Lutheranism is the "pure" Church?

[GKC]

I am guessing where the paper was nailed?

If the story is true, it was on the door of the castle church at Wittenburg. These were an offer of public debate, as Luther was required to do, as part of his position as professor of theology at the university there.

I’m not as up on continental issues as those in England, but so I’ve read, in Marius’ MARTIN LUTHER: THE CHRISTIAN BETWEEN GOD AND DEATH, I think.

GKC

 

[ufamtobie]

And I do, too, though neither he nor I would say that the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome is exclusively the Church.

Jon, To be exclusively in the Church Jesus Christ established one has to be in Communion with the Bishop of Rome.

What does Ignatius of Antioch say?

 

[JonNC]

=ufamtobie;11105278]

Jon, To be exclusively in the Church Jesus Christ established one has to be in Communion with the Bishop of Rome.

There is no scriptural support for this, nor is there any mention of this in early councils.

Jon, so you agree finally that the Alter in the Catholic Church is not the same as the alter in your Lutheran church. So then Jon, what Alter was Ignatius of Antioch referring to? I mean when Ignatius was alive and preaching by the power of the Holy Spirit, he could not have been referring to your Lutheran alter because it did not exist at that time, am I not correct in saying so?

Ufam, it is Christ’s altar, regardless of which parish it is in. The altar exists in the history of the Church, or which we share.

Jon, you are contradicting yourself and this is why it seems very interesting to me, because you gave Ignatius of Antioch a “resounding” “Amen” and then you Reject His teachings, regarding:

"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism , he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine , he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to useone Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood;one altar,as there isone bishop,with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).
How is it contradictory? Is it your opinion that he here is saying that one must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome? How much information did Ignatius have about the Great Schism, or the schism that has resulted from the Reformation? How would Ignatius speak differently with knowledge of these? One can’t know, but it is still one Church, sadly divided, but one Church.

Jon, I have been praying for you. However Jon, you are going about it the wrong way. You want the Catholic Church to recognize the Lutheran Church and unite. It is you, that should recognize the Catholic Church and come in to unity with the Catholic Church.

No. I want the two communions to reconcile.

Jon, again, you are contradicting yourself, did you not give an “Amen” to Ignatius of Antioch above. Ignatius of Antioch says: “…as there is One Bishop”

So yes, being in the Church does REQUIRE being in Communion with the Bishop of Rome. Jon whether you like it or not, that is how Jesus Christ wants it, it is not up to you nor I.
See above.

Jon, Yes you have denied His Church, I will quote you again, for all to read you said:

“Yes, I am aware of that teaching, and frankly I reject it.”
I said I reject that specific teaching of the CC in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I did not say I reject the Church. That would be silly, since I am a member of the Church.

JonNC, The Holy Spirit, knew that people will start their own man made church and set up a new alter, etc…etc…etc…Such as Martin Luther did. This is why Ignatius of Antioch guided by the Holy Spirit wrote the letter to the Philadelphians.

There is the contention by some that setting up innovative doctrines, such as universal jurisdiction, that the same could apply to the CC.

Jon

 

[ufamtobie]

Well, let me ask you this, Dustin.
I, as a Lutheran, decided to take the time and explore Catholic teaching, to try and understand it better. Do you believe that I would have been better off, under "invincible ignorance, not doing this? Would you recommend to other non-Catholics to remain as ignorant of Catholic teaching as possible?

Jon

Jon, to be honest with you yes, it would be better to be ignorant of the Catholic Churches teaching, than come to Know it, and then come to “Frankly Reject it”.

At least when they come before Christ, they can say we did not know, we were not taught, we were ignorant these by Jesus Christ and by His Catholic Church they will be saved. But what will Christ say to them that came to know the Catholic Churches Teachings and then frankly rejected it, what about them, what would Jesus Christ say to them?

Jesus Christ and His Church He established can not be separated from one another.

Ufam Tobie

 

[JonNC]

Jon, to be honest with you yes, it would be better to be ignorant of the Catholic Churches teaching, than come to Know it, and then come to “Frankly Reject it”.

At least when they come before Christ, they can say we did not know, we were not taught, we were ignorant these by Jesus Christ and by His Catholic Church they will be saved. But what will Christ say to them that came to know the Catholic Churches Teachings and then frankly rejected it, what about them, what would Jesus Christ say to them?

Jesus Christ and His Church He established can not be separated from one another.

Ufam Tobie

Thanks, Ufam, for your perspective.

Jon

 

[PatriciusRex]

I think we need to be honest here and accept that classical Lutheranism does frame an internally consistent and logical argument for itself, albeit one that is fundamentally incompatible with that offered by Catholicism. Whether you choose to accept it or not is dependent on other factors, but I dislike the assumption many make that the whole thing is bogus and only for dunderheads who lack basic reasoning abilities.

First off, regarding the Church:

While Catholic teaching has historically employed the distinction between the visible and invisible Church, it also does so with the assumption that the two must necessarily overlap tremendously. That is to say, the institution that most people think of as the “Catholic Church” is held to be largely (if not precisely) coterminous with the invisible Church of all Christians bound to Christ through the Gospel.

Thus, for a Catholic, departing the visible Church and its canonical structures is tantamount to departing the invisible Church as well.

Protestants placed a much greater emphasis on the distinction between the visible and invisible Churches. Rather than disputing Christ’s promise that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” Protestants readily affirm this promise and state that the Church invisible has persisted through all ages, but that it is not equated to a visible institution but rather exclusively to the invisible community of the faithful. Protestants would readily admit the presence of sincere and saved Christians among the Catholic fold throughout the centuries preceding the Reformation (and often even after) whose faith remained untarnished despite what they viewed as corruptions present in the visible, institutional Church.

So to tell a Protestant that he is outside the Church because he has rejected the visible institution will not carry much weight as an argument because the Protestant does not acknowledge an intrinsic bond between the visible and invisible churches. A Protestant, likewise, would have no problem acceding to the famous statement of Cyprian of Carthage, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” but simply does not equate the ecclesia with the body of officers and jurisdictional structures that are popularly known as “the Church.”

It’s worth pointing out too, that the Catholic Church has affirmed (though to a lesser degree) this understanding of the invisible Church. I emphasize the following passage from the Vatican II document Unitatis Redintegratio:

“But even in spite of [differences] it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Secondly, regarding Apostolic Succession:

Another fundamental position of the Reformation was the rejection of a mystical spiritual authority passed down through the laying on of hands, that monopolized magisterial and regulatory authority in the hands of the ordained clergy.

Protestants from the beginning asserted that true Apostolic Succession existed rather in maintaining the teaching of the Apostles, rather than any sort of mystical link to them through ordination. The “succession” then so lauded by Fathers like Irenaeus was important not because of the grace of ordination but because it proved that the Church’s current teachers were taught by those taught by the Apostles themselves, guaranteeing the direct transmission of Apostolic doctrine.

Accordingly, this meant that the authority of an Ecumenical Council or similar body is not derived from any special grace or charism granting infallible magisterial authority to the participants, but rather is only conceded by Protestants so far as the Councils are held to be consistent with the Apostolic Faith. To rephrase, a Council’s decree doesn’t make a doctrine orthodox, rather the orthodoxy of the doctrine (as determined by comparison with Apostolic Faith) validates the Council’s decree. And I probably need not say that Protestants regard the Bible as the only incontrovertible deposit of pure Apostolic doctrine. Hence, Sola Scriptura.

It thus follows that if the visible institutional Church were to cease promoting Apostolic doctrine or were to promote additional practices or customs as obligatory supplements or replacement for Apostolic doctrine, then the confessing members of the invisible Church would not be bound to obey or remain associated with the institution. And that is precisely what Protestants believe occurred at the Reformation.

So to turn to the example from Ignatius of Antioch, the “one bishop” and “one altar” are not necessarily identified with the Church of Rome, but rather with the teaching of apostolic doctrine and the according use of the sacraments, or as the Augsburg Confession states “where the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.”

---

Now all this being said, I can say that I do disagree with many of Luther’s positions, and believe that fundamentally the Roman Church was correct in the sixteenth century, even as I readily admit it was afflicted with inadequate and corrupt teachers and superstitions contrary to Catholic doctrine. If I had to choose contemporary fellows, I would keep company with St Thomas More and Erasmus. Ultimately I believe that the Reformers went too far, and especially among post-Lutheran schools, truly threw the baby out with the bath water.

Nevertheless, I value and respect the contributions made to Christianity by Protestants throughout the centuries since 1517 and I am greatly saddened by the loss of so many of the “old guard” denominations as apathy, atheism, and modern deconstructionist Evangelicalism seem to be taking an even heavier toll on them than on the Catholics.

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

“Luther had a sex problem?” Seriously? That’s as blatantly stupid as “Catholics worship the Pope and Mary!”

Then why did he run away with a nun, why did he not run away by himself why did he have to grab a female after all he had taken VOWS one of which was Chastity which he was unable to keep.

Let the scales fall from your eyes, and see the truth. He was dishonest, and made up another religion to which Jesus never asked him to do so, only his pride, and ignorance and glory for himself made up do such an evil thing. " I ask obedience rather than sacrifice" and by the way Martin Luther had a great devotion to Our Lady.

 

[concretecamper]

There is no scriptural support for this, nor is there any mention of this in early council.

 

[JonNC]

I think we need to be honest here and accept that classical Lutheranism does frame an internally consistent and logical argument for itself, albeit one that is fundamentally incompatible with that offered by Catholicism. Whether you choose to accept it or not is dependent on other factors, but I dislike the assumption many make that the whole thing is bogus and only for dunderheads who lack basic reasoning abilities.

First off, regarding the Church:

While Catholic teaching has historically employed the distinction between the visible and invisible Church, it also does so with the assumption that the two must necessarily overlap tremendously. That is to say, the institution that most people think of as the “Catholic Church” is held to be largely (if not precisely) coterminous with the invisible Church of all Christians bound to Christ through the Gospel.

Thus, for a Catholic, departing the visible Church and its canonical structures is tantamount to departing the invisible Church as well.

Protestants placed a much greater emphasis on the distinction between the visible and invisible Churches. Rather than disputing Christ’s promise that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” Protestants readily affirm this promise and state that the Church invisible has persisted through all ages, but that it is not equated to a visible institution but rather exclusively to the invisible community of the faithful. Protestants would readily admit the presence of sincere and saved Christians among the Catholic fold throughout the centuries preceding the Reformation (and often even after) whose faith remained untarnished despite what they viewed as corruptions present in the visible, institutional Church.

So to tell a Protestant that he is outside the Church because he has rejected the visible institution will not carry much weight as an argument because the Protestant does not acknowledge an intrinsic bond between the visible and invisible churches. A Protestant, likewise, would have no problem acceding to the famous statement of Cyprian of Carthage, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” but simply does not equate the ecclesia with the body of officers and jurisdictional structures that are popularly known as “the Church.”

It’s worth pointing out too, that the Catholic Church has affirmed (though to a lesser degree) this understanding of the invisible Church. …passage from the Vatican II document Unitatis Redintegratio:

“But even in spite of [differences] it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Secondly, regarding Apostolic Succession:

Another fundamental position of the Reformation was the rejection of a mystical spiritual authority passed down through the laying on of hands, that monopolized magisterial and regulatory authority in the hands of the ordained clergy.

Protestants from the beginning asserted that true Apostolic Succession existed rather in maintaining the teaching of the Apostles, rather than any sort of mystical link to them through ordination. The “succession” then so lauded by Fathers like Irenaeus was important not because of the grace of ordination but because it proved that the Church’s current teachers were taught by those taught by the Apostles themselves, guaranteeing the direct transmission of Apostolic doctrine.

Accordingly, this meant that the authority of an Ecumenical Council or similar body is not derived from any special grace or charism granting infallible magisterial authority to the participants, but rather is only conceded by Protestants so far as the Councils are held to be consistent with the Apostolic Faith. To rephrase, a Council’s decree doesn’t make a doctrine orthodox, rather the orthodoxy of the doctrine (as determined by comparison with Apostolic Faith) validates the Council’s decree. And I probably need not say that Protestants regard the Bible as the only incontrovertible deposit of pure Apostolic doctrine. Hence, Sola Scriptura.

It thus follows that if the visible institutional Church were to cease promoting Apostolic doctrine or were to promote additional practices or customs as obligatory supplements or replacement for Apostolic doctrine, then the confessing members of the invisible Church would not be bound to obey or remain associated with the institution. And that is precisely what Protestants believe occurred at the Reformation.

So to turn to the example from Ignatius of Antioch, the “one bishop” and “one altar” are not necessarily identified with the Church of Rome, but rather with the teaching of apostolic doctrine and the according use of the sacraments, or as the Augsburg Confession states “where the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.”

---

Now all this being said, I can say that I do disagree with many of Luther’s positions, and believe that fundamentally the Roman Church was correct in the sixteenth century, even as I readily admit it was afflicted with inadequate and corrupt teachers and superstitions contrary to Catholic doctrine. If I had to choose contemporary fellows, I would keep company with St Thomas More and Erasmus. Ultimately I believe that the Reformers went too far, and especially among post-Lutheran schools, truly threw the baby out with the bath water.

Nevertheless, I value and respect the contributions made to Christianity by Protestants throughout the centuries since 1517 and I am greatly saddened by the loss of so many of the “old guard” denominations as apathy, atheism, and modern deconstructionist Evangelicalism seem to be taking an even heavier toll on them than on the Catholics.

This is one of the best, most even-handed posts I have read in a very long time.

Thank you,
Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is one of the best, most even-handed posts I have read in a very long time.

Thank you,
Jon

Yep.

 

[steido01]

Celtic, I don’t know the source of your information, but I think you would do yourself a favor to look at history. Read what your fellow Roman Catholic, PatriciusRex, graciously posted above. We Lutherans may differ from you in some beliefs and practices, but we are not entirely evil or stupid (well, I hope I’m not, anyway ).

Normally, I’d not seek confrontation where it seems to have passed… but this website is one of the top responses on search engines, and I think I’d do a disservice to others if I did not dispel the myths in your post.

Then why did he run away with a nun, why did he not run away by himself why did he have to grab a female after all he had taken VOWS one of which was Chastity which he was unable to keep.

Luther wrote quite a bit, so we have a good historical record of why believed the things he believed. For instance, we know that he rejected monastic vows due to be moral and scriptural objections, not because “he was unable to keep” them. In his understanding, such promises were a personal point of piety at best, and a frivolous/arrogant attempt to attain salvation through works at worst. Even with this understanding, he did not actively seek to marry - as he said in a letter to Spalatin:

I will never take a wife, as I feel at present. Not that I am insensible to my flesh or sex (for I am neither wood nor stone); but my mind is averse to wedlock because I daily expect death.

So Luther did not “run away with a nun;” nor did he “grab a female.” Katerina von Bora escaped from a cloister, along with several other nuns who had been placed there by their families (in those days, it was not uncommon for a young woman to be forced into the monastic lifestyle by her parents - would you accept that noble way of life it were forced upon you against your will?). Luther helped these women escape, and helped to find them husbands so that they might live normal lives. Katerina was the last to marry, and after at least four proposed matches to other men, Luther finally consented to marrying her (much to her delight!).

Let the scales fall from your eyes, and see the truth. He was dishonest, and made up another religion to which Jesus never asked him to do so, only his pride, and ignorance and glory for himself made up do such an evil thing. " I ask obedience rather than sacrifice"

What is the beautiful Irish hymn? “Be Thou My Vision!” I am certainly a sinner and, like Saul the Persecutor, I may yet have scales obscuring my sight. It is challenging to follow the Lord’s words in Matthew 7:4. Pray for me.

and by the way Martin Luther had a great devotion to Our Lady.

I’m not sure why you felt it necessary to add this, but…
http://www.briangardiner.ca/hespeler/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/inigo_montoya-300x183.jpg
Perhaps you thought that Lutherans do not hold the Theotokos (Mother of God) in high regard? You would be mistaken. Like our namesake (and all Christians through the ages), we acknowledge her to be truly full of grace, and blessed among women! Some Lutherans even pray the Rosary as a “formula of praise” to God (usually just the first verse). Or perhaps you thought that this means that Dr. Luther prayed to her in the same sense that today’s Roman Catholics seek her intercession to God. This would also be untrue.

Despite all our differences, we have much in common.

Yours in Christ,

 

[hn160]

“Luther had a sex problem?” Seriously? That’s as blatantly stupid as “Catholics worship the Pope and Mary!”

Then why did he run away with a nun, why did he not run away by himself why did he have to grab a female after all he had taken VOWS one of which was Chastity which he was unable to keep.

Let the scales fall from your eyes, and see the truth. He was dishonest, and made up another religion to which Jesus never asked him to do so, only his pride, and ignorance and glory for himself made up do such an evil thing. " I ask obedience rather than sacrifice" and by the way Martin Luther had a great devotion to Our Lady.

My, my, Celtic Maiden, aren’t we full of venom. Why don’t you read up on Luther and some of his works before you post falsehoods.

 

[MaryT777]

My, my, Celtic Maiden, aren’t we full of venom. Why don’t you read up on Luther and some of his works before you post falsehoods.

Full of Venom? Seriously? Sometimes putting someone on ignore is the best bet.
Mary.

 

[adawgj]

On whose authority do they support their claims when Luther had to change the Bible to make it fit for his church

 

[benjohnson]

On whose authority do they support their claims when Luther had to change the Bible to make it fit for his church

Is your distress that Luther’s Bible is longer that the Catholic bible, or that he placed the word ‘alone’ near the word faith like St. Augustine understood in his letter?

“Because by the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight. For by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets, even the righteousness of God by the faith of Jesus Christ unto all them that believe. For there is no difference. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” And again: “Where is boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No; but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is** justified by faith without the works of the law**.” And again: “For the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but by the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. Because the law worketh wrath, for where no law is, there is no transgression.”

Before we being anew the bickering of faith vs faith and the law - it’s helpful to remember that Lutherans and Catholics have slightly differing views on Justification and Sanctification - it’s my opinion that where the border of Justification and Sanctification is where most of our mutual misunderstanding is.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Full of Venom? Seriously? Sometimes putting someone on ignore is the best bet.
Mary.

If you intend to block hn160, that is your loss. hn160 is an outstanding poster, who is always polite and not prone to angry outbursts or writing abusive things.

 

[Peter_J]

On the flip side, what can we non-Roman Catholics say to posts like this:

Maybe we could start a match-making service. Not in the romantic sense, but rather matching anti-protestant Catholics with anti-Catholic protestants, so they can hash out our differences. (We should make it clear that we don’t want them to report back to the rest of us until they reach an agreement.)

 

[believerdoc]

Ask them WHO founded their church?

They have to face reality and truth, their church was founded by a man. Martin Luther, 1500 years after Jesus.

Ask them also, where is Peter in their church?

SOrry, but no cigar.

The true Church the only Church that can show the vicar of Christ on this earth and which was founded by Jesus is the Catholic Church.
The only one that has not quibbled and waivered on the deposit of faith as handed down by the Apostles.
The Ortodox Church is also a Church with true Apostolic succession and real Sacraments but don’t have Peter.

Peace

I am not Lutheran but I feel you may get some disagreement here. Most Lutherans and Protestants in general would say that Luther did not “found” or establish any church but reformed what he believed to be very corrupt church. The place of Peter in the church is also a point of contention based upon the belief that there is a misinterpretation of “Upon this rock I will build my church”. The Protestant interpretation is that the “rock” refers to the faith of Peter and not the man Peter and thus the concept that salvation is by faith alone.

 

[opus101]

I have been told by Lutherans where I live (Lutheran heavy upper Midwest) … The Lutherans here are very anti Catholic Church so it may just be a geographical thing and no Lutheranism as a whole. Please enlighten me because this is a tad disturbing.

Just speaking from my own limited experience, there may be something here that is particular to that geographical brand of Lutheranism.

I grew up in the eastern part of the country, and my life-long best friend is Lutheran.
I never experienced anything like you describe in my relations with other Lutherans in the east.

However, when I went to college in the mid-west, I experienced first-hand (and for the first time) an unsolicited bitterness and bigoted nastiness (bordering on hatred) for Catholicism (by Lutherans). It was the first time in my life that anyone ever said nasty things about my religion right in front of me, knowing full well that I was Catholic! And the comments were not just about the Faith, but about Catholics themselves! One comment I remember was “Well, I’m sorry, but where I come from all of the Catholic kids were complete snots.”


When I returned to the eastern part of the country and gained employment, a newly hired Lutheran colleague from the midwest made continual snide remarks about Catholicism, again, right in front of me, knowing full well that I’m a Catholic. The comments are very sarcastic and mean. This particular person is actually quite “tolerant” of just about anything at all but Catholicism. The comments come from nowhere, and are 100% unsolicited.

This has led me to believe that there really are huge geographical differences, so much so that a certain geographical group of Lutherans seem to think they can talk this way without impunity. They seem to think that kindness, tolerance and charity are for everyone except Catholics.

 

[benjohnson]

Lutherans seem to think they can talk this way without impunity. They seem to think that kindness, tolerance and charity are for everyone except Catholics.

I’m really sorry you’re being treated unkindly. As much as I’m able, let me tell you that I’m sorry for this unacceptable behavior.

If you’re feeling feisty, remind this person of Luther’s Small Catechism where Luther discussed the Ten Commandments:

The Eighth Commandment.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

What does this mean?

Answer:

We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything