS clearly and distinctly states so.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Thanks to Pulvis for posting this on the Apologetics side.

VATICAN CITY — More than “theoretical discussions,” what unites Christians is encounter and a willingness to “challenge one another,” said Pope Francis as he marked the conclusion of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.
**“Christian unity will not be the fruit of subtle theoretical discussions in which each party tries to convince the other of the soundness of their opinions,” **the Pope said during vespers at St. Paul Outside the Walls Basilica on Jan. 25.
**“To plumb the depths of the mystery of God, we need one another; we need to encounter one another and to challenge one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who harmonizes diversities and overcomes conflicts,” **he said.
The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity is traditionally celebrated from Jan. 18-25, between the feasts of Sts. Peter and Paul.
Those present at this year’s vespers included ecumenical patriarch representative Metropolitan Gennadios, Archbishop of Canterbury representative David Moxon and various other representatives of churches and ecclesial communities.
Pope Francis’ address was largely focused on the St. John’s Gospel account of Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well. “He has no problem dealing with Samaritans, who were considered by the Jews to be heretics, schismatics, separated,” the Pope said.
“His attitude tells us that encounter with those who are different from ourselves can make us grow.”
In the Gospel account, Jesus asks the woman for a drink, but the Pope observes that his is more than a physical thirst: “It is also a thirst for encounter, a desire to enter into dialogue with that woman and to invite her to make a journey of interior conversion.”
The Holy Father also noted Jesus’ patience and respect for the woman before revealing himself. “His example encourages us to seek a serene encounter with others. To understand one another and to grow in charity and truth, we need to pause, to accept and listen to one another.”
“In this way, we already begin to experience unity,” he said.
When the woman asks Jesus “where God is truly worshipped,” the Holy Father said, Christ “goes to the heart of the matter, breaking down every wall of division. He speaks instead of the meaning of true worship.”
“So many past controversies between Christians can be overcome when we put aside all polemical or apologetic approaches and seek instead to grasp more fully what unites us, namely, our call to share in the mystery of the Father’s love revealed to us by the Son through the Holy Spirit.”
The Holy Father went on to say, “Human existence is marked by boundless aspirations: We seek truth; we thirst for love, justice and freedom.”
“These desires can only be partially satisfied, for from the depths of our being we are prompted to seek ‘something more,’ something capable of fully quenching our thirst. The response to these aspirations is given by God in Jesus Christ, in his paschal mystery.”
The Samaritan woman’s encounter with Jesus made her a missionary, the Pope continued. “Her encounter with Jesus restored meaning and joy to her life, and she felt the desire to share this with others.”
Pope Francis said that “we cannot evade” the request from the many men and women who ask Christians for “something to drink.”
“All the churches and ecclesial communities discover a privileged setting for closer cooperation,” he said. “For this to be effective, we need to stop being self-enclosed, exclusive and bent on imposing a uniformity based on merely human calculations (Evangelii Gaudium, 131). Our shared commitment to proclaiming the Gospel enables us to overcome proselytism and competition in all their forms.”
Pope Francis went on to stress that religious life “is called to offer in our time a witness to that communion in Christ that transcends all differences and finds expression in concrete gestures of acceptance and dialogue.”

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/christian-unity-demands-encounter-not-theory-pope-francis-says/#ixzz3Q2H0hj52

Amen.

Jon