M
MaryT777
Guest
This is a great thread on apologetics noted as The Holy Father on Unity. Also noted are comments about where apologetics “fits into the picture.”
Mary.
- Status
Mary.
P
pablope
Guest
P
pablope
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
With all due respect, it could be that they are silenced by the growing mountain of evidence being presented about the man whose name you honor as one of his followers.
I’m not saying this applies to you personally, but sometimes folks just put their fingers in their ears…lalalalalalalalala.
T
Topper17
Guest
Jon,
The point of my post was that Luther believed in the existence of Purgatory long after he proclaimed Salvation by Faith Alone. Various theologians told him that his radical SBFA eliminated the possibility of Purgatory, but not being a ‘Systematic Theologian’ he didn’t really understand the connection between the two. But it wasn’t until 1530 or so that Luther figured that out.
It really isn’t about this or that Theologian, although you must admit that Pelikan is ‘right up there’ by anyone’s standards. My point does not depend on the qualifications of some Theologian pro or con, it depends on the facts. The fact is that Luther ignored all of the warnings (until 1530) that his belief on Purgatory and his belief in Salvation by Faith alone were contradictory. How could he NOT have ‘gotten that’?
Do you think the Church should have handled things differently after Luther began challenge all those established doctrines? (Armstrong’s list of 50.)
As an example, do you think the Church should have attempted to negotiate with Luther on the number of Sacraments?
Topper
I am not sure if your intent here is to make a point. If it was then I am sure that I don’t know what that point is.
The point of my post was that Luther believed in the existence of Purgatory long after he proclaimed Salvation by Faith Alone. Various theologians told him that his radical SBFA eliminated the possibility of Purgatory, but not being a ‘Systematic Theologian’ he didn’t really understand the connection between the two. But it wasn’t until 1530 or so that Luther figured that out.
It really isn’t about this or that Theologian, although you must admit that Pelikan is ‘right up there’ by anyone’s standards. My point does not depend on the qualifications of some Theologian pro or con, it depends on the facts. The fact is that Luther ignored all of the warnings (until 1530) that his belief on Purgatory and his belief in Salvation by Faith alone were contradictory. How could he NOT have ‘gotten that’?
Point taken. The question however remains:
Do you think the Church should have handled things differently after Luther began challenge all those established doctrines? (Armstrong’s list of 50.)
As an example, do you think the Church should have attempted to negotiate with Luther on the number of Sacraments?
That’s fine Jon. I am perfectly satisfied with where we are leaving this sub-topic. It’s such an ugly emotionally charged issue. Better it be left where it stands with nothing else said and nothing that has been said retracted.
Topper
T
Topper17
Guest
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Mary,
Thanks for your response.
Which laypeople are considered to be ‘adherents’ and on what basis are some ‘chosen’ and not others? The text makes no such distinction, leaving us with a clear conclusion. After all, the Confessions are in large part based on Luther’s ‘feelings’ about Catholics. Lutheran Professor Mark U. Edwards comments:
**
“Luther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as the agents of Satan,” **Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 36
In depicting lay Catholics as ‘adherents’ this Treatise which is part of the Confessions certainly reflects Luther’s ‘sentiments’.
To be a Lutheran is to be held to the beliefs expressed in Lutheran Confessions including those expressed in “The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope”. Because the Confessions are largely based on Luther’s beliefs, to “be Lutheran” is to agree the beliefs of Luther which have been formalized in the Confessions. This includes those offensive statements about the Church, the Pope, the mass, laypeople, etc.
It seems to me that to be ‘Confessional’ one has to actually believe what they clearly say. We hear a lot here about how this or that communion is ‘not Confessional’ and yet at the same time all of this ‘reinterpretation’ of the Confessional text.
I think Mary that maybe you and I find these ‘later day reinterpretations’ to be unacceptable and dangerous is because we are Catholics, Faithful to the Teachings of the Church. Protestantism is based upon the idea that the individual is responsible for judging the teachings that are put before them, that they are ultimately responsible for interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. When you take that kind of ‘personal approach’ to Holy Scripture, reinterpreting the Lutheran Confessions so that they match up with your beliefs, is a pretty minor thing. We have seen massive evidence that neither Sola Scriptura OR the various Confessions can even pretend to protect the unity of belief called for by Christ, the Apostles, or Scripture.
The claim can be made that Lutherans defer to the church on matters of doctrine, but the fact is that Lutheranism was founded on one man’s Rebellion against the teachings of HIS Church. As such the claim about holding to the teachings of the Church begs the question – Which Church Specifically and Exactly?
This is the reason that Lutherans need a pope. Scratch that, they need THE Pope and they need to be united to him in the “Catholic Sense” and not just as to some sort of glorified figurehead.
God Bless You Mary, Topper
Thanks for your response.
I agree Mary, except that I think the word ‘primarily’ is an admission that there are laypeople who are also considered to be ‘adherents’, which the text actually more than suggests. The question becomes this:
Which laypeople are considered to be ‘adherents’ and on what basis are some ‘chosen’ and not others? The text makes no such distinction, leaving us with a clear conclusion. After all, the Confessions are in large part based on Luther’s ‘feelings’ about Catholics. Lutheran Professor Mark U. Edwards comments:
**
“Luther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as the agents of Satan,” **Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 36
In depicting lay Catholics as ‘adherents’ this Treatise which is part of the Confessions certainly reflects Luther’s ‘sentiments’.
And yet, there is no reference to the ‘office’ of the papacy in the text. The concept and the term were known at the time and COULD have been incorporated IF it was the office that the document intended to portray as the antichrist. The original intent seems pretty obvious.
Agreed. Which leads us to ask – What is the point of having Confessions at all if everyone who is supposed to be held to them can simply ‘reinterpret’ the such that they fit with THEIR personal beliefs and spirit?
To be a Lutheran is to be held to the beliefs expressed in Lutheran Confessions including those expressed in “The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope”. Because the Confessions are largely based on Luther’s beliefs, to “be Lutheran” is to agree the beliefs of Luther which have been formalized in the Confessions. This includes those offensive statements about the Church, the Pope, the mass, laypeople, etc.
It seems to me that to be ‘Confessional’ one has to actually believe what they clearly say. We hear a lot here about how this or that communion is ‘not Confessional’ and yet at the same time all of this ‘reinterpretation’ of the Confessional text.
I think Mary that maybe you and I find these ‘later day reinterpretations’ to be unacceptable and dangerous is because we are Catholics, Faithful to the Teachings of the Church. Protestantism is based upon the idea that the individual is responsible for judging the teachings that are put before them, that they are ultimately responsible for interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. When you take that kind of ‘personal approach’ to Holy Scripture, reinterpreting the Lutheran Confessions so that they match up with your beliefs, is a pretty minor thing. We have seen massive evidence that neither Sola Scriptura OR the various Confessions can even pretend to protect the unity of belief called for by Christ, the Apostles, or Scripture.
The claim can be made that Lutherans defer to the church on matters of doctrine, but the fact is that Lutheranism was founded on one man’s Rebellion against the teachings of HIS Church. As such the claim about holding to the teachings of the Church begs the question – Which Church Specifically and Exactly?
There is a big difference though isn’t there? Of course there are Catholics who deny the teachings of the Church. That has always been true and always will be. But you CANNOT deny those teachings and start your own ‘tradition’ or ‘communion’ and remain WITHIN the Catholic Church. Once you do that you are excommunicated by your own actions. Protestantism has no such safeguard. It is perfectly acceptable to deny the teachings of your communion and start your own. People can claim that it is not, but the evidence of the tens of thousands of competing and conflicting denominations says that, in the REAL WORLD, it is completely ‘acceptable’. All you have to do is proclaim, as Luther did, and only to his own satisfaction, that: ‘They are not the Church, WE are the Church.’ Once you have decided that for yourself, the ‘sky is the limit’ in terms of how much authority you can self-proclaim. Furthermore, once you have ‘gone there’ you have absolutely no authority to tell anyone that they should not rebel against you the way that you rebelled against ‘them’.
This is the reason that Lutherans need a pope. Scratch that, they need THE Pope and they need to be united to him in the “Catholic Sense” and not just as to some sort of glorified figurehead.
God Bless You Mary, Topper
M
MaryT777
Guest
B
benjohnson
Guest
Nah… this thread has reached the "wall of text’ phase. Perhaps soon to be followed by the slightly disturbing “bold text in multiple colors” phase.
It’s best for me to limit my responses to such threads, especially when JohNC does such a fine job while displaying the diplomacy that I lack.
And that’s why I encourage you to read the Catholic / Lutheran statement, as it goes into detail about the issue, not only historically, but also as it relates to our communions today.
And that’s why I encourage you to read the dialogue.
The question does remain. The Catholic catechism tells us that, " for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." You are the Catholic in this “discussion”. Perhaps you can enlighten us what faults the Catholic Church had in this era that it, too has some of the blame.
Jon
E
Eric_Olsen
Guest
well said.
As a former lutheran, I could never wrap my head around the idea of sola scriptura and in later years why he did the things he did if the selling of indulgences was his problem initialliy.
As a former lutheran, I could never wrap my head around the idea of sola scriptura and in later years why he did the things he did if the selling of indulgences was his problem initialliy.
O
onenow1
Guest
I do not think I would have been as obstinate and debated more.
Luther remarked several years later:
“We concede – as we must – that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?”
Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER’S WORKS,
St. Louis, Mo., Concordia, 1961, 304
God Bless
S
SteveVH
Guest
Hi, Jon.
Doctrinally, none. In practice, many, all stemming from pride and greed among much of the clergy. We are a divine institution made up of sinners.
Peace, my friend.
Steve
S
steido01
Guest
Randy,
I’m not sure how you can say this thread has been at all respectful toward Lutherans. When presented with authoritative documents, quotes and other “evidence” from our Ministerium, posters here have replied, essentially, “Nope! Silly Lutheran lemmings, you don’t even know what your -]church/-] ecclesial body teaches! My amateur interpretation of your Confessions is nothing like that of your trained, three-to-five-language-learned, four-year-seminary-educated, called and ordained pastors! It’s probably because your Martin Luther was a prolific sinner (and I’ll just keep saying he was likely crazy for dramatic slanderous effect, even though I have no degree in psychology and the man lived five centuries before me), and your Melanchthon was a ‘LIAR’ (except, of course, when I can misapply his words to suit my Lutheran-bashing cause).” Does this sound like all due respect? As if we don’t know the history of the Church Catholic! As if we don’t know our history after the 1500’s! As if we’d never read our Confessions! As if we don’t own a Catechism! As if we weren’t confirmed in the Evangelical Lutheran Church! Tell me, when Jack Chick “brings to light” what Catholics “actually” teach, are Catholics “silenced by [his] growing mountain of evidence?” Poppycock!
We have explained our teachings. Yet certain Catholic posters, in contradiction to the work done by their Magisterium in the Catholic-Lutheran Dialogues, continue to ignore our teachings in favor of the Straw Man of their choice. Can you blame us for bowing out?
No, I’ll take my time and efforts to more fruitful and charitable threads, thank you.
Amen, amen, amen! Hopefully this provides a bit more “evidence” to support what we Lutherans have been explaining the whole time. May the Holy Spirit lead our communions into a closer and someday, God willing, total unity.“We concede – as we must – that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?”
God Bless
S
Stilldreamn
Guest
Yes. I tend to think of the Reformation as more a separation than a divorce. 500 years ago the life of a Christian was brutal and errors in practice abounded. Some of these errors were resolved, others continued and new ones flourished in the fertile ground of an expanded Christian horizon. Society marched on and now the Christian life is pretty much in the same hole it was 500 years ago, only now there is a new pit filled with various protestant errors.I do not think I would have been as obstinate and debated more.
Luther remarked several years later:
“We concede – as we must – that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. **What would we know of these if it were not for them?” **Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER’S WORKS,
St. Louis, Mo., Concordia, 1961, 304
God Bless
As I continue to ponder what this means for Lutherans today, and myself in particular I am constantly drawn back to Jesus’ prayer that we may be one. In another thread, JonNC and Rcwitness have been exploring our commonalities as a starting point - I appreciate the effort to share the beauty and logic of the Catholic faith with those of us who may be perplexed by the perceived differences.
To those of you here at CAF who tirelessly extend a welcome and encouragement to explore your faith, I thank you for throwing a life ring instead of an anchor.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
FROM CONFLICT TO COMMUNION
Twentieth-century Catholic research on Luther
- Twentieth-century Catholic research on Luther built upon a Catholic interest in Reformation history that awakened in the second half of the nineteenth century. These theologians followed the efforts of the Catholic population in the Protestant-dominated German empire to free themselves from a one-sided, anti-Roman, Protestant historiography. The breakthrough for Catholic scholarship came with the thesis that Luther overcame within himself a Catholicism that was not fully Catholic. According to this view, the life and teaching of the church in the late Middle Ages served mainly as a negative foil for the Reformation; the crisis in Catholicism made Luther’s religious protest quite convincing to some.
- In a new way, Luther was portrayed as an earnest religious person and conscientious man of prayer. Painstaking and detailed historical research has demonstrated that Catholic literature on Luther over the previous four centuries right up through modernity had been significantly shaped by the commentaries of Johannes Cochaleus, a contemporary opponent of Luther and advisor to Duke George of Saxony. Cochaleus had characterized Luther as an apostatized monk, a destroyer of Christendom, a corrupter of morals, and a heretic. The achievement of this first period of critical, but sympathetic, engagement with Luther’s character was the freeing of Catholic research from the one-sided approach of such polemical works on Luther. Sober historical analyses by other Catholic theologians showed that it was not the core concerns of the Reformation, such as the doctrine of justification, which led to the division of the church but, rather, Luther’s criticisms of the condition of the church at his time that sprang from these concerns.
- The next step for Catholic research on Luther was to uncover analogous contents embedded in different theological thought structures and systems, carried out especially by a systematic comparison between the exemplary theologians of the two confessions, Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther. This work allowed theologians to understand Luther’s theology within its own framework. At the same time, Catholic research examined the meaning of the doctrine of justification within the Augsburg Confession. Here Luther’s reforming concerns could be set within the broader context of the composition of the Lutheran confessions, with the result that the intention of the Augsburg Confession could be seen as expressing fundamental reforming concerns as well as preserving the unity of the church.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Continued from Post #269
Catholic developments
Catholic developments
- The Second Vatican Council, responding to the scriptural, liturgical, and patristic revival of the preceding decades, dealt with such themes as esteem and reverence for the Holy Scripture in the life of the church, the rediscovery of the common priesthood of all the baptized, the need for continual purification and reform of the church, the understanding of church office as service, and the importance of the freedom and responsibility of human beings, including the recognition of religious freedom.
- The Council also affirmed elements of sanctification and truth even outside the structures of the Roman Catholic Church. It asserted, “some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church,” and it named these elements “the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too” (UR 1).(6) The Council also spoke of the “many liturgical actions of the Christian religion” that are used by the divided “brethren” and said, “these most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation” (UR 3). The acknowledgement extended not only to the individual elements and actions in these communities, but also to the “divided churches and communities” themselves. “For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation” (UR 1.3).
- In light of the renewal of Catholic theology evident in the Second Vatican Council, Catholics today can appreciate Martin Luther’s reforming concerns and regard them with more openness than seemed possible earlier.
- Implicit rapprochement with Luther’s concerns has led to a new evaluation of his catholicity, which took place in the context of recognizing that his intention was to reform, not to divide, the church. This is evident in the statements of Johannes Cardinal Willebrands and Pope John Paul II.(7) The rediscovery of these two central characteristics of his person and theology led to a new ecumenical understanding of Luther as a “witness to the gospel.”
- Pope Benedict also recognized the ways in which the person and theology of Martin Luther pose a spiritual and theological challenge to Catholic theology today when, in 2011, he visited the Augustinian Friary in Erfurt where Luther had lived as a friar for about six years. Pope Benedict commented, “What constantly exercised [Luther] was the question of God, the deep passion and driving force of his whole life’s journey. ‘How do I find a gracious God?’ – this question struck him in the heart and lay at the foundation of all his theological searching and inner struggle. For him, theology was no mere academic pursuit, but the struggle for oneself, which in turn was a struggle for and with God. ‘How do I find a gracious God?’ The fact that this question was the driving force of his whole life never ceases to make an impression on me. For who is actually concerned about this today—even among Christians? What does the question of God mean in our lives? In our preaching? Most people today, even Christians, set out from the presupposition that God is not fundamentally interested in our sins and virtues.”(8)
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
More from the Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue:
The Catholic–Lutheran dialogue on Scripture and tradition
The Catholic–Lutheran dialogue on Scripture and tradition
- As a consequence of the biblical renewal that inspired the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council, a new ecumenical understanding of the role and significance of the Holy Scripture has become possible. As the ecumenical document Apostolicity of the Church states, “Catholic doctrine, thus, does not hold what Reformation theology fears and wants at all costs to avoid, namely, a derivation of scriptural authority as canonical and binding from the authority of the church’s hierarchy which makes known the canon” (ApC 400).
- In dialogue, Catholics have emphasized convictions held in common with the Reformation, such as the efficacy of the Spirit-inspired biblical text “in conveying revealed truth that forms minds and hearts, as affirmed in 2 Tim. 3:17 and stated by Vatican II (DV 21-25)” (ApC 409). Catholics add, “this efficacy has been operative in the church over time, not only in individual believers but as well in the ecclesial tradition, both in high-level doctrinal expressions such as the rule of faith, creeds, and conciliar teaching, and in the principal structures of public worship…Scripture has made itself present in the tradition, which is therefore able to play an essential hermeneutical role. Vatican II does not say that the tradition gives rise to new truths beyond Scripture, but that it conveys certainty about revelation attested by Scripture” (ApC 410).
- A fruit of ecumenical dialogue for Lutheran theology is its openness to the Catholic conviction that the efficacy of the Scripture is at work not only in individuals, but also in the church as a whole. Evidence for this lies in the role of the Lutheran Confessions in the Lutheran churches.
- Today, the role and significance of the Holy Scripture and tradition are therefore understood differently in the Roman Catholic Church than they were by Luther’s theological opponents. Regarding the question of the authentic interpretation of Scripture, Catholics have explained, “When Catholic doctrine holds that the ‘judgment of the church’ has a role in authentic interpretation of Scripture, it does not attribute to the church’s magisterium a monopoly over interpretation, which adherents of the Reformation rightly fear and reject. Before the Reformation, major figures had indicated the ecclesial plurality of interpreters…When Vatican II speaks of the church having an ‘ultimate judgment’ (DV 12) it clearly eschews a monopolistic claim that the magisterium is the sole organ of interpretation, which is confirmed both by the century-old official promotion of Catholic biblical studies and the recognition in DV 12 of the role of exegesis in the maturing of magisterial teaching” (ApC 407).
- Thus, Lutherans and Catholics are able jointly to conclude, “Therefore regarding Scripture and tradition, Lutherans and Catholics are in such an extensive agreement that their different emphases do not of themselves require maintaining the present division of the churches. In this area, there is unity in reconciled diversity”(ApC 448).(82)
S
steido01
Guest
Not for Catholic friends like you, Jose.Does it get any more authoritatively than the Vatican?
Thank you for posting, and I mean that earnestly.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
- Status