Lutheranism is the "pure" Church?

[cmodrmac]

I really never understand congregations being “anti Catholic” or anti Baptist-The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is known for being “cold and unwelcoming” at least in our area

with that said I think most Churches feel that they are the one who “have it right” -they are legitimate-the Episcopal Church surely feels this way too but recognizes that other churches also are doing God’s work and should be respected and encouraged

I do believe Luther just wanted some reforms in the Catholic Church at least initially -got a bit carried away one may say

 

[JonNC]

I really never understand congregations being “anti Catholic” or anti Baptist-The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is known for being “cold and unwelcoming” at least in our area
with that said I think most Churches feel that they are the one who “have it right” -they are legitimate-the Episcopal Church surely feels this way too but recognizes that other churches also are doing God’s work and should be respected and encouraged

I do believe Luther just wanted some reforms in the Catholic Church at least initially -got a bit carried away one may say

What’s curious about the LCMS being “cold and unwelcoming”, I it is precisely the warm, welcoming atmosphere of our current parish that convinced us to join. I think cold and warm parishes exist in all communions. Experiences may vary.

Jon

 

[concretecamper]

JonNC:

It isn’t that its definitely not true. It is the point that scripture isn’t specific enough to warrant binding the conscience of the believer to it.
Jon

The same could be said about the doctrine of the Trinity.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[fhansen]

Huh? Know what?

Seriously, Peter makes a good point, and it is the point we make about Transubstantiation. It isn’t that its definitely not true. It is the point that scripture isn’t specific enough to warrant binding the conscience of the believer to it.

Yes-and that’s the point-scripture by itself isn’t clear enough on much of anything to bind the believer to it. Without the Church the believer more or less guesses about what to believe in.

 

[JonNC]

The same could be said about the doctrine of the Trinity.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

I don’t buy the Trinity isn’t explicit argument. There are so many verses, even in Genesis, that the one God is more than one persons, that the early councils recognized it. Christ’s baptism, we see all three - Father speaking from Heaven, Son being baptized, Holy Spirit descending as a dove.

The early Church, in council or not, did not recognized Aristotelian language and metaphysics in Christ’s words at the Last Supper. Again, that doesn’t mean it is wrong, it simply means that the conscience of the believer should not be bound to it.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Yes-and that’s the point-scripture by itself isn’t clear enough on much of anything to bind the believer to it. Without the Church the believer more or less guesses about what to believe in.

Various non Catholic denominations often look to their founder’s interpretation of Scripture for guidance on what the Scriptures are indeed teaching. That seems contrary to Bible is the “sole rule and norm of Faith” concept. It speaks to the requirement of an authoritative voice whether it be Luther or someone else.

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

Yes-and that’s the point-scripture by itself isn’t clear enough on much of anything to bind the believer to it. Without the Church the believer more or less guesses about what to believe in.

Do we not believe together in the real presence? Do we not together believe that when Christ said, “This is my body”, He meant it, that we receive His body and His blood, true and substantial? It isn’t guessing to say how this happens is a mystery to us. I’m not guessing when I say that I receive His true body and blood, though I do not understand how it happens. And scripture is not deficient in this matter - it tells us what we need to know, and the Church ought to teach it!
It may be reasonable to expect humans to exercise their intellect and curiosity in attempting to understand this mystery more deeply. It is not reasonable to say, without explicit support from scripture, or even the early Church councils, that one must believe the how’s that Christ did not share.

Jon

 

[GKC]

Do we not believe together in the real presence? Do we not together believe that when Christ said, “This is my body”, He meant it, that we receive His body and His blood, true and substantial? It isn’t guessing to say how this happens is a mystery to us. I’m not guessing when I say that I receive His true body and blood, though I do not understand how it happens. And scripture is not deficient in this matter - it tells us what we need to know, and the Church ought to teach it!
It may be reasonable to expect humans to exercise their intellect and curiosity in attempting to understand this mystery more deeply. It is not reasonable to say, without explicit support from scripture, or even the early Church councils, that one must believe the how’s that Christ did not share.

Jon

Well said.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

Various non Catholic denominations often look to their founder’s interpretation of Scripture for guidance on what the Scriptures are indeed teaching. That seems contrary to Bible is the “sole rule and norm of Faith” concept. It speaks to the requirement of an authoritative voice whether it be Luther or someone else.

Mary.

Hi Mary,
You know from our previous conversations that Lutherans would not accept this construct for “sole rule and norm”, and that depending on Church teaching is important for the believer. That said, here is what Luther said. Note whose interpretation he expected us to rely on (hint: not his own):

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of** the Fathers of the Church**, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had **they thought **the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but **they are **all of them unanimous.”

The bolding is mine. Each “they” is a reference to the Church Fathers. Who should we trust on the matter? Luther? No, the Church Fathers!!!

Jon

 

[fhansen]

Do we not believe together in the real presence? Do we not together believe that when Christ said, “This is my body”, He meant it, that we receive His body and His blood, true and substantial? It isn’t guessing to say how this happens is a mystery to us. I’m not guessing when I say that I receive His true body and blood, though I do not understand how it happens. And scripture is not deficient in this matter - it tells us what we need to know, and the Church ought to teach it!
It may be reasonable to expect humans to exercise their intellect and curiosity in attempting to understand this mystery more deeply. It is not reasonable to say, without explicit support from scripture, or even the early Church councils, that one must believe the how’s that Christ did not share.

Jon

I’m not even sure how to answer this. Support from scripture has led to all sorts of different beliefs; that support constitutes a slam-dunk only for those who happen to be certain it jives with their particular belief. Councils are part of Church tradition-and not everyone has always agreed that concilliar decrees are supported by scripture-or of their interpretation of it in any case. The Church acts and speaks-she must do so-according to the guidance she’s been promised and given by the HS.

 

[fhansen]

Hi Mary,
You know from our previous conversations that Lutherans would not accept this construct for “sole rule and norm”, and that depending on Church teaching is important for the believer. That said, here is what Luther said. Note whose interpretation he expected us to rely on (hint: not his own):

The bolding is mine. Each “they” is a reference to the Church Fathers. Who should we trust on the matter? Luther? No, the Church Fathers!!!

Jon

Church Fathers, like Scripture but to a lesser degree, are profitable for researching the faith and supporting it. But Church Fathers are also often* wrong*, not always in line with Church teachings, although predictably they should be on the Real Presence. In the end it can only be the ***Church *** that can, with assurance, speak on matters of faith.

 

[JonNC]

I’m not even sure how to answer this. Support from scripture has led to all sorts of different beliefs; that support constitutes a slam-dunk only for those who happen to be certain it jives with their particular belief. Councils are part of Church tradition-and not everyone has always agreed that concilliar decrees are supported by scripture-or of their interpretation of it in any case. The Church acts and speaks-she must do so-according to the guidance she’s been promised and given by the HS.

I have asked this often. Please explain how and to whom the HS guides the Church, from a Catholic perspective. Also, how do we know it is not the other patriarchates the HS is guiding?

Jon

 

[concretecamper]

I don’t buy the Trinity isn’t explicit argument. There are so many verses, even in Genesis, that the one God is more than one persons, that the early councils recognized it. Christ’s baptism, we see all three - Father speaking from Heaven, Son being baptized, Holy Spirit descending as a dove.

The early Church, in council or not, did not recognized Aristotelian language and metaphysics in Christ’s words at the Last Supper. Again, that doesn’t mean it is wrong, it simply means that the conscience of the believer should not be bound to it.

Jon

The “doctrine” is not explicit in scripture is my only point. I agree that scripture points to a God that is more than one person. The doctrine was refined by the early fathers based on Tradition, just like … (I cannot say the word because I promised not to bring it up to you again)

 

[JonNC]

Church Fathers, like Scripture but to a lesser degree, are profitable for researching the faith and supporting it. But Church Fathers are also often* wrong*, not always in line with Church teachings, although predictably they should be on the Real Presence. In the end it can only be the ***Church *** that can, with assurance, speak on matters of faith.

I agree. Please do not receive this as a personal attack, because you have always been a charitable and admirable poster here, but protestants are often accused of not looking at Church history, the ECF’s etc. It seems curious that, when we do, we are often reminded that the ECF’s do not necessarily speak for the Church. Or, when we reject something stated by them, we are accused of “cherry picking”. Now again, I am not speaking about you, but just the general trend.

What we get from the early Church is, as Luther says, universal agreement that in the Eucharist, we receive His true and substantial body and blood, to eat and drink for the remission of sin. What’s sad is that we agree on this, but are divided by our insistence on making doctrine that which need not be.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The “doctrine” is not explicit in scripture is my only point. I agree that scripture points to a God that is more than one person. The doctrine was refined by the early fathers based on Tradition, just like … (I cannot say the word because I promised not to bring it up to you again)

Ah, that’s a promise you need not keep. lol

I think the doctrine is rather explicit, certainly enough so that we agree that the early council got it right, by the grace of God. Nothing wrong with Tradition, my friend.

Jon

 

[MoreCoffee]

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

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.

I’d be inclined to observe that if it is called Lutheran then it bears the name of its founder and that man, Martin Luther, lived in the latter fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries but not in the first century; so, it seems very unlikely that Lutheranism is a pure form of Catholicism since Catholicism pre-dates Lutheranism by many centuries.

 

[JonNC]

I’d be inclined to observe that if it is called Lutheran then it bears the name of its founder and that man, Martin Luther, lived in the latter fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries but not in the first century; so, it seems very unlikely that Lutheranism is a pure form of Catholicism since Catholicism pre-dates Lutheranism by many centuries.

The name “Lutheran” was a slur intended to marginalize the Evangelical Catholic churches following the Reformation. Not unlike the name “Roman Catholic” was intended as a slur. In both cases members of the respective communions adopted the names. In the case of “Lutheran”, it was much to the dismay and objections of Fr. Martin.

Jon

 

[MoreCoffee]

The name “Lutheran” was a slur intended to marginalize the Evangelical Catholic churches following the Reformation. Not unlike the name “Roman Catholic” was intended as a slur. In both cases members of the respective communions adopted the names. In the case of “Lutheran”, it was much to the dismay and objections of Fr. Martin.

Jon

That “The name “Lutheran” was a slur intended to marginalize the Evangelical Catholic churches” is probably true but Catholics retained the name Catholic while Lutherans obviously adopted the name Lutheran (maybe not all but many) hence the name of the synod LCMS and the designation “Confessional Lutherans”.

I like the Lutheran folk I have met online, they have a good grasp of doctrine and scripture, and they share a great deal of Catholic theology as well as Liturgy but there are differences between Catholic and Lutheran teaching and despite the claims of some that Lutheranism is true to the original teaching of the church the facts do not bear that out especially on matters like the five solas and ‘the bondage of the will’.

PS: I do understand that saint Augustine can be construed - and has been construed by some - to teach something approaching the ideas expressed by Martin Luther in “The Bondage of the Will” but Catholics tend not to construe his teaching in that way.

 

[JonNC]

That “The name “Lutheran” was a slur intended to marginalize the Evangelical Catholic churches” is probably true but Catholics retained the name Catholic while Lutherans obviously adopted the name Lutheran (maybe not all but many) hence the name of the synod LCMS and the designation “Confessional Lutherans”.

I like the Lutheran folk I have met online, they have a good grasp of doctrine and scripture, and they share a great deal of Catholic theology as well as Liturgy but there are differences between Catholic and Lutheran teaching and despite the claims of some that Lutheranism is true to the original teaching of the church the facts do not bear that out especially on matters like the five solas and ‘the bondage of the will’.

PS: I do understand that saint Augustine can be construed - and has been construed by some - to teach something approaching the ideas expressed by Martin Luther in “The Bondage of the Will” but Catholics tend not to construe his teaching in that way.

And I like the Catholic folks here. Welcome to CAF.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

I’m not even sure how to answer this. Support from scripture has led to all sorts of different beliefs; that support constitutes a slam-dunk only for those who happen to be certain it jives with their particular belief. Councils are part of Church tradition-and not everyone has always agreed that concilliar decrees are supported by scripture-or of their interpretation of it in any case. The Church acts and speaks-she must do so-according to the guidance she’s been promised and given by the HS.