Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[Thorolfr]

More from the Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue:

The Catholic–Lutheran dialogue on Scripture and tradition

1. 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).
2. 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).
3. 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.

Scripture and tradition

1. 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).
2. 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)

Does it get any more authoritatively than the Vatican?

What exactly is the purpose of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue? In other words, where do the Catholic Church and its Lutheran dialogue partners such as the ELCA hope that this dialogue will ultimately lead?

The Wikipedia article doesn’t give a lot of information:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran-Roman_Catholic_dialogue

 

[Isaiah45_9]

What exactly is the purpose of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue? In other words, where do the Catholic Church and its Lutheran dialogue partners such as the ELCA hope that this dialogue will ultimately lead?

The Wikipedia article doesn’t give a lot of information:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran-Roman_Catholic_dialogue

There are many things I don’t fully understand.

Where will [any] dialogue lead?

I hope it leads:

• To a better understanding and appreciation for one another.
• To reconciliation.
• To truth.
• To the Glory of God.

Again, from the Vatican (Dominus Iesus):

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfillment of her universality in history”.67

It is no secret to know exactly what is the position of the Catholic Church.

How will all these dialogues unfold? Only Our Lord knows.

One other thing is for certain: Bringing one another’s skeletons in the closet - out (We ALL have them), is not going to solve anything. I have found, often, that the position of the Catholic Church is NOT consistent to several Catholic posters on this or any other forum. It is a lot of work, but it is always best to check with the [actual] authoritative source before making any declarations as to what is and is not Catholic (Or any other) teaching.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not for Catholic friends like you, Jose.

Thank you for posting, and I mean that earnestly.

Thank you.

You are most welcome, my friend.

 

[AbideWithMe]

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.

Randy—Besides considering the moderator’s direction re-posted by Tomyris, and besides considering Steido’s reply—which together should be more than enough to end your speculation—how about also considering that there are only a very small number of non-Catholics who post here compared to many Catholic posters.

Given that fact, if I were a Catholic poster on CAF, if the non-Catholic parties in the discussion became more “silent” my first instinct would be guess that they had family and work responsibilities that were more needful of their attention, or that they may feel continuing the discussion is an exercise in futility, or any one of a number of other reasons.

You know where Paul says “In humility consider others as better than yourself”? What if we really did that…or even just considered others as good as ourselves? What if we truly
respected the integrity of others, assumed the best about them, assumed them to be as sincerely committed to truth as we each believe ourselves to be, assumed that if they go silent in a discussion it may be for good reason, or even that we may be at fault as disrespectful discussion partners, rather than speculating that they are being intellectually dishonest and “putting their fingers in their ears”?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Randy—Besides considering the moderator’s direction re-posted by Tomyris, and besides considering Steido’s reply—which together should be more than enough to end your speculation—how about also considering that there are only a very small number of non-Catholics who post here compared to many Catholic posters.

Given that fact, if I were a Catholic poster on CAF, if the non-Catholic parties in the discussion became more “silent” my first instinct would be guess that they had family and work responsibilities that were more needful of their attention, or that they may feel continuing the discussion is an exercise in futility, or any one of a number of other reasons.

You know where Paul says “In humility consider others as better than yourself”? What if we really did that…or even just considered others as good as ourselves? What if we truly
respected the integrity of others, assumed the best about them, assumed them to be as sincerely committed to truth as we each believe ourselves to be, assumed that if they go silent in a discussion it may be for good reason, or even that we may be at fault as disrespectful discussion partners, rather than speculating that they are being intellectually dishonest and “putting their fingers in their ears”?

I agree, that was uncalled for.

 

[MaryT777]

What is the appropriate response from Catholics to be when Lutheran posters here refer to their Lutheran confessions as authoritative and then they are read to say the Pope is the AntiChrist (but the posters say no the Office of the Pope is AntiChrist because it claims universal jurisdiction etc)

Either way the Pope or his Office is the AntiChrist and its adherents… Then these are stated primarily as priests or bishops?

Ok then that’s fine? What do those non Catholics who say some have been less than charitable expect us to say to that?

Mary

 

[Topper17]

Jon,

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

I agree Jon. It is pretty clear. The text is pretty hard to misinterpret and as you have seen, I am not exactly the only one here who isn’t ‘buying it’.

Back in the day when I focused on apologetics via quoting Scripture, I was often told, primarily by Lutherans BTW, that IF I would just read Scripture, THEN I would ‘see’ (that they were right of course). In a lot of cases, that was about the extent of their argument. No real exegesis, no explanation, just “Topper, if you would read the Scriptures, you would agree with me.”

First of all, I used to bristle at the claim that I DO NOT read Scripture. Secondly, there was that disproven presumption that the Scriptures are very clear as to their meaning on doctrinal issues. That is straight out of Martin Luther 101. The idea that I should now read your Confessions strikes me that same way. I HAVE read them.

If you have a point to make from the preface, then please quote the section you seem to be referring to and explain how it supports your position. Then and only then will we all be able to understand what your point is and whether it is compelling.

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.

What you choose to depict as an ‘anti-Lutheran apologia’, I see more as correcting false and misleading history. So much of what I call the “Legend” of Martin Luther is (unintentionally) false, and given that it is false, it is unfair to both Martin Luther and his opponents. For the most part, what I post are matters of historical fact, along with comments by mostly Protestant Scholars including a disproportionate share of Lutherans. The way I see it, it is the historical facts which are ‘anti-Luther’, especially as opposed to the “Legend”.

Does that mean that Bishop Lori is condemned? No.

But Jon, that wasn’t the point being made by anybody here. Nobody asked whether Lutherans think that Bishop Lori (whom I have met BTW) is ‘condemned’, but whether he is considered to be an ‘adherent’ by the Lutheran Confessions, a point which you seem to have admitted. If in your estimation, he is not an ‘adherent’, like the bishops and clergy, then could you please explain how Bishop Lori has managed to ‘escape’ this designation.

For the record, the adherents are described by the

The Formula of Concord - A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald – 1537

“39] Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents.

59] **But those who agree with the Pope, and defend his doctrine and [false] services, defile themselves with idolatry and blasphemous opinions, become guilty of the blood of the godly, **whom the Pope [and his adherents] persecutes, detract from the glory of God, and hinder the welfare of the Church, because they strengthen errors and crimes to all posterity [in the sight of all the world and to the injury of all descendants].”

Ok, so you said that the ‘adherents’ are ‘primarily’ Bishops and clergy. Those adherents, according to your Confessions, ‘defend (and practice) godless doctrines and services. In addition, these ‘adherents’ bear all the marks of the antichrist. In addition they defile themselves with idolatry and blasphemeous opinions.”

Is Lori 'guilty of the blood of the godly"? Yes or no?

Jon, I very much appreciate the fact that you do not agree with all of these comments in your Confessions, but your disagreement does not change the actual text of the intent of their authors. It seems that you also believe that the charges in your Confessions are completely over the top and totally unnecessary, even during the time they were written.

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”.

I committed to a post on Unam sanctam Jon, and that means that it WILL be posted. It is a FAR more interesting subject than I would have thought a week ago. Given that I had to ask for months before getting an answer about the ‘adherents’, I think you should probably just wait until I have prepared a well-researched and thought out post. The way it is shaping up though, I think you are going to be really tickled with it.

For the record though Jon, I will argue my position in the manner I see fit. Once it is posted of course everyone can scrutinize it in any number of ways and their criticism can be judged in comparison to my post. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Well stated as usual, Topper.
God bless you as well,
Mary.

Thanks for your kind words Mary.

The desire of some Lutherans for a ‘pope’ is not something all that new. Once the ‘results’ of the Reformation became obvious, even Melanchthon desired a return to the jurisdiction of the papacy.

“If my eyes were a fountain of tears, as rich as the waters of the river Elbe, I could not sufficiently express my sorrow over the divisions and distractions of Christendom.” Melancthon

Calvin in a letter to Melanchthon admits the same:

“For you see how the eyes of many are turned upon us,** so that the wicked take occasion from our dissensions to speak evil, and the weak are only perplexed by our unintelligible disputations.** Nor in truth, is it of little importance to prevent the suspicion of any difference having arisen between us from being handed down in any way to posterity; for it is worse than absurd that parties should be found disagreeing on the very principles, after we have been compelled to make our departure from the world… . .And surely it is indicative of a marvellous and monstrous insensibility, that we so readily set at nought that sacred unanimity, by which we ought to be bringing back into the world the angels of heaven.”

The above two quotes from an excellent Dave Armstrong article:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/06/divisions-actually-scandalized.html

Luther himself was well aware of all of the doctrinal dissension that was taking place around him.

“If one heresy die, by and by another springeth up, for the devil doth neither slumber or sleep. I myself, which, although I be nothing, have been now in the ministry of Christ about twenty years,** can truly witness that I have been assailed with more than twenty sects, of the which some are already destroyed, . .** . But Satan, the god of all dissension, stirreth up daily new sects, and last of all (which, of all other, I should never have foreseen or once suspected), he hath raised up a sect of such as teach that the Ten Commandments ought to be taken out of the church, and that men should not be terrified with the law, but gently exhorted by the preaching of the grace of Christ . . . Such is the blindness and presumption of these frantic heads, which even by their own judgment do condemn themselves. . . . let the minister of Christ know that so long as he teacheth Christ purely, there shall not be wanting perverse spirits, yea, even of our own, and among ourselves, which shall seek, by all means possible, to trouble the church of Christ. . . . Yea, let him rejoice in the troubles which he suffereth by these sects and seditious spirits, continually springing up one after another.”

We should notice that it is Satan who is the God of all dissension.

(Commentary on Galatians, Lafayette, Indiana, Sovereign Grace Publishers, Inc., 2002, Preface, pp. xx1-xxii): this from another Armstrong article:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/03/luthers-disgust-over-rampant-protestant.html

In this article Armstrong makes the point:

“Hence, Carlstadt and the Anabaptists and Zwinglians and Calvinists and other groups arose, to his great dismay. **The truth (whatever it was) was not self-evidently clear to all from Scripture alone. He again failed to see any connection whatever between his teachings on authority, and what ensued.” ** Armstrong

I think that one of the problems that Luther had, which in fact kept him from retracing his steps back to the Church, was that **he was not very good and the ‘cause and effect’ thing. He didn’t seem to understand the connection between his teaching on Sola Scriptura, and also his initial teaching on Private Interpretation, and all of the doctrinal dissension that (inevitably) ensued. **

We see this same phenomenon in the comments here on these threads. Some have an extremely difficult time seeing the connection between Luther’s SS+PI and his Revolt against the Authority of the Church, and the resulting tens of thousands of doctrinally independent denominations.

ISTM that the connection is extremely obvious, but to some, it ‘does not compute’ that Luther could have POSSIBLY have been responsible that and that he could be even mildly at fault. It just doesn’t fit his image, but then neither do the facts really. That is why the actual history of the early Reformation is so important. There are facts which are ‘not well advertized’ which point very definitely to some extremely logical conclusions. But without access to those facts, it seems to me to be far to easy to ignore the obvious.

Your Thoughts Mary?

God Bless You, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

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.

There is of course a phase after that, where notoriously anti-Catholic websites are mined for ‘facts’ to post, without reference to ‘where’ they came from. Personally, I like the ‘wall of facts’ phase better.

BTW, I think you display great diplomacy.

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[Chong]

If Luther could have foreseen clearly what has happened to western Christianity over the past 500 years, would Luther have said and done the things that history records of him?

If you had been Luther, would you have followed the same course he took?

Why or why not?

If that Luther had not arisen at that time, another ‘Luther’ would have arisen at another time.
Luther did a great work. Today Christians who are not Catholics are all over the world doing a great work for the kingdom of God. They are not scattering but gathering for the chief Master, Jesus Christ. The bibles have been made available to all, and translations done to hundreds of languages.
Until Vatican II, mass was being conducted in Latin hindering many people from understanding the concept of worship.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12704904]Jon,

I agree Jon. It is pretty clear. The text is pretty hard to misinterpret and as you have seen, I am not exactly the only one here who isn’t ‘buying it’.

That’s fine, Topper. You don’t have to buy it. Keep in mind, however, that this is the style of “discussion” that you have decided on. My response will be (to you), when you post about Unam sanctam, exactly the same. Whatever you post, regardless of its source, regardless of the sincerity of the source, if it isn’t from that era, and it doesn’t agree with MY interpretation of Pope Boniface’s clear words, then I won’t be buying it.
Now, to be sure, I won’t be calling any Catholic a liar, and the fact is that, in reality, and from most other Catholic posters, I would most likely accept their explanation, because typically here at CAF, Catholics have just dialogued that way.

Back in the day when I focused on apologetics via quoting Scripture, I was often told, primarily by Lutherans BTW, that IF I would just read Scripture, THEN I would ‘see’ (that they were right of course). In a lot of cases, that was about the extent of their argument. No real exegesis, no explanation, just “Topper, if you would read the Scriptures, you would agree with me.”

First of all, I used to bristle at the claim that I DO NOT read Scripture. Secondly, there was that disproven presumption that the Scriptures are very clear as to their meaning on doctrinal issues. That is straight out of Martin Luther 101. The idea that I should now read your Confessions strikes me that same way. I HAVE read them.

So, clearly, your anger at Lutherans predates your membership here at CAF. I am sorry that some online Lutherans or Lutherans in person accused you of not reading scripture.
But you know, I and other Lutherans here have made no such allegation, though you have said more than once that you choose not to read information from links. The only thing I have said is that you rarely practice apologetics by presenting a positive Catholic POV. I think that can be verified by a look at your post history.

If you have a point to make from the preface, then please quote the section you seem to be referring to and explain how it supports your position. Then and only then will we all be able to understand what your point is and whether it is compelling.

Since you’re not buying it anyway, I shall simply link to an article that explains it.
issuesetcarchive.org/issues_site/resource/archives/papacy.htm
While I entirely disagree with “V”, the comments about the LCMS and Lutheran teaching on the papacy is consistent with everything else the Lutherans here have said or posted in the past.

What you choose to depict as an ‘anti-Lutheran apologia’, I see more as correcting false and misleading history. So much of what I call the “Legend” of Martin Luther is (unintentionally) false, and given that it is false, it is unfair to both Martin Luther and his opponents. For the most part, what I post are matters of historical fact, along with comments by mostly Protestant Scholars including a disproportionate share of Lutherans. The way I see it, it is the historical facts which are ‘anti-Luther’, especially as opposed to the “Legend”.

Let’s see, the legend. The n you reference non-Catholic scholars (some even Lutheran), who actually honestly evaluate Luther’s flaws. Yes, we are hiding his flaws - in plain sight. Clever, we Lutherans.
But then, that’s the point. You’re not exposing some long-hidden truths. Topper, Lutherans don’t look at Luther and think, we either have to choose the really good Luther, or the really dark one. We see all of Luther, his good and his bad.

But Jon, that wasn’t the point being made by anybody here. Nobody asked whether Lutherans think that Bishop Lori (whom I have met BTW) is ‘condemned’, but whether he is considered to be an ‘adherent’ by the Lutheran Confessions, a point which you seem to have admitted. If in your estimation, he is not an ‘adherent’, like the bishops and clergy, then could you please explain how Bishop Lori has managed to ‘escape’ this designation.

Of course he’s an adherent to Catholic teaching. Is there anyone who would be surprised by that? He’s also a good Christian, who makes it a point to stand up for human life, and Christ’s teachings regarding life.

Is Lori 'guilty of the blood of the godly"? Yes or no?

Jon, I very much appreciate the fact that you do not agree with all of these comments in your Confessions, but your disagreement does not change the actual text of the intent of their authors. It seems that you also believe that the charges in your Confessions are completely over the top and totally unnecessary, even during the time they were written.

Its not that I don’t agree with them, its that Lutherans of the modern era recognize the time in which they were written. We have told you over and over that the writings regarding the papacy are historically conditional. They are based on the teachings, primarily those related to the office of the papacy itself. We’ve also said over and over that some of those “marks” no longer apply.

You see, Topper, regarding Unam sanctam, I totally reject the claim in that bull. I consider it unscriptural outside the teachings of the early Church. But I also know it was written 700 years ago, in a different era, and the modern Catholic Church has seen fit to “positively reformulate” that teaching. The difference here is, I’m buying what you Church says.

continued

 

[JonNC]

I committed to a post on Unam sanctam Jon, and that means that it WILL be posted. It is a FAR more interesting subject than I would have thought a week ago. Given that I had to ask for months before getting an answer about the ‘adherents’, I think you should probably just wait until I have prepared a well-researched and thought out post. The way it is shaping up though, I think you are going to be really tickled with it.

That’s fine, Topper, but just remember, in honor of your approach, I’m most likely not buying what you present.

For the record though Jon, I will argue my position in the manner I see fit. Once it is posted of course everyone can scrutinize it in any number of ways and their criticism can be judged in comparison to my post. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

That’s fine, too, but it seems that, from what I’ve read, its a “manner” not typically approved by your communion anymore.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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

And peace also with you, Steve.

I think this is the proper Catholic response.

I think, however, there is more, in that some of those mistakes in practice came from much sincerity and pious belief. Not everything we do wrong have to stem from pride and greed, necessarily.

I think one of the hopeful things about the relationship between our traditions is the willingness of many of our leaders to look at each other, and our mutual history, in a new light. Jose provided a glimpse of that in his recent posts, as do the numerous other articles and dialogue documents that speak to the dialogue of the last 50 years.

There remain specific and important doctrinal differences between our traditions. With the help of the Holy Spirit, one by one, these can be resolved.

Jon

 

[benhur]

Peter once stood in front of Jesus to change Jesus’ direction (away from Jerusalem). Jesus told Peter to get behind him, where his followers were, and not stand in front as if he were the leader.

Peter got back behind Jesus. And when it was time he became an obedient leader.

Luther refused to get back behind and do his reform exhortations with obedience. St **Paul is the example of how Luther could have exhorted reform, **when arguing with Peter about Gentile inclusion in the Church. He argued with the Church, not by garnering public outcry and political pressure against Peter. Paul could have gathered a large number of Gentiles together to demand recognition as a political move, but he did not. **The Gentiles did not know of the argument with Peter, nor most of the Jewish Catholics, **until they read about it in later times. Luther refused obedience, and I believe he would have today as well. And obedience is the primary vow of a priest or religious.

By the way, my middle name is Luther, and I have seriously studied most of his writings in my pre-Catholic past, believing everything he said. Pope St. Martin I is my chosen Saint at Confirmation. So, I came into communion with the Church as John Martin Luther, returning myself to where he should have stayed.

I thought the gentiles knew the “arguments”.

Secondly, the church basically agreed with “Paul” and the Holy Spirit. but some would say not so with Luther. The church has to be obedient to the Holy Spirit, not just Luther obedient to the church.

 

[Contarini]

If Luther could have foreseen clearly what has happened to western Christianity over the past 500 years, would Luther have said and done the things that history records of him?

If you had been Luther, would you have followed the same course he took?

Why or why not?

The first question is impossible to answer properly–it’s too anachronistic. By the time you had inculturated Luther into 21st-century culture enough for him to have any way of making such a decision, he wouldn’t be the Luther we know any more. But if you could summarize basically what has happened to the sixteenth-century Luther, I think the best answer is that probably it wouldn’t change much for him.

To the second, I’m sure you won’t be surprised that my answer is, “Of course not.” Although I suppose, given my intransigence on women’s ordination, I shouldn’t be too confident that I would have just submitted. But yes, I think there were ways Luther could have continued to advocate for his key insights without waging war on the Church and the Tradition in the way he did. After all, my alias Contarini had a view of justification that was pretty close to Luther’s, and while Contarini’s views were rejected by Trent (after Contarini’s death), that might not have happened if these views hadn’t been associated with stubborn heresy.

And yes, the main reason I chose this alias is precisely because I hope that, if I’d lived back then, I would have been more like Contarini than like Luther. (Even though Luther was a much more interesting thinker.)

Edwin

 

[Topper17]

Jon,

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.

As I have said before, if you have a point to make from the dialogue, then please post the appropriate text that supports your point, and state your point for all to see (and potentially scrutinize).

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, I am perfectly aware that the question remains. After all, I am the one who asked it of you. Rather than answer it you suggest that I answer it for you? The problem is that I cannot offer your perspective on the matter. That is the reason that I asked you that question, among many others, is because I wanted your perspective.

If you don’t think that the Church could have done anything differently in its dealings with Luther AFTER he began to challenge it’s doctrines, then please just say so. If you do then please be specific.

I ask these kinds of questions hoping you will take a position that we can discuss.

Topper

 

[Topper17]

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.

“2. Luther’s Disgust at the State of Protestant Morality

"No Protestant need consult anyone beyond the Protestant Founders themselves for proof of the ensuing decline of morals. Luther is quite graphic:

“Who would have wanted to begin preaching, **had we known beforehand that so much disaster, riotousness, scandal, sacrilege, ingratitude, and wickedness were to follow. **But now . . . we have to pay for it.” (Janssen, XVI, 13; EA, vol. 50, 74; in 1538), from a Dave Armstrong article.

The question is whether Luther would have done things differently ‘if he had known’. The fact is that he WAS aware of the results. Armstrong here mentions the impact on Protestant morality, and of course we already know about Luther’s awareness of the doctrinal dissension that began immediately after his ‘reformation’. Thus he DID know the results, and yet, he never moved back in the direction of an authoritative papacy.

Msgr. George Agius puts it this way:
**
“Fair minded Protestants are obliged to recognize two Luther; one before the year 1525, or before the great rebellion in Germany; the other after the year 1525. ** The first Luther, by breaking with the authority of the Church, told people that every Christian is “taught of God”. The second Luther, seeing the great divisions which began to spread within his own ranks, in order to keep some unity and coherency among his followers, declared that “the ecclesiastical teaching body, having been instituted by God, has for its source Christ Himself, as well as His mandate and institution.

“The first Luther,” writes the Protestant Schwartz, “with a seditious audacity appealed to the conscience of the people against ecclesiastical hierarchy (namely, the Church authorities); the second Luther wavered nervously between unlimited liberty of the spirit and the severe authority of an authentic teaching ministry.” Hence it is that the same Martin Luther, the head of the revolt against the authority of Rome, he who in the beginning of his rebellion claimed to be “taught of God,” **illuminated and inspired by the Holy Ghost, gave at different times different judgments on the revealed truths, **as if the Holy Ghost could reverse Himself to suit Luther and his political intriguers.” Agius, “Tradition and the Church,” pg. 68-9

Which Luther was ‘correct’ in God’s Eyes? The one who pronounced Private Interpretation as a ‘right’ of ALL, and used this ‘model of authority’ to revolt against the Church, OR the Luther who gradually moved towards a model of authority that had HIM at the top, with himself as having the authority to teach ALL. Either one or the other was wrong. Which was which?

Lutheran Mark U. Edwards tends to place Luther’s ‘transformation’ somewhat earlier that does Aguis. Certainly the Peasant’s War was a jarring experience for him with regard to his belief (then) in Private Interpretation, but it seems that it was more of a gradual ‘re-understanding’:

“His (Luther’s) claim, of course, was only to be authoritative in interpreting scripture; he did not say that he had special revelation. Yet it is still an assertion worth pondering. **Mark U. Edwards has suggested that before 1522 Luther never presented himself as anything other than a doctor of theology expounding scripture. Afterward Luther saw himself increasingly as a prophet raised by God in a special time.” **Richard Marius, Martin Luther, The Christian Between God and Death, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999, pg. 329

Luther’s “authority”, at least in his own mind, was grounded in the sheer overwhelming nature of his religious experiences. He believed that because those experiences were so overpowering, they could only have come from God, and since they came from God, then the results of those experiences, meaning his personal beliefs, must also be from God. Because God had “chosen” Him as the “recipient” of these teachings, it meant to Luther that God had also chosen Him to correct all of the wrongs in the Church. With that as his “justification, Luther felt that it was perfectly within his purview to demand that everyone accept his Scriptural Interpretations and his doctrinal beliefs.

BTW, Marius was not at all the only one who has mentioned Luther’s belief that he was some sort of Prophet. Was he really a “prophet raised by God”? By his statements and from the way that he treated his opponents, it certainly seems that he believed he was.

All that being said Eric, given that you are a former Lutheran, I have a question for you. What impact did learning the facts about Luther have in your conversion?

God Bless You Eric, Topper

 

[Topper17]

To Mary, post number 280

What is the appropriate response from Catholics to be when Lutheran posters here refer to their Lutheran confessions as authoritative and then they are read to say the Pope is the AntiChrist (but the posters say no the Office of the Pope is AntiChrist because it claims universal jurisdiction etc)

Either way the Pope or his Office is the AntiChrist and its adherents… Then these are stated primarily as priests or bishops?

Ok then that’s fine? What do those non Catholics who say some have been less than charitable expect us to say to that?

No, it’s not fine. Similarly, this as if “only” having the Pope and Bishops and clergy be the ‘adherents’ is somehow inoffensive. No matter how you slice it or spin it or avoid it or misconstrue it, the official teachings of Lutheranism, as found in the Confessions, are extremely offensive.

Quite frankly, if I, as an individual CA poster EVER said anything half as offensive as what is actually written in official Lutheran teaching, I would be justifiably banned. If I ever said that I believe Martin Luther (or even the office which he personally established) was the ‘antiChrist’ I would be skewered beyond belief. Of course I don’t believe that or anything near that ridiculous, so I would never say it.

I think the thing that increases the ‘difficulty’ on issues like this one is that we cannot seem to be able to discuss them openly. If we can’t discuss them, how are we ever supposed to overcome them?

What about the charge in the Formula that ‘they are not the Church’:

In the Smalcald Articles Luther wrote the following of the church:

"XII. Of the Church.

**1] We do not concede to them that they are the Church, and [in truth] they are not [the Church]; **nor will we listen to those things which, under the name of Church, they enjoin or forbid. 2] For, thank God, [to-day] a child seven years old knows what the Church is, namely, the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their Shepherd. For the children pray thus: I believe in one holy [catholic or] Christian Church. 3] This holiness does not consist in albs, tonsures, long gowns, and other of their ceremonies devised by them beyond Holy Scripture, but in the Word of God and true faith." :bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#church

It seems that there is a ‘pattern’ here, doncha think Mary?

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[Contarini]

What is the appropriate response from Catholics to be when Lutheran posters here refer to their Lutheran confessions as authoritative and then they are read to say the Pope is the AntiChrist (but the posters say no the Office of the Pope is AntiChrist because it claims universal jurisdiction etc)

Either way the Pope or his Office is the AntiChrist and its adherents… Then these are stated primarily as priests or bishops?

Ok then that’s fine? What do those non Catholics who say some have been less than charitable expect us to say to that?

The same thing you expect Protestants to say when they find anathemas in the documents of Trent, or when they find historical record of how viciously Catholics have persecuted Protestants. You expect them to listen to you when you explain what these means, or when you say that you no longer stand behind certain things that were done in the past.

In short, you listen. You let Lutherans tell you what their confessions mean, and you do not imitate Topper in his habit of telling Lutherans what they really believe. (Topper has many other habits that are worthy of imitation, but this one isn’t.)

Edwin

 

[MaryT777]

The same thing you expect Protestants to say when they find anathemas in the documents of Trent, or when they find historical record of how viciously Catholics have persecuted Protestants. You expect them to listen to you when you explain what these means, or when you say that you no longer stand behind certain things that were done in the past.

In short, you listen. You let Lutherans tell you what their confessions mean, and you do not imitate Topper in his habit of telling Lutherans what they really believe. (Topper has many other habits that are worthy of imitation, but this one isn’t.)

Edwin

Why do the Lutherans need to tell me what this means? This statement was found today on the official LCMS website reflecting still the official position of the LCMS on this matter .

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

Please see our Frequently Asked Question on the subject/topic. Click on the “LCMS Views” tab and choose “The Bible.”

Topper is not the topic of the thread by the way.

Mary.