Lutheranism is the "pure" Church?

[Peter_J]

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.

I can relate to your experiences … I myself had a Lutheran roommate in grad school whom I found quite disagreeable, and who would make nasty comments about Catholics.

I’m also sorry to hear that your experiences have led you to believe that this common among Lutherans in the mid-west.

 

[steido01]

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.)

Imagine the ratings! :slapfight:

I am all for it.

 

[Erich]

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.

The “Protestant interpretation” that the “rock” refers to the faith of Peter and not the man Peter is not universal among Protestants. You Can’t Get Past this Rock includes the following quotes:

There was no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter. Even well-respected Protestant scholars agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson writes: The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; at most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, Zondervan, 368)

One of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals is Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. In a most candid and honest statement about Matthew 16:18, Oscar Cullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes:
The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and* Petros *. . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected. (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6, Eerdmans, 98–99, 108)

Other similar quotes are collected here.

Besides, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

 

[opus101]

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

Thank you, benjohnson, I appreciate your comments.
To be honest, I have no ill feelings toward the person in question, I see it as a culturally ingrained type of thing, something that we all can fall into, no matter what our background or religion.

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

Nope. “I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” (Matt 6:18) That was Jesus.

I’m sorry, but either you have to say that the gates of hell prevailed over the Church that Christ originally built and say that Jesus was a liar (supporting the thesis that Lutheranism is the “pure” Catholicism), or that the gates of hell did NOT prevail, and that Jesus was true. (supporting the thesis that Catholicism is true) The first position is self-contradictory.

 

[JonNC]

Nope. “I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” (Matt 6:18) That was Jesus.

I’m sorry, but either you have to say that the gates of hell prevailed over the Church that Christ originally built and say that Jesus was a liar (supporting the thesis that Lutheranism is the “pure” Catholicism), or that the gates of hell did NOT prevail, and that Jesus was true. (supporting the thesis that Catholicism is true) The first position is self-contradictory.

Nope. Unless Satan himself has invaded Christ’s court and overwhelmed the Church Triumphant, the gates of Hell have not prevailed.

Regardless of the disputes here in the Church Militant, the gates of Hell shall not prevail, whether there is error in the Vatican or not.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Nope. Unless Satan himself has invaded Christ’s court and overwhelmed the Church Triumphant, the gates of Hell have not prevailed.

Regardless of the disputes here in the Church Militant, the gates of Hell shall not prevail, whether there is error in the Vatican or not.

Jon

If the gates of hell prevailed over the Church Militant then there would be no Church Triumphant. It would be the Church Defeated. This is where the battle is being waged and where the Church either prevails or is defeated. The Church on earth binds and looses even in heaven. There is not one Church on earth and another in heaven. They cannot be separated.

 

[concretecamper]

Nope. Unless Satan himself has invaded Christ’s court and overwhelmed the Church Triumphant, the gates of Hell have not prevailed.

Regardless of the disputes here in the Church Militant, the gates of Hell shall not prevail, whether there is error in the Vatican or not.

Jon

I would argue that the Church Militant is included in Christ’s promise. Error with regards to faith and morals cannot enter Christ’s Church.

 

[JonNC]

If the gates of hell prevailed over the Church Militant then there would be no Church Triumphant. It would be the Church Defeated. The Church on earth binds and looses even in heaven.

Agreed. And we are still binding and loosing.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I would argue that the Church Militant is included in Christ’s promise. Error with regards to faith and morals cannot enter Christ’s Church.

That may be true, though fallible humans, including (all) the bishops, can and do misunderstand and err. And for that reason we depend on grace.

Jon

 

[concretecamper]

That may be true, though fallible humans, including (all) the bishops, can and do misunderstand and err. And for that reason we depend on grace.

Jon

Bishops certainly err (did you hear the latest about a Mexican bishop and his take on sexuality?)…but in the matter of faith and morals, the true Church’s teaching cannot err…sort goes to that infallibility claim, but there are enough threads on that already.

 

[JerryZ]

If the gates of hell prevailed over the Church Militant then there would be no Church Triumphant. It would be the Church Defeated. This is where the battle is being waged and where the Church either prevails or is defeated. The Church on earth binds and looses even in heaven. ** There is not one Church on earth and another in heaven. They cannot be separated**.

:clapping: Bravo!

Peace

 

[Josh316]

Naw. We drink beer.
Jon

Hey Jon. Just out of curiosity, have you ever listened to catholic answers live? Perhaps
called in with a question? I only ask this because it seems someone with your evident knowledge would be interested in hearing, what I would consider, some of the leading catholic apologists around preach the faith.

 

[gcnuss]

Wow!! 270 posts and I am only now testing the waters.

A couple of observations as I tried to take in all of those previous posts:

 1.  I hesitate to apply the word "pure" to any expression of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church as it exists here on earth.  I rather imagine that one will not find purity until one experiences the wonders of the Church Triumphant.  As a Lutheran, I believe that we have the truth that God has handed down to his people.  I do not believe that Lutherans are the sole possessors of that truth.  I also believe that all of us are lacking in the perfection and purity that God wants for us.

 2.  I am always distressed when I hear of Lutherans "bad-mouthing" Catholics or vice versa.  I know that it happens but it seems to me that we are offering a poor example to the non-Christian world when we spend our time attacking one another.  I have some experience with the Lutheran side of this as the pastor who confirmed me (50-some years ago) spent a great deal of time telling our confirmation class of all the evils of Catholicism.  I have learned over the years that he was way off base.

 3.  In spite of disagreements, I always want to see my fellow Christians as children of God, loved by him, even as we cannot agree with one another about how to organize ourselves in this world.

Just a few thoughts –

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

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.)

A similar idea has been suggested. A kind of “playpen” they can be restricted to before the final ban button is pressed. Other forums do that.
It was shot down.

 

[steve_b]

I have been told by Lutherans where I live (Lutheran heavy upper Midwest) that the Lutheran Church is the pure form of Catholicism that has not been perverted.

1. • 1500 years after Jesus establishes His One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, Lutherans say Jesus could’t finish the job He started? [Luke 14:28-31 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Luke Chapter 14) I’d say good luck selling that one to Jesus when He uses a story that says the world sees Division reflects back on Him mocking Him.
   • Jesus meant every word of this [John 17:20-23 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 17) Jesus expects perfect unity. ZERO division.
   • Luther must have not taken the warnings concerning division seriously [Romans 16:17-20 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16) because he could see the consequences for division and remaining in division [Galatians 5:19-21 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Galatians Chapter 5) :coolinoff: as did Henry VIII, Calvin, and the parade of dissenters for the last 500 years
   A:
   

   They claim that the Lutheran Church is the church of the Gospel and the way Christ intended the Church to be.

   Division from the Catholic Church has been condemned from the beginning by Jesus, the apostles, the ECF’s, …
   A:
   

   Many have gone on to say that the Lutheran faith is THE One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church rather than the Catholic Church. They believe that the Lutheran faith preaches the Gospel and the Catholic Church has ventured away from doing so. Basically, they are stating that they are the true Church established by Christ.

   We know when and by whom Lutherans began. Jesus demands perfect unity [John 17:20-23 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 17) NOT division. That’s how we know Jesus didn’t start any part of the Protestant revolt or it’s consequences over the last 500 years.
   
   It’s catastrophic to be divided from Our Lord’s Church and die in that state.
   A:
   

   .
   
   Are they wrong or spot on according to Lutheran teachings? 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.

   Roots of the name “Catholic Church”
   
   Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς ,Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…"
   ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης,τῆς, = Church….Kata…Holos…the = the Catholic Church
   The English word catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole. catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means
   
   During apostolic times, to the 21st century, the Church is the Catholic Church, and will be that forever…
   • St IgnatiusBp of Antioch, ~69 a.d. - ~107 a.d., ordained by apostles, disciple of St John the apostle, called the Church the Catholic Church Epistle to the Smyrnæans of which schismatics won’t be going to heaven Epistle to the Philadelphians
   • St Polycarp, Bp Smyrna, disciple of St John called the Church the “Catholic Church” The Martyrdom of Polycarp
   • Muratorian canon calls the Church the Catholic Church earlychristianwritings.co…uratorian.html
   • Irenaeus ~180 a.d. wrote “Against Heresies” called the Church the “Catholic Church” Adversus haereses [Bk 1 Ch 10 v 3], and also Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp, teaches all must agree with Rome [Bk 3, Ch 3, v 2-3]Chapter 3
   • Cyprian~250 a.d. Epistle 54
   • The Nicene Creed, 325 a.d., it’s a matter of faith to believe in the “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”
   • Augustine ~395 There are many other things that most justly keep me in her * bosom. . . . The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental
   • etc etc etc
   Here we are, 2000 years later, The Catholic Church that Pope Francis is over today, 266th successor to St Peter. Jesus keeps His promises. *