Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[Thorolfr]

The objections thus display the paucity of real understanding of what Jesus said and did which is the reason for the many thousands of differing and confused sects today.

My “sect” isn’t confused

 

[MaryT777]

My “sect” isn’t confused

Yet some in the LCMS state the ELCA members are not confessional Lutherans. You ordain women, have mixed views on homosexuality and abortion and have Open Communion.

So which Lutherans are correct? Are you true Lutherans from the Reformation days following the book of Concord and the confessions to a “T?” Are you a heretical Lutheran sect?

It’s strange to hear Lutherans profess all different things coming from the same “Reformer”

Mary.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jon

Jon-

Serious questions:

Kjetilk is a Lutheran pastor whose Church dates back to its break from Rome in 1537. He may argue that it goes back another 500 years or so before that, but that was true Catholicism.

He argues that his ordination is valid because his Church participated in the Porvoo Communion and his bishop was ordained by an Old Catholic who was participating in this cross-pollenization project.

Consequently, Kjetilk might (I’m not saying he has or would) or could argue that American Lutheran pastors who have NOT participated in the “Dutch Touch” remediation program are NOT able to validly consecrate the elements of the Eucharist.

1. 
   *]What is your opinion of WHY this Porvoo initiative was undertaken?
   *]What is your opinion of Kjetilk’s belief in transubstantiation v. your own beliefs?
   *]What is your opinion of the possibility that your American pastors are NOT ordained by bishops with valid orders?

 

[jmcrae]

By then the religion was very young and not very much spread out. Control was possible from as the apostles knew one another and mostly spoke one language.
It is surprising that later the center of governance shifted from Jerusalem to Rome.

It’s not so surprising when you realize that the surviving Apostles, including Peter, were taken away as prisoners to Rome. Where the leaders are, the leadership is.

They were not set free from the prison building that we now call “the Vatican” until 317 AD, and by then, there was an infrastructure in place; they simply turned their prison cells into offices and libraries, and stayed put, rather than attempt to move the accumulated records, books, and furnishings back to Jerusalem.

It is also surprising that we do not have a history on another council in Jerusalem despite the many doctrinal challenges that were there.

Not when you again consider that they were all in prison in Rome.

The next Council was the Council of Nicaea, which took place a mere eight years after they were released from prison.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your response.

I’m so sorry. I remember reading the first part about the lurkers on the forum.

No prob.

I don’t know why people assume this sort of thing about professors. . . . Actually, when I was a professor, I generally gave very good grades to people who argued with me, even if I thought their arguments had a lot of holes. (I tried always to bear in mind that it’s easy to see the holes in arguments you disagree with–which by the way is one reason why I’m not as impressed with Eck’s “foresight” as you are.) I didn’t flunk many people at all (generally just people who plagiarized or downright didn’t do the work). It was hard to get an A, but the best way to do so was to argue with me

I think channeling Luther would provide for the following response:

“Edwin, it’s really quite simple, I agree with you when you are right and disagree with you when you are wrong.”

As I’m sure you know, Luther would say that it was on the authority of the Word of God.

Exactly. Isn’t precisely what we are discussing? There is no question that Luther presumed that he was speaking for God, which automatically meant that those who opposed him, according to him, were also opposing God, and as such, deserved to be destroyed by his rhetoric. What I am suggesting is that Protestants who have always just sort of assumed that Luther was ‘right’ SHOULD actually CONSIDER the possibility that he was not.

How seriously he took the “prophet” language he sometimes used is hard to tell, given Luther’s fondness for extravagant, tongue-in-cheek language. But I think a good case can be made that both he and Calvin had a very high view of their own theological ideas–probably one reason why the two of them are the two most famous Protestant theologians from the era, even though Calvin in his own day was just one of many Reformed theologians and in no way a founding figure.

There is no question that Luther was prone to making extreme statements regarding - well – regarding everything, including his own authority. But I think you are off base to suggest that they were actually tongue-in-cheek. I would not make this claim, except for the fact that Luther ACTED as if he had that astonishing level of Authority and directly from God Himself. Nothing else could account for his actions and the number of doctrinal subjects that he took upon himself, personally, to ‘adjust’. In fact, NO Bishop or Rome and in fact, no 10 Bishops of Rome combined took upon themselves the authority to change SO MUCH of Catholic teaching. If you disagree then please explain why.

Protestants agree with Luther, though, insofar as they agree with him, because they think his ideas are Scriptural. I know we’ve been over that before. To refute Luther you need to show Protestants that his ideas are not as Scriptural as they think.

To begin with, and not to cover old ground, the ONLY way that Protestants have the ‘authority’ to decide which of Luther’s ideas were Scriptural is to use both of his radical doctrines; Sola Scriptura AND the ‘Right of the Individual to Interpret’. As you know Lutheranism teaches that it is the Church which determines doctrine, so, even THEY would disagree that, individuals are allowed to decide whether Luther’s ‘ideas are Scriptural’. And yet, that is exactly what virtually ALL Protestants do whether they realize it or not.

You seem to be suggesting that the best way to convince Protestants is to quote Scripture and ‘explain’ how the Catholic understanding is superior to theirs? How much of that have you done?

I think the basic problem here is that you, like many conservative Catholics (and sorry, I do think the word “conservative” is appropriate and indispensable here), reduce everything to a question of authority. And you see Protestantism the same way. You believe things because the Church says so, and so you assume that Protestants believe things because Luther said so. At least that’s how it looks to me.

In fact, I would actually characterize myself as a ‘conservative Catholic’, but it seems that for you that term might involve some ‘negative implications’. I do not.

As for the issue of authority, it really is at the heart of Luther’s revolt. When I was testing the waters and was in midstream, I did NOT assume that the Church was teaching the Truth because the Church says so. I actually researched the arguments of both sides to determine which were more in keeping with Scripture, Church history, and logic and reason. Especially at the beginning of this process, I was expecting to discover that the ‘Protestant side’ (generally of course) was right and the Catholics were wrong. Reading the positions of both sides along with Scripture and the Fathers, I came to realize, issue by issue (on more than 20 issues), that the Catholic argument was more compelling, more Scriptural, more in keeping with early Christian belief AND more appealing to logic and reason. What it was NOT though was more appealing to the ego, which of course REALLY wants to believe that the Holy Spirt leads ME personally, to understand the Scriptures better than those who disagree with me – personally.

 

[Topper17]

Gradually, I came to realize that the Church actually IS exactly what it claims to be. Given the fact that my initial goal was to follow the Truth wherever it led, I had no choice. Quite frankly, I fully expected to conclude that the ‘Protestant position’ (as if there is such a thing) was correct and that I was going to have to sort through all of the unending number of denominations to find the place which ‘teaches correctly. I was shocked to discover what I did. I NEVER wanted to be Catholic, and especially a “conservative Catholic”, which I would define as being one faithful to the teachings of the Church. By this I mean faithful, I mean ALL OF THEM, not just the ones what appeal to my personality or my individual circumstances. Having ‘arrived’ on the other shore and being mostly ‘dried off’, I will tell you Edwin, that it is FAR greater a ‘place’ than I would ever have imagined. I look at the world from a much different perspective than before, one much more Christ centered and much less self-centered. I think that this is what you have to look forward to.

And let’s be clear: the “many” includes Pope Benedict and many other eminent figures in Catholicism. Certainly BXVI’s view of Luther is not binding dogma. I’m not suggesting that you aren’t free to disagree with him and other theologians and scholars on this point. I’m just trying to make clear to the lurkers that your views are not representative of Catholic opinion generally.

I have been told more than a few times that my views are not in keeping with the ‘modern Catholic’ opinion of Luther, but quite frankly I see that as being pretty transparent with regards to motive. As you know, I don’t represent my views as being ‘official’ in any way. On the other hand some would have people believe that I am being ‘disloyal’ (or some other gibberish) to my Church to post. What do you think motivates that kind of thing?

OK. This is the fundamental place where we disagree. The legitimacy of Protestant communities has nothing to do with whether Luther was led by God or not. It has to do with baptism, the proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Creeds, the life of charity–and I would add the Eucharist, but I won’t try to argue that point with you

Actually I think that this is a perfectly acceptable ‘midstream perspective’, and in fact one that I held when I was in the same position (geographically). Each of those issues are separate of course but let’s take a look at just one for the moment – the ‘proclamation of the Word’, which I assume means the “Word of God”. This seems to suggest that you believe that it is entirely ‘acceptable’ to God to have His Word being taught in conflicting and contradictory fashions on opposite corners of the same intersection. We both know that Scripture does NOT depict competing ‘communions’ with opposing doctrinal positions, and neither do the Fathers.

Whether these communities ought to be separated from Rome is another matter. You know I don’t think they should be, although if the Doctrinal Notification to Ad Tuendam Fidem represents Rome’s conditions for ending the separation, then I think the blame may not entirely be on one side.

Ok, lets take a looks at the practical aspect of what I think you seem to consider to be something of an ‘unyielding’ attitude of the Church on the matter of doctrinal ‘negotiations’.

On the matter of the Sacraments, should the Church have simply accepted Luther’s ‘decision’ that there were only 2 or 3 rather than 7? Should they have maybe ‘met him in the middle’ and agreed on 4 or 5, to maintain unity? If so, which ones specifically do you think they should have been willing to negotiate on? As always I think it is in the specifics rather than the generalizations that we discover the truth.

Funny. I agree with the last sentence and that’s why I think finding the middle ground–or rather, telling the truth, which in this case (and in most others) does not match the black-and-white picture that some folks want to paint–is essential!

What I post is a point of view that I think should be considered. It is also a point of view which is not all that ‘popular’, at least with ‘some’. My goal is that people will actually think about these issues in a different manner than they might have in the past. If they don’t find my arguments and evidence to be compelling, that’s fine. What I object to though is the idea that I should NOT present my point of view.

The answer to your question is that people who believe the latter set of teachings and reject the former (which are arguably opinions more than teachings) do so because they believe the latter are in accord with Scripture and the former aren’t.

Exactly, and by using Sola Scriptura and their ‘Right’ to interpret in the process. Have we not yet concluded that that has been more than a little damaging to the Christian unity that Christ, the Apostles and Scripture call for? In other words, if SS+PI have been proven faulty, and they have, and that is the basis of all of their individual ‘opinions’ then isn’t it right to question their suppositions?

 

[Topper17]

Again, you’re assuming that the intrinsic merits of ideas don’t matter or are inaccessible to us, so that we can only figure out who has authority and then follow that person or institution blindly. I think that view makes no sense at all is in fact morally corrupting.

I am presuming that the vast majority of the population do not have your education or abilities – shoot - some of them not even mine. What percentage of people in Christian history were literate and had access to the Scriptures? How in the world do you expect those people to decide who was right and who was wrong? Should they do so on the basis on who was the more mesmerizing and compelling writer or speaker?

On the other hand, we have common ground on the point that the mythological exaltation of Luther helps confirm Protestants in their adherence to certain beliefs they need to question, and in particular reinforces the idea that breaking with tradition in order to follow one’s own theological opinions is a noble and necessary thing.

Agreed. I would also suggest that the ‘Legend’ is in part, intentional. My goal is that people actually DO ‘question’. I think that you agree, at least you have done it. Honestly, from my experience, historical facts seem to be much harder to just ‘blow off’ than Catholic Scriptural interpretations. It is SO easy to simply state: “But Topper, you obviously don’t understand that Scripture. It must be interpreted from within the context of the following Scripture……__________, (which I like a lot better).” Historical facts are simply that – facts. They cannot be as easily dismissed as can an opposing interpretation of Scripture.

So I’m with you in the need to educate Protestants on just how strange and repugnant some of Luther’s views were. But I think you don’t go deep enough. You seem content simply to list things that you’re confident people will find repugnant, and worse, to pile up secondary-source quotations as if they made your points for you.

Actually I think we are going deeper in our dialogue and I am perfectly happy to go even deeper. In addition I very much appreciate your insights. My overarching goal is to actually have this kind of dialogue, where the ramifications and implications of all of those ‘strange views’ come into focus. With this kind of discussion, there is no ‘need’ to list ‘offenses’ and pile up quotes, although I do think that is worthwhile on a different level.

On Luther’s “lesser known teachings,” I think there’s a difference between opinions he expressed that were essentially those of his culture, and those where he was breaking new ground. You asked in an earlier post, for instance, where Eck had said things about the Jews similar to those of Luther. And the answer would be: in his “Refutation of a Jew Book,” which was written in response to the Lutheran Andreas Osiander, who (unlike Luther) had defended Jews against the charge of ritual murder.

Ok, here we have a problem Edwin. How can you possibly suggest that what Eck said about the Jews is even in the same universe as Luther’s horrific ‘recommendations’ as to what should physically happen to the Jews? Is there a text of Eck’s which can be even remotely compared to Luther’s ‘recommedations’?

The practical measures Luther advocated against Jews were of a piece with all kinds of expulsions and persecutions and pogroms endured by the Jews in the later Middle Ages. Luther wasn’t breaking with anything in late medieval Christianity in his attitude to the Jews.

‘Practical measures’? If Luther wasn’t breaking with medieval Christianity in his ‘attitude’ towards the Jews, then you should be able to quote some other Catholic Scholar who made those same ‘recommendations’. Eck certainly did not.

At most, we can say that because of Luther’s rhetorical extravagance and the influence he had over rulers he may be a bit more responsible than someone like Eck who was just defending a traditional opinion (again, against a Lutheran who was defending the Jews).

“A bit more responsible”? Specifically and exactly Edwin, what ‘responsibility’ do you assign Eck? Where do you read of his influence on modern anti-Semitism in modern literature other than in blatantly biased sources?

 

[Topper17]

Luther’s opinions on marriage are a different matter, because as you point out he attacked Catholic marriage law savagely. At the same time, his view that the state should compel women to “pay the marriage debt” on pain of death is at most a more extreme expression of a traditional view: that both spouses were obligated to have sexual intercourse as part of marriage. I certainly agree, though, that people need to know about these extreme, horrifying statements by Luther. The bigger conversation that needs to happen about Luther’s view of marriage (and that of the Reformers generally–my friend Bucer is another excellent example) concerns the combination of what we would now think of as “liberal” and ferociously conservative elements in their thought.

Luther in particular secularized marriage. In the same work you cite, The Estate of Marriage, Luther dismisses the traditional view that Christians shouldn’t marry non-Christians, arguing that marriage is a worldly institution, so one can marry non-Christians just as one can work with them. Marriage is seen as part of the godly order of this world. Thus, it falls under the power of the state. (Highly relevant for contemporary debates, isn’t it?) But this means, for Luther, that the state should execute adulterers, compel women to have sex with their husbands, etc. And of course, he also said, in the same treatise again, that if women wear themselves out and die child-bearing, that’s OK, because that’s their purpose in life. Swan points out rightly that in context Luther says that child-bearing keeps women healthy, because it’s a natural function. And more to the point he is again expressing a traditional opinion. But the Reformation did narrow attitudes to women insofar as it rejected the monastic life and gave women no purpose other than to be wives and mothers. Anyway, the point is that all of this needs to be discussed fairly, in context, in order for us to think through the effect of the Reformation on the present crisis in our society’s understanding of sexuality and marriage.

I am sure that we could have an interesting discussion on Luther’s views on marriage and the damage they did to this Christian institution, but we should probably save that for another day.

No, that doesn’t follow. Protestantism is heretical if Protestantism denies some settled, necessary part of the Faith. And contrary to you, I don’t think that’s a black and white issue.

Are you suggesting that Luther was justified in some way to refute the Church on all of Armstrong’s list of 50 doctrines?

Certainly the Church disagrees with your insinuation that all heresies are equal except in the degree of their success. The Church does not treat Protestantism the same way as Arianism or Gnosticism, nor does it treat all Protestants the same.

Actually Edwin, I am quite used to hearing how my opinions are not in keeping with ‘modern Catholicism’ on the issue of Luther. What is it that you think motivates those constant ‘reminders’?

Furthermore, I don’t think I insinuated that at all. But as you know, Catholic Answers has listed Protestantism as one of the Heresies in the same article as it does Arianism and Gnosticism. In addition, the Church actually did excommunicate Luther. Granted though, there are various ‘degrees’ of disagreement with the Mother Church. Some have fallen further from the tree than others.

I myself am not sure if Trinitarian Protestantism ought to be described as heretical at all, although all forms of Protestantism certainly have some serious theological defects, varying in kind and degree from one tradition to another. (In other words, I still hold to some form of the much-reviled “essentials/nonessentials” distinction, and “mere Christianity” still has great appeal for me, though clearly it has a center and the center is Catholicism and/or Orthodoxy).

This brings up the whole issue of ‘essentials’. How is the list of ‘essentials’ decided upon? Wouldn’t that be by personal understanding? Doesn’t the vastly differing lists of ‘essentials’ within the various Protestant communions demonstrate that NONE of them are authoritative and that ALL of them are based on somebody’s personal understandings. Doesn’t that fact indicate that the ‘essentials’ are only man made, and therefore NOT of God?

Who decides on what is ‘essential’ and what is not? It can ONLY be the Church that Christ established. We see that even within Lutheranism there is disagreement on even what issues are ‘essential’ and which are not. This is not to mention the disagreement on the substance of the individual subjects.

It seems to me that everybody wants to make a point about the ‘essentials’, but when you ask them to list what they actually are, the silence is deafening.

As for what should be considered ‘Christian’, what are your feelings about the ‘version’ of Protestantism which considers Catholics to NOT be Christian? Do you think that Luther was wrong to consider Catholics to NOT be Christians? In your opinion, does that position add to or subtract from Luther’s credibility?

And that is one of my biggest sources of uncertainty about conversion to Catholicism.

I would agree that that is an issue which much be addressed in the ‘swimming process ’. I see the fact that you struggle with it as being part of the progression and as a result of the importance of discovering the Truth. My experience is that it gets progressively more and more clear.

Please pare down as you see fit.

Praise God for the Baptism of my youngest granddaughter today!

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[Thorolfr]

Gradually, I came to realize that the Church actually IS exactly what it claims to be. Given the fact that my initial goal was to follow the Truth wherever it led, I had no choice. Quite frankly, I fully expected to conclude that the ‘Protestant position’ (as if there is such a thing) was correct and that I was going to have to sort through all of the unending number of denominations to find the place which ‘teaches correctly. I was shocked to discover what I did. I NEVER wanted to be Catholic, and especially a “conservative Catholic”, which I would define as being one faithful to the teachings of the Church. By this I mean faithful, I mean ALL OF THEM, not just the ones what appeal to my personality or my individual circumstances. Having ‘arrived’ on the other shore and being mostly ‘dried off’, I will tell you Edwin, that it is FAR greater a ‘place’ than I would ever have imagined. I look at the world from a much different perspective than before, one much more Christ centered and much less self-centered. I think that this is what you have to look forward to.

It’s interesting to me to read about the process you went through to get to the other shore, but I personally would find it impossible to submit to and support ALL the teachings of the Catholic Church. It would be like saying, “Yes, please come and put a straitjacket on me.” It feels to me that the Catholic Church does not leave any room for individual conscience.

For example, my ELCA Lutheran church has a young woman associate pastor who was called to join us about a year and a half ago and shares responsibilities with our senior pastor who is male. She preaches the sermon every other week and I have been attending a Bible study with her every week for a number of months. She is just as gifted in preaching and teaching as her male counterpart and my conscience would not allow me to accept a teaching that women cannot be ordained. This is an issue where I personally think that the Catholic Church is wrong and this in itself would prevent me from ever becoming a Catholic.

 

[Contarini]

Are you suggesting that Luther was justified in some way to refute the Church on all of Armstrong’s list of 50 doctrines?

No. I’d have to go through the list to decide what I think about them. What I’m saying is that these are disagreements among Christians.

Actually Edwin, I am quite used to hearing how my opinions are not in keeping with ‘modern Catholicism’ on the issue of Luther. What is it that you think motivates those constant ‘reminders’?

Frustration that you seem to want to revive an older Catholic approach to Luther which simply widens the divisions between Protestants and Catholics, for one thing. And even more importantly, the desire to make clear to the lurkers that you do not speak for Catholics as a whole. You risk causing grave scandal–Protestants who come to this forum and read your posts and those of many other Catholics on this subject would get a misleading and harmful impression of the Catholic Church’s attitude to Protestantism.

I have a job of work persuading other Protestants, especially Episcopalians, that Catholics have any serious interest in ecumenism at all. The rejection of our orders and of intercommunion makes most Episcopalians assume that you guys don’t really think we are Christians. It is frustrating when Catholics insist on taking a polemical tone that has been wisely abandoned by the major figures of their own Communion.

But as you know, Catholic Answers has listed Protestantism as one of the Heresies in the same article as it does Arianism and Gnosticism.

I know. I also know that Catholic Answers is not part of the Magisterium, though many here seem to think otherwise

This brings up the whole issue of ‘essentials’. How is the list of ‘essentials’ decided upon?

I am happy to follow the Catholic Church on this point. Those whom the Catholic Church regards as validly baptized “separated brethren” who share faith in Christ are those whom moderate Protestants regard as sharing “essentials.” I don’t mean that the Catholic Church evaluates the matter in the same way, only that the line is not in any way arbitrary and is one drawn by the Catholic Church also.

Wouldn’t that be by personal understanding?

No, it’s by the historic consensus of the Church.

Doesn’t the vastly differing lists of ‘essentials’ within the various Protestant communions demonstrate that NONE of them are authoritative and that ALL of them are based on somebody’s personal understandings. Doesn’t that fact indicate that the ‘essentials’ are only man made, and therefore NOT of God?

Only if you think that the Church’s recognition of Protestant baptism is “man made, and therefore not of God.”

Of course various Protestant communities draw lists of essentials that are shaped by their own concerns. Some conservative Protestants insist on the “solas” and on Biblical inerrancy as essentials. But as I said above, it’s fairly easy to point out criteria, used by the Catholic Church, by which these overly narrow views can be refuted. The historic Creeds of the Church, the practice of the two “evangelical sacraments,” and the acceptance of at least the books found in the Protestant canon as divinely inspired, are all easy criteria to discern and are not peculiar to any one community. They do not rest on “personal preference.”

The main objection to this approach is that if used before the fourth century it would have prevented the establishment of Nicene orthodoxy as an essential.

It seems to me that everybody wants to make a point about the ‘essentials’, but when you ask them to list what they actually are, the silence is deafening.

Completely untrue, and refuted by your previous statement that there are various lists. In fact, in my experience there are really only two main lists: the conservative list which includes Protestant distinctives and/or a strict view of inerrancy, and the more moderate one that is based on the historic Creeds and the things Protestants have in common with Catholics and Orhtodox. Conservative Lutherans would add the Real Presence. I don’t claim that there are no further variations, only that in fact most Protestants would give one of these two answers.

As for what should be considered ‘Christian’, what are your feelings about the ‘version’ of Protestantism which considers Catholics to NOT be Christian? Do you think that Luther was wrong to consider Catholics to NOT be Christians?

He didn’t maintain any such position with any consistency. He did frequently speak as if he thought this.

I don’t think you really need to ask me. Obvoiusly those Protestants who think this are terribly wrong, and insofar as Luther spoke this way he was terribly wrong. That is in fact the core of my disagreement with Luther–that he made sola fide an essential doctrine of the Church and was willing to split the Church over it.

But the same holds true on the other side. I can’t see that sola fide as taught by Luther and the other early Reformers is a heresy in the sense that a person who holds it ought to be excluded from the Church. While I think Luther was a bit less consistent than TertiumQuid maintains, I agree with Tertium that Luther did make his position clear overall–that love and good works always accompany true faith.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It’s interesting to me to read about the process you went through to get to the other shore, but I personally would find it impossible to submit to and support ALL the teachings of the Catholic Church. It would be like saying, “Yes, please come and put a straitjacket on me.” It feels to me that the Catholic Church does not leave any room for individual conscience.

For example, my ELCA Lutheran church has a young woman associate pastor who was called to join us about a year and a half ago and shares responsibilities with our senior pastor who is male. She preaches the sermon every other week and I have been attending a Bible study with her every week for a number of months. She is just as gifted in preaching and teaching as her male counterpart and my conscience would not allow me to accept a teaching that women cannot be ordained. This is an issue where I personally think that the Catholic Church is wrong and this in itself would prevent me from ever becoming a Catholic.

This is a huge deal for me too, although being gifted in preaching and teaching isn’t really the main point, in my opinion.

I am not willing to stop receiving the Eucharist in Protestant churches, and I am not willing to say that women are incapable of celebrating the Eucharist. These two things go together insofar as I know a lot of female clergy (and my wife is in the ordination process).

Edwin

 

[Tomyris]

It’s interesting to me to read about the process you went through to get to the other shore, but I personally would find it impossible to submit to and support ALL the teachings of the Catholic Church. It would be like saying, “Yes, please come and put a straitjacket on me.” It feels to me that the Catholic Church does not leave any room for individual conscience.

That’s not what I have heard from Catholics. Some feel they only felt free to think once they became Catholic. Catholicism also allows a great deal of freedom of thought - not everything is defined, although from the outside it can seem so.

For example, my ELCA Lutheran church has a young woman associate pastor who was called to join us about a year and a half ago and shares responsibilities with our senior pastor who is male. She preaches the sermon every other week and I have been attending a Bible study with her every week for a number of months. She is just as gifted in preaching and teaching as her male counterpart and my conscience would not allow me to accept a teaching that women cannot be ordained. This is an issue where I personally think that the Catholic Church is wrong and this in itself would prevent me from ever becoming a Catholic.

It’s not an individual issue thing - it’s whether the CC is absolutely right in what it teaches. If it is, all else follows.

For me, the almost psychotic behavior (at times) of some of the former Protestants, now Catholics on this forum is enough to make tell myself I never, ever want to act that way, and if that is the effect of becoming Catholic -

 

[Thorolfr]

This is a huge deal for me too, although being gifted in preaching and teaching isn’t really the main point, in my opinion.

I am not willing to stop receiving the Eucharist in Protestant churches, and I am not willing to say that women are incapable of celebrating the Eucharist. These two things go together insofar as I know a lot of female clergy (and my wife is in the ordination process).

Edwin

In my church, every week one of the pastors preaches the sermon while the other pastor celebrates the Eucharist and I also am unwilling to say that our female associate pastor is incapable of celebrating the Eucharist which she does every other week.

 

[Abu]

Thorolfr #812
It feels to me that the Catholic Church does not leave any room for individual conscience.

The first error is that “feeling” is not reasoning, and since conscience is not a god, but a judgment of the practical reason as Msgr Cormac P Burke (Law and Dissent, 1985) points out, "for the Catholic, there is never a conflict between the authority of the Church and conscience, because belief that Christ has given His Church authority to teach without error is part of his conscience, freely accepted. According to Canon 205, Catholics are those in full communion with the Church through the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance.

"If one holds a personal opinion that a particular course of action seems licit – contrary to the Church’s teaching – he has a conflict within his own conscience. This is doubt or rejection of the divine guarantees of the certainty of the truths already present in his mind, to accommodate a contrary opinion. We now have a house divided against itself.

"He cannot escape the conclusion that his contrary opinion must be mistaken, as he would be acknowledging the accepted fact of the fallibility of conscience – it does not make truth. He then has to see where he has been mistaken, to reflect more deeply on the arguments for the Church’s teaching. If he feels that he is not mistaken, then he must conclude that Christ’s Church is mistaken and naturally his faith in Christ and His Church has started to collapse.

“He has no grounds then to believe in any truths – the sacraments (especially the Eucharist), or in Her worship or any other aspect of Her life. Such a Catholic needs the counsel of a faithful priest.”

Unless and until any person realises and accepts that the Christ is God, as proved from the testimony of Sacred Scripture and eye-witnesses, that He founded His Church on St Peter to teach, sanctify and rule without doctrinal error, that individual does not have the fullness of truth – the extent will depend on what they have been led to feel is not true.

 

[MaryT777]

I am sure that we could have an interesting discussion on Luther’s views on marriage and the damage they did to this Christian institution, but we should probably save that for another day.

Are you suggesting that Luther was justified in some way to refute the Church on all of Armstrong’s list of 50 doctrines?

Actually Edwin, I am quite used to hearing how my opinions are not in keeping with ‘modern Catholicism’ on the issue of Luther. What is it that you think motivates those constant ‘reminders’?

Furthermore, I don’t think I insinuated that at all. But as you know, Catholic Answers has listed Protestantism as one of the Heresies in the same article as it does Arianism and Gnosticism. In addition, the Church actually did excommunicate Luther. Granted though, there are various ‘degrees’ of disagreement with the Mother Church. Some have fallen further from the tree than others.

This brings up the whole issue of ‘essentials’. How is the list of ‘essentials’ decided upon? Wouldn’t that be by personal understanding? Doesn’t the vastly differing lists of ‘essentials’ within the various Protestant communions demonstrate that NONE of them are authoritative and that ALL of them are based on somebody’s personal understandings. Doesn’t that fact indicate that the ‘essentials’ are only man made, and therefore NOT of God?

Who decides on what is ‘essential’ and what is not? It can ONLY be the Church that Christ established. We see that even within Lutheranism there is disagreement on even what issues are ‘essential’ and which are not. This is not to mention the disagreement on the substance of the individual subjects.

It seems to me that everybody wants to make a point about the ‘essentials’, but when you ask them to list what they actually are, the silence is deafening.

As for what should be considered ‘Christian’, what are your feelings about the ‘version’ of Protestantism which considers Catholics to NOT be Christian? Do you think that Luther was wrong to consider Catholics to NOT be Christians? In your opinion, does that position add to or subtract from Luther’s credibility?

I would agree that that is an issue which much be addressed in the ‘swimming process ’. I see the fact that you struggle with it as being part of the progression and as a result of the importance of discovering the Truth. My experience is that it gets progressively more and more clear.

Please pare down as you see fit.

Praise God for the Baptism of my youngest granddaughter today!

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

It’s been interesting to read the dialogue between Edwin and Topper. Thanks to both posters for posting and Topper your posts are excellent as usual.

May God bless your youngest granddaughter, and your family abundantly this Baptismal day, Topper.

Mary.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Jon-

Serious questions:

Kjetilk is a Lutheran pastor whose Church dates back to its break from Rome in 1537. He may argue that it goes back another 500 years or so before that, but that was true Catholicism.

He argues that his ordination is valid because his Church participated in the Porvoo Communion and his bishop was ordained by an Old Catholic who was participating in this cross-pollenization project.

Consequently, Kjetilk might (I’m not saying he has or would) or could argue that American Lutheran pastors who have NOT participated in the “Dutch Touch” remediation program are NOT able to validly consecrate the elements of the Eucharist.

1. 
   *]What is your opinion of WHY this Porvoo initiative was undertaken?
   *]What is your opinion of Kjetilk’s belief in transubstantiation v. your own beliefs?
   *]What is your opinion of the possibility that your American pastors are NOT ordained by bishops with valid orders?

1. 
   Fr K has already corrected your statement in the original thread, so perhaps it would be more polite not to repeat it, He did not say that his orders were valid because they were infused through Anglican and therefore Old Catholic lines. He did say those Old Catholic lines were sufficient (in his opinion, of course) to confer validity according to Rome’s own arguments.. He has not suggested that his orders would have been invalid according to his own church’s arguments without the Dutch Touch. So your question to Jon is based on a false premise.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Fr K has already corrected your statement in the original thread, so perhaps it would be more polite not to repeat it, He did not say that his orders were valid because they were infused through Anglican and therefore Old Catholic lines. He did say those Old Catholic lines were sufficient (in his opinion, of course) to confer validity according to Rome’s own arguments.. He has not suggested that his orders would have been invalid according to his own church’s arguments without the Dutch Touch. So your question to Jon is based on a false premise.

If Kjetilk’s bishop had not himself been ordained in the Porvoo line, would Kjetilk be validly ordained?

He says yes. I say doubtful.

After all, the Anglicans didn’t invite a bunch of bishops from Oslo in to provide the Norwegian Nudge.

 

[GKC]

If Kjetilk’s bishop had not himself been ordained in the Porvoo line, would Kjetilk be validly ordained?

He says yes. I say doubtful.

After all, the Anglicans didn’t invite a bunch of bishops from Oslo in to provide the Norwegian Nudge.

No, they didn’t. They entered into a full agreement of intercommunion with the OCs of Utrecht.

Of which joint consecrations was a part.

This topic does seem to get around. Norwegian Nudge seems an acceptable addition to DT and PP. if there is an occasion on which it is accurate to use it.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;12772769]Jon-

Serious questions:

Hi Randy,
I saw this on the other thread but hadn’t put my response together yet. Sorry.
This, too, will be brief, and I may need to come back to it.

Kjetilk is a Lutheran pastor whose Church dates back to its break from Rome in 1537. He may argue that it goes back another 500 years or so before that, but that was true Catholicism.

He argues that his ordination is valid because his Church participated in the Porvoo Communion and his bishop was ordained by an Old Catholic who was participating in this cross-pollenization project.

I actually think he argued that his ordination was valid irrespective of Porvoo. I will trust Father K’s assessment of the reasons for the sharing of bishops in the Porvoo Communion. OTOH, “Called to Common Mission” here in the U.S. between the ELCA and TEC, the Episcopal Church wanted Lutheran pastors to be in succession, so that is why they have shared bishops for that purpose, though I don’t think any ELCA pastor would question the validity of their ordination prior to Called to Common Mission. My dad certainly would not have.

Consequently, Kjetilk might (I’m not saying he has or would) or could argue that American Lutheran pastors who have NOT participated in the “Dutch Touch” remediation program are NOT able to validly consecrate the elements of the Eucharist.

I will let Father K argue his position. Mine is that, not unlike the evangelical pastors/priests in central Europe following the Reformation, the use of presbyter ordination is valid, and had been practiced as valid by the western Church previously. The Cistercian Abbots in the 1400’s are an example. It was on this basis that our synod still uses presbyter ordination.

To be sure, presbyter ordination is neither preferable nor desirable.

What is your opinion of WHY this Porvoo initiative was undertaken?

I think Porvoo is a positive sign of growing unity among certain portions of Lutheranism and Anglicanism. My main concern regarding ordination is the fact that they are all ordaining women.
I have a few times mused with GKC about the fact that more liberal Anglicans and Lutherans are essentially merged, while the more conservative ones are not. Then again, conservative Lutherans and Anglicans tend to be less willing to compromise doctrine.

What is your opinion of Kjetilk’s belief in transubstantiation v. your own beliefs?

My position on transubstantiation has always been that it is a reasonable human expression of the truth of the doctrine of the real presence. My opposition is to its dogmatic nature in the CC. I am not opposed to Father K’s inclination towards it. Further, it would not be a stumbling block for me.

What is your opinion of the possibility that your American pastors are NOT ordained by bishops with valid orders?

The fact is my pastors have never been ordained in canonical succession, but that does not mean their ordination is invalid, from our perspective.

The following article from Fr. Will Weedon, who is now director of worship with the LCMS, is quite enlightening on the subject, as is the exchange he has with Fr. Mayes at the bottom. One thing you will note is that the article has a critical tone to it.

weedon.blogspot.com/2006/04/ac-xiv-thoughts.html

Jon

 

[Picky_Picky]

If Kjetilk’s bishop had not himself been ordained in the Porvoo line, would Kjetilk be validly ordained?

He says yes. I say doubtful.

After all, the Anglicans didn’t invite a bunch of bishops from Oslo in to provide the Norwegian Nudge.

He says yes, you say doubtful, I say I don’t know. (Sounds like the Beatles, doesn’t it.) I do try to be wary when I sense my bias and my ignorance supporting each other! And I do have a bias: I understand the Church of Norway to date to ninth century English missionary work. I am thoroughly persuaded of the greatness of the ninth century English. English missionary work in the Americas came a fair bit later, of course.

But I am grateful and admiring that you have drawn back from your suggestion that Fr K based the validity of his orders on Porvoo. Never easy.

By the way, I’ve noted before a tendency to characterise Anglican ecumenical efforts as simply a bid on one side or another to gain validity by the back door. You do it here again. It’s a less than generous attitude towards the Church of England’s efforts, stretching over more than a century, and continuing today, to work towards greater unity.