Lutheranism is the "pure" Church?

[Peter_J]

In some cases yes, but many Lutherans in my area believe they are the Catholic Church and not catholic Church. I was just surprised to learn such

That’s why I said “I believe what you’re driving at is the whole capital vs lower-case issue”.

 

[aidanbradypop]

That’s why I said “I believe what you’re driving at is the whole capital vs lower-case issue”.

I would love to know if this is an universal Lutheran belief or simply regional. Can’t seem to get an answer from any Lutherans or maybe I missed it. Need more coffee lol

 

[MaryT777]

That’s why I said “I believe what you’re driving at is the whole capital vs lower-case issue”.

I would imagine if you noted to most people you were Evangelical Catholic they would
gather you’re in some version of the Church Catholic (Capital C) and not Lutheran.
If you said you were an
Evangelical Catholic looking for a Mass at a Church I am certain here in Iowa they’d assume you are Catholic and not Lutheran.

In my town it’s Lutheran Missouri Synod. They’ve used the term evangelical not Catholic.

It’s not usual terminology for Lutherans here in my town (EC and Mass)

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

“According to Luther justification consists essentially in the mere covering of man’s sins, which remain in the soul, and in the external imputation of Christ’s justice; hence his assertion that even “the just sin in every good work” (see Denzinger, n. 771), as also that “every work of the just is worthy of damnation [damnabile] and a mortal sin [peccatum mortale], if it be considered as it really is in the judgment of God” (see Möhler, “Symbolik”, 22)”

…Catholic Encyplopedia, on Merit

  If you ask me, this belief demands a purging before heaven! Though, I admit I don't know what Lutherans believe in regards to the removal of sin from our soul. I understand there are aspects of Purgatory that many protestants accept. Generally, isn't it the "temporal punishments" that would be rejected?
  And yes, indulgences. I admitt I am not a big fan of indulgences as a tool for evangelizing, or I should say motivating. I think it had its purpose and affect in a different time. Not to criticize Pope Francis :o but I felt the indulgences offered for following the WYD were not very inspiring. That's just me. I don't say they are false.

…maybe its just a silly way that the Church says,“if you do this for the building up of the Church, you will have specific rewards.” …?

Thanks Jon,
Michael

Hi Michael,

Lutherans do recognize the purging or cleansing for entry into Heaven at the moment of death. The below document goes into great detail regarding our respective beliefs.

I don’t think it unusual for Lutherans to recognize temporal punishments, but in adifferent light:

“We should always understand whatever is cited about vengeance and punishments in such a way as not to overturn the free forgiveness of sins nor to obscure the merit of Christ and draw people away from trust in Christ to trust in works.”244
184. For the Lutheran Confessions, the sufferings that follow forgiven sin are understood in
relation to one of the most fundamental soteriological categories of the Reformation—namely, death and resurrection. Penance is a putting to death and a raising to life.245 **What had been understood in a juridical model of punishment and satisfaction is reconceived in the model of ongoing death and resurrection. “We grant that in repentance there is a punishment, but not as a payment. Rather there is in a formal sense a punishment in repentance because regeneration itself occurs through a continuous mortification of our old nature.”**246
185. In a reversal of stereotypes, the medieval forensic understanding of ongoing suffering as temporal punishments for past venial or forgiven mortal sins is replaced on the Reformation side by a transformational understanding of the afflictions of daily life as the ongoing slaying of the old person who continues to live within us. The penitential side of the Christian life is understood as the ongoing struggle with the old person within us, who must be slain daily. The Christian finally must be purged of this old self; this old self must be fully slain.

Bolded is mine

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/upload/The-Hope-of-Eternal-Life1.pdf

Jon

 

[JonNC]

But Ben, Catherine of Sienna and Francis of Assisi remained in the Catholic Church. Luther did not. While he was excommunicated, he certainly had the opportunity make amends but chose to remain outside of the Church. There is a big difference. How does one reform the Church from the inside when they are outside?

Hi Steve,
Maybe you can help me with this.
Luther’s criticisms clearly would have had a negative impact on a revenue stream. Correct?
Did Catherine’s calls for reform also have that effect?

If not, could this be one of the differences in the dynamics between each of the them and the Church leadership?

Jon

 

[concretecamper]

In this and the post about Transubstantiation, you use the term “run off the rails” as if you think we believe in the foolish Great Apostasy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The CC in communion with the Bishop of Rome, from our perspective, could, and frankly, is in error about some things, things that have sprung up since the Great Schism, among them Transubstantiation. But even here, the error regarding Transub. is more an error of dogma, meaning binding the conscience of the believer to something not extant in scripture, nor is it obviously taught in the early Church. The doctrine of the real presence is obvious in scripture, regardless of the opinions of some that reject it, and it is obvious in the early Church.
Jon

It is sad that you cannot see the truth in Christ’s own words. From the begining of time whatever God said is…IS reality. And Christ said “This IS my body”. Not “well guys, my Body is mystical united with this loaf of bread.” Reading the Church Fathers in a non biased way must convince any reader that the Eucharist IS Christ’s flesh and blood. Whatever God say IS…IS.

Consubstantiation and Sacramental Union water down the words of Christ. They are humans attempt to understand the GREAT mystery of the Eucharist. Praise be Jesus for giving us this AWESOME gift and I hope all will eventually share in His True Body thru the RCC.

 

[JonNC]

I too wonder the same thing. I think people confuse the exclusivity of their own Church’s claim to truth with the exclusivity of believing that their Church exclusively teaches the truth. The latter is found in almost any Church which claims to teach exclusively the truth, but the former can only be found in one of them.

Absolutely spot on!!
This is why a Lutheran can say we believe we teach catholic truth, without saying the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome “ran off the rails” at some specific point.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=concretecamper;11072486]It is sad that you cannot see the truth in Christ’s own words. From the begining of time whatever God said is…IS reality. And Christ said “This IS my body”. Not “well guys, my Body is mystical united with this loaf of bread.” Reading the Church Fathers in a non biased way must convince any reader that the Eucharist IS Christ’s flesh and blood. Whatever God say IS…IS.

Read the confessions, and how many times the writers confirm the doctrine of the real presence, that is, “this is my body”. Regardless of any human attempts to explain the hows, the reality is, “this is my body”. As Luther said, “ist ist ist”. Is is is.

Consubstantiation and Sacramental Union water down the words of Christ. They are humans attempt to understand the GREAT mystery of the Eucharist. .

As is Transubstantiation, in our view. Christ in scripture does not describe this mystery, and neither does St. Paul. We are only told that it is His body. John of Damascus says, ***“… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit” ***

Amen.

Praise be Jesus for giving us this AWESOME gift and I hope all will eventually share in His True Body thru the RCC

I pray for the day of unity when we can share at each other’s parish altars.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

I would imagine if you noted to most people you were Evangelical Catholic they would
gather you’re in some version of the Church Catholic (Capital C) and not Lutheran.
If you said you were an
Evangelical Catholic looking for a Mass at a Church I am certain here in Iowa they’d assume you are Catholic and not Lutheran.

Well said. People (whatever their religious affiliation) do tend to make a lot of assumptions.

 

[MaryT777]

Well said. People (whatever their religious affiliation) do tend to make a lot of assumptions.

Yep…
IF I said I was a reformed Lutheran or something like that I’d be sent to a Lutheran Church.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Yep…
IF I said I was a reformed Lutheran or something like that I’d be sent to a Lutheran Church.

Wouldn’t a reformed Lutheran be Catholic?

 

[MaryT777]

Wouldn’t a reformed Lutheran be Catholic?

Yes, that’s what I meant;

 

[concretecamper]

As is Transubstantiation, in our view. Christ in scripture does not describe this mystery, and neither does St. Paul.
Jon

I cannot understand how someone can Read John 6 and say this. But then again, I was raised to believe, and by grace I still do.

 

[MaryT777]

I cannot understand how someone can Read John 6 and say this. But then again, I was raised to believe, and by grace I still do.

 

[JonNC]

I cannot understand how someone can Read John 6 and say this. But then again, I was raised to believe, and by grace I still do.

You cannot understand how someone can read John 6 and say what? That Christ does not describe in metaphysical terms how the substance bread and wine become the substance body and blood, but the accidents of bread and wine remain?

Where in John 6 is this described?

Jon

 

[Erich]

The CC in communion with the Bishop of Rome, from our perspective, could, and frankly, is in error about some things, things that have sprung up since the Great Schism, among them Transubstantiation.

From my post immediately following the one you quoted:
In the course of the dogma’s history there arose in general three great Eucharistic controversies … The first occasion for an official procedure on the part of the Church was offered when Berengarius of Tours, influenced by the writings of Scotus Eriugena (d. about 884), the first opponent of the Real Presence, rejected both the latter truth and that of Transubstantiation. He repaired, however, the public scandal he had given by a sincere retractation made in the presence of Pope Gregory VII at a synod held in Rome in 1079, and died reconciled to the Church.
I suspect you date the Great Schism to 1054. From this link:

The great Eastern Schism must not be conceived as the result of only one definite quarrel. It is not true that after centuries of perfect peace, suddenly on account of one dispute, nearly half of Christendom fell away. Such an event would be unparalleled in history, at any rate, unless there were some great heresy, and in this quarrel there was no heresy at first, nor has there ever been a hopeless disagreement about the Faith. It is a case, perhaps the only prominent case, of a pure schism, of a breach of intercommunion caused by anger and bad feeling, not by a rival theology. It would be inconceivable then that hundreds of bishops should suddenly break away from union with their chief, if all had gone smoothly before. The great schism is rather the result of a very gradual process. Its remote causes must be sought centuries before there was any suspicion of their final effect. There was a series of temporary schisms that loosened the bond and prepared the way. The two great breaches, those of Photius and Michael Caerularius, which are remembered as the origin of the present state of things, were both healed up afterwards. Strictly speaking, the present schism dates from the Eastern repudiation of the Council of Florence (in 1472).

In other words, well after the dogma of Transubstantiation “sprang up” (as you put it),

But even here, the error regarding Transub. is more an error of dogma, meaning binding the conscience of the believer to something not extant in scripture, nor is it obviously taught in the early Church. The doctrine of the real presence is obvious in scripture, regardless of the opinions of some that reject it, and it is obvious in the early Church.

From the same post immediately following the one you quoted (emphasis mine):
As for the cogency of the argument from tradition, this historical fact is of decided significance, namely, that the dogma of the Real Presence remained, properly speaking, unmolested down to the time of the heretic Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088), and so could claim even at that time the uninterrupted possession of ten centuries.
Jesus tells us he is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” – not “a Way, a Truth, and a Life.” Truth doesn’t change (though, like a small acorn which grows into a mighty oak, our understanding of Truth does grow and mature). So, what was Truth at the time of Jesus (and, for that matter, what was Truth in the late 15th century) is just as much Truth today. But as Wikipedia summarizes, “Luther dogmatically asserted what he considered firmly established biblical doctrines like the divine motherhood of Mary while adhering to pious opinions of her perpetual virginity and immaculate conception along with the caveat that all doctrine and piety should exalt and not diminish the person and work of Jesus Christ” (remember that this was some three-hundred years before the formal dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in 1854!), Lutheran “truth” seems to have evolved away from this Truth.

 

[JonNC]

From my post immediately following the one you quoted:
In the course of the dogma’s history there arose in general three great Eucharistic controversies … The first occasion for an official procedure on the part of the Church was offered when Berengarius of Tours, influenced by the writings of Scotus Eriugena (d. about 884), the first opponent of the Real Presence, rejected both the latter truth and that of Transubstantiation. He repaired, however, the public scandal he had given by a sincere retractation made in the presence of Pope Gregory VII at a synod held in Rome in 1079, and died reconciled to the Church.
I suspect you date the Great Schism to 1054. From this link:

In other words, well after the dogma of Transubstantiation “sprang up” (as you put it),

From the same post immediately following the one you quoted (emphasis mine):
As for the cogency of the argument from tradition, this historical fact is of decided significance, namely, that the dogma of the Real Presence remained, properly speaking, unmolested down to the time of the heretic Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088), and so could claim even at that time the uninterrupted possession of ten centuries.
Jesus tells us he is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” – not “a Way, a Truth, and a Life.” Truth doesn’t change (though, like a small acorn which grows into a mighty oak, our understanding of Truth does grow and mature). So, what was Truth at the time of Jesus (and, for that matter, what was Truth in the late 15th century) is just as much Truth today. But as Wikipedia summarizes, “Luther dogmatically asserted what he considered firmly established biblical doctrines like the divine motherhood of Mary while adhering to pious opinions of her perpetual virginity and immaculate conception along with the caveat that all doctrine and piety should exalt and not diminish the person and work of Jesus Christ” (remember that this was some three-hundred years before the formal dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in 1854!), Lutheran “truth” seems to have evolved away from this Truth.

Erich.
I’m not sure what your question is, or what you are arguing for. Are you asking for specific timelines? I don’t have them, as I was speaking generally. Obviously, Transubstantiation was not dogmatic in the undivided church, as Orthodoxy does not abide it any more than Lutherans do.
In general terms, the issues we have with the CC come after the Schism. In general terms, many of the things we dispute are disputed or rejected by Orthodoxy - indulgences, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, universal jurisdiction, etc. - indicating that these were not held dogmatically or even universally by the undivided Church.

Hopefully, that is clearer.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Originally posted by Erich

Jesus tells us he is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” – not “a Way, a Truth, and a Life.” Truth doesn’t change (though, like a small acorn which grows into a mighty oak, our understanding of Truth does grow and mature). So, what was Truth at the time of Jesus (and, for that matter, what was Truth in the late 15th century) is just as much Truth today. But as Wikipedia summarizes, “Luther dogmatically asserted what he considered firmly established biblical doctrines like the divine motherhood of Mary while adhering to pious opinions of her perpetual virginity and immaculate conception along with the caveat that all doctrine and piety should exalt and not diminish the person and work of Jesus Christ” (remember that this was some three-hundred years before the formal dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in 1854!), Lutheran “truth” seems to have evolved away from this Truth.

Which truth are you talking about? We confess the Blessed Virgin’s divine motherhood. As for the perpetual virginity and IC, these in Luther’s time, as mentioned, were not dogmatically defined, which made them personal pious beliefs, which they remain today for Lutherans. IOW, it wasn’t the Lutherans who changed it.
The Formula of Concord confirms that she remained a virgin, and I believe that to be true. Most, if not all, Lutheran theologians believed this, but it is an issue of personal piety, as scripture is not clear on the matter. On the IC, some Lutherans have issues with this, based on the idea that the doctrine requires the believer to believe she never had sin, or sins. But either way, it was in Luther’s time, and is today, a matter of personal piety whether one believes the IC, or that she became “full of grace” at the visitation of the angel. Again, it wasn’t the Lutherans who “evolved” in this way. We didn’t create new dogmas on the matter.

Jon

 

[october_baby]

Great question Mark.

Cavaradossi…I believe that if someone is a member of a certain religious belief, they should believe their faith to be the true faith. A Catholic should believe in Catholicism, a Lutheran in Lutheranism, Anglican in Anglicanism…etc.

I think would caught me off guard is that the majority if Lutherans in my area are very much anti Catholic Church, yet they claim to be the true Catholic Church. Baptist claim to preach the whole true and nothing but the truth, yet they do not claim to be the Catholic Church.

You are Orthodox. That would be like someone of the Methodist faith claiming to be the pure Orthodox faith. If they are the “pure” Orthodox Church then that would make your faith the? See what I mean?

I would hope everyone views their faith as the true faith. Why else believe in such if you do not believe it to be true right? However, claiming to be something you are against is kind of awkward. This could be simply a regional thing and not Lutheranism as a whole.

This is a prime example of religious relativism.

 

[JonNC]

This is a prime example of religious relativism.

How is that relativism? Relativism is saying that all churches are basically the same, that differences in teaching don’t really matter?

Jon