Lutherans and the Papacy

[Steveabrous]

this is false. The Lutheran Confessions never defined a cannon. There is current thread on this topic, and many others have mentioned it.

But he did remove 7 books and wanted to remove more

Orthodoxy does not understand/accept purgatory in the sense that Rome does - are they in error?

Yes!
But theOrthodox believe in expiating sin, and forgiveness of sin after death they just don’t call it Purgatory.

Even Rome has softened its view on purgatory in recent years, with some theologians tending to describe it more as a ‘process’ than a ‘place.’

It was never defined as either a place or a process it is a state of being. At different times in history our understanding has changed but the Dogma hasn’t.

Rome has never “soften” it’s view. The truth is the truth and it doesn’t change

This has always been a catholic idea. Keep in mind that Sola Fide does not mean that works are disregarded - only that they cannot be separated from saving faith (like heat and light from a fire). Many Catholics have been open to this concept; Ambrose and Ratzinger were particularly sensitive to it, if not fond of it.

Then what’s the Problem?
I agree we have more in agreement then disagreement on this.

Shouldn’t all the decisions of the church and her councils be based on the Word?

Absolutely. But I want it based on ALL the word not just the WRITTEN word.

Sola Scriptura means that the rulings of men, however moved by the Spirit they may perceive themselves to be, must remain in accordance with Scripture. Would you disagree?

Who’s interpretation? Who compiled the bible?
Christ established a Church with a ruling authority. The ruling authority wrote the book, not Christ.
Men who have been validely ordained into these “Ruling” position coming together in a council and the holy spirit guiding them to truth is in accordance with scripture. And those in the church who disagree with them are in the wrong. Even if scripture seems to be on their side. Read Acts. at the council of Jerusalem the church leaders discussed and made a discision the church was expected to comply and those who didn’t were thrown out.

I think having the Bible available to us laypersons in the vernacular is a tremendous gift, don’t you?

Which is a nice way to say :" The Catholic church denied the laypeople from reading the bible and it was locked away until the Protestant reformation."

Which is an anti-catholic lie. The Catholic church started printing copies of the bible in the venacular way before the reformation.

Also before the invention of the printing press the church read and continues to read the bible in the venacular during mass to the people

Scripture can be wrongly interpreted (indeed, it’s happened since the founding of His church), but pretending that Luther was the man responsible for all divisions in the church is giving far too much credit to a humble German monk.

His error of sola-scriptura is responsible

 

[benjohnson]

But he did remove 7 books and wanted to remove more

No, this is incorrect.

Luther’s German Bible is in fact larger than the Catholic Bible as it also includes The Prayer of Manasses along with the other Deuterocanonicals - the missing books in American Lutheran churches has more to do with the Westminster Confession and inexpensive British publishing.

If you need more convincing : latifhakigaba.blogspot.com/2010/02/did-luther-throw-out-books-of-bible.html

The LCMS synod publishes and excellent study version of what we call the Apocrypha - from what I see, I suspect that we’ll see our bibles go back to Luther’s German listing within a few decades.

 

[benjohnson]

His error of sola-scriptura is responsible

I would say that sin is more responsible.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

No, this is incorrect.

Luther’s German Bible is in fact larger than the Catholic Bible as it also includes The Prayer of Manasses along with the other Deuterocanonicals - the missing books in American Lutheran churches has more to do with the Westminster Confession and inexpensive British publishing.

If you need more convincing : latifhakigaba.blogspot.com/2010/02/did-luther-throw-out-books-of-bible.html

The LCMS synod publishes and excellent study version of what we call the Apocrypha - from what I see, I suspect that we’ll see our bibles go back to Luther’s German listing within a few decades.

Yes the pericope include lessons from the Apocrypha on certain Lutheran holy days.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by steido01
Scripture can be wrongly interpreted (indeed, it’s happened since the founding of His church), **but pretending that Luther was the man responsible for all divisions in the church is giving far too much credit to a humble German monk.
**

I agree. Church leaders were so resistant to moderate reform (consider, for example, the burning-at-the-stake of Jan Hus … after he had been promised safe passage to attend the Council of Constance) that a big over-the-top reform became nearly inevitable.

 

[Nicea325]

Much is discussed about “Catholic bashing” like all Protestants are extremely anti-catholic. Personally, I never hear that kind of talk among Lutherans. In-fact in our liturgical calendar, a holy day is devoted to Pope John 23rd [6/3]. Lutherans fell in love with Benedict and had a very high regard for John Paul 2nd. Our saint days include St Gregory [3/12].

Actually, I am not alone among Lutherans to view the Vatican as our spiritual home; like estranged cousins we want unity among of Children of God.

But we can not abide the infallibility issue; it has held back Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans. Is it possible that the dogma of papal infallibility will be revised?

BTW, Lutherans are quite taken by Francis. This leader has the potential to lead the Church into Vatican 3

Why is infallibilty such an issue? People act as though infallibility was magically pulled out of a clerical hat. Its been around long before Christianity.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Why is infallibilty such an issue? People act as though infallibility was magically pulled out of a clerical hat. Its been around long before Christianity.

It would seem that since all Christians, besides Roman Catholics, have trouble with papal infallibility, that the Vatican would revisit this issue. I do believe that the Church of Rome will water down this obstacle to Christian unity. We have high hopes for Pope Francis I

 

[Nicea325]

It would seem that since all Christians, besides Roman Catholics, have trouble with papal infallibility, that the Vatican would revisit this issue. I do believe that the Church of Rome will water down this obstacle to Christian unity. We have high hopes for Pope Francis I

Sorry,not trying to be abrasive here,but the Truth cannot be compromised in order to please people. Watering down infalliblity is like watering down the alcoholic drink “screw driver” with water…people notice the difference.

Quick question?

Were the OT authors fallible or infallible when they wrote? What about the bishops at Nicaea in 325 AD?

 

[Peter_J]

It would seem that since all Christians, besides Roman Catholics, have trouble with papal infallibility, that the Vatican would revisit this issue. I do believe that the Church of Rome will water down this obstacle to Christian unity. We have high hopes for Pope Francis I

You might like to read this blog entry about how we “can, nevertheless, work together, neither diluting their beliefs, nor retreating into a bigoted sectarianism”.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

It is not the city that carries the weight, so to speak; it’s the office. In ancient times, Rome was the center of the civilized world, and what better location to govern the Universal Church from than Rome.

St. Peter went there to spread the Word/Gospel, and therefore his successors preach/teach from there as well.

May I ask exactly why the fact that the Universal Church’s “central location” is so important to you? EVERY organization has (or should have) a “headquarters” somewhere, shouldn’t they? It lends itself to stability.

Well for one thing I don’t grant that authority to rome, and how does that respond to my initial point? Your simply reinforcing what I already believe about the claims of those united to the roman catholic church, that is of course that rome is the ultimate see from others are under and are not in of themselves catholics. Which is it? Is catholicity derived from being in communion with rome or are they in of themselves catholic?

I can’t debate this but im getting contradictory answers when I posit what I see to be the situation.

 

[rfournier103]

Well for one thing I don’t grant that authority to rome, and how does that respond to my initial point? Your simply reinforcing what I already believe about the claims of those united to the roman catholic church, that is of course that rome is the ultimate see from others are under and are not in of themselves catholics. Which is it? Is catholicity derived from being in communion with rome or are they in of themselves catholic?

I can’t debate this but im getting contradictory answers when I posit what I see to be the situation.

This is a toughie…

I think any Church with UNBROKEN Apostolic lineage is Catholic. I hold (as does the Church) that since Peter was the chosen leader of the Church (by Jesus, Himself), the See of St. Peter/See of Rome is the highest office in the entire Christian world.

This office doesn’t exist to lord it over other Bishops, or sees. It doesn’t exist for power and wealth. This office exists for the men who occupy it to teach us all, to guide us, to interpet the Word, and to be our shepherd (John 21:15-17).

I apologize if this is not the answer to your question. It’s possible I may not entirely understand what you are asking. I tried to give the best answer that I could offer.

I DO enjoy the dialogue. Thank you for being here!

 

[Steveabrous]

No, this is incorrect.

Luther’s German Bible is in fact larger than the Catholic Bible as it also includes The Prayer of Manasses along with the other Deuterocanonicals - the missing books in American Lutheran churches has more to do with the Westminster Confession and inexpensive British publishing.

If you need more convincing : latifhakigaba.blogspot.com/2010/02/did-luther-throw-out-books-of-bible.html

The LCMS synod publishes and excellent study version of what we call the Apocrypha - from what I see, I suspect that we’ll see our bibles go back to Luther’s German listing within a few decades.

I concede. Luther did not physically remove them from the bible. But did he consider them fully scripture? I don’t think so. I believe he called them Apocrapha and gave them a seperate place at the back of the O.T.

To me this is the same as removing them, since in effect your saying they are not scripture.

Or am I wrong.

 

[Steveabrous]

I would say that sin is more responsible.

Yes, some divisions happen as a result of sin. But Luther said The bible alone is authoritative and anyone can read it and come to the right conclusion. Later he lamented this saying that he tried to get rid of one Pope and created 1000.

The major divisions among Protestants is a result of one group believing the bible says one thing and another saying it means something else. this is a direct result of sola-scriptura, and personal interpretation. A concept Luther invented.

 

[Peter_J]

I concede. Luther did not physically remove them from the bible. But did he consider them fully scripture? I don’t think so. I believe he called them Apocrapha and gave them a seperate place at the back of the O.T.

To me this is the same as removing them, since in effect your saying they are not scripture.

Then did St. Jerome also say, in effect, that they aren’t scripture?

 

[Steveabrous]

Then did St. Jerome also say, in effect, that they aren’t scripture?

Jerome said they weren’t, then slowly said some were. My understanding is that Jerome did not believe them scripture. Pope Damasus had him write down all scripture on his list (which included the deutercanon) into the first Bible. When jerome indicated these were not scripture Damasus repremanded him. He then relented. the point here is that a man who is not the Pope or a bishop does not arbitrarily make this decision. So whether Jerome considered them scripture or not is irrelevent, it was not his decision to make.

 

[Peter_J]

Jerome said they weren’t, then slowly said some were. My understanding is that Jerome did not believe them scripture. Pope Damasus had him write down all scripture on his list (which included the deutercanon) into the first Bible. When jerome indicated these were not scripture Damasus repremanded him. He then relented. the point here is that a man who is not the Pope or a bishop does not arbitrarily make this decision. So whether Jerome considered them scripture or not is irrelevent, it was not his decision to make.

Fair enough. I had to ask because the Catholics that I’ve discussed this with in past would *never *say that Jerome didn’t consider them to be scripture. (Or at least that was my impression; I may not have asked point-blank.)

 

[marimagi]

Okay, this is totally off topic (in a way.)

I have been following this thread and have found it very interesting. But something that has been bothering me since I joined this site, is all the arguing about the correctness of this or that religious perspective.

Recently, I found out that a very dear friend has a very serious form of brain cancer. She is a young mother with a young child and I have been determined that if ever there was cause for a miracle, this one is warranted.

My friend is not Catholic, but she loves God dearly. Among other interventions, I decided to ask the Carmelite nuns in my area, to pray for her. I wrote them a letter explaining the situation. I also told them that my friend is not Catholic.

This evening, I received a beautiful, handwritten letter from the Sisters. Of course they will pray! Of course they will ask for a miracle! There was no mention of the fact that my friend is not Catholic, or that she should convert if she wants their prayers or God’s assistance. They said it saddened them to hear my friend’s story and they will pray and pray and pray.

Theology is one thing, but when the pain hits the fan so to speak, it is about us reaching out to Our Lord with all our hearts and souls and will and mind. By all means, keep the debate alive. There is nothing wrong with convictions and sharing our beliefs and their foundations with others. But let’s also not forget to remember that we are all God’s children in the end.

 

[mlz]

mlz;10874590:

Fences being put up I guess. Don’t see the harm myself.

I use to feel there was no problem prior to becoming Catholic but now I understand why. It is clearly stated by the Church so I don’t understand why those who are Catholic aren’t backing me on this?!

mlz

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Okay, this is totally off topic (in a way.)

I have been following this thread and have found it very interesting. But something that has been bothering me since I joined this site, is all the arguing about the correctness of this or that religious perspective.

Recently, I found out that a very dear friend has a very serious form of brain cancer. She is a young mother with a young child and I have been determined that if ever there was cause for a miracle, this one is warranted.

My friend is not Catholic, but she loves God dearly. Among other interventions, I decided to ask the Carmelite nuns in my area, to pray for her. I wrote them a letter explaining the situation. I also told them that my friend is not Catholic.

This evening, I received a beautiful, handwritten letter from the Sisters. Of course they will pray! Of course they will ask for a miracle! There was no mention of the fact that my friend is not Catholic, or that she should convert if she wants their prayers or God’s assistance. They said it saddened them to hear my friend’s story and they will pray and pray and pray.

Theology is one thing, but when the pain hits the fan so to speak, it is about us reaching out to Our Lord with all our hearts and souls and will and mind. By all means, keep the debate alive. There is nothing wrong with convictions and sharing our beliefs and their foundations with others. But let’s also not forget to remember that we are all God’s children in the end.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

This is a toughie…

I think any Church with UNBROKEN Apostolic lineage is Catholic. I hold (as does the Church) that since Peter was the chosen leader of the Church (by Jesus, Himself), the See of St. Peter/See of Rome is the highest office in the entire Christian world.

This office doesn’t exist to lord it over other Bishops, or sees. It doesn’t exist for power and wealth. This office exists for the men who occupy it to teach us all, to guide us, to interpet the Word, and to be our shepherd (John 21:15-17).

I apologize if this is not the answer to your question. It’s possible I may not entirely understand what you are asking. I tried to give the best answer that I could offer.

I DO enjoy the dialogue. Thank you for being here!

The initial criticism to me was that I was wrong to call all catholics roman Catholic. That is that there are other catholics of other rites. I concede this obviously but I see no reason to say that these are outside of the Roman catholic church when ultimately they are all under the roman pope and derive their catholicity from him. That is they are not Catholic in of themselves, the Melkite cannot say “I am Catholic without the pope” because he is catholic by being in communion with the pope of Rome. Am I wrong here? Am I so unjustified in referring to all catholics (who bend the knee to rome) as roman Catholic? I understand what catholics believe concerning hierachy but Im talking about something a little deeper. What is catholicity and where is it derived from? It seems to flow out from the pope because he is the dispenser of such things through his Bishops which only he can appoint which then flows to the people. I don’t believe myself to be wrong here.