Lutherans and the Papacy

[EvangelCatholic]

Ugh. No kidding!

Some of the **proposed resolutions **for this year are frustrating - not because we’re making them, but because we have to “re-affirm” sound doctrine in the first place!

Roman Catholic friends, you are not alone in the “good fight!”

Another attempt at stopping communicants from receiving the blessed Sacrament!

“•address LCMS “rostered workers communing at heterodox altars” — resolving that such workers “shall not commune at ELCA [Evangelical Lutheran Church in America] altars.”

 

[steido01]

Another attempt at stopping communicants from receiving the blessed Sacrament!

“•address LCMS “rostered workers communing at heterodox altars” — resolving that such workers “shall not commune at ELCA [Evangelical Lutheran Church in America] altars.”

More preventing and educating non-communicants about the dangers of receiving from a separate communion.

Members (and particularly rostered workers) should know better than to disregard the views of Synod and commune with those who do not share our beliefs - another viewpoint that confessional Lutherans share with the Pope!

 

[benjohnson]

Well, Ben, it looks like you all have more work to do as those who are moved by the “spirit of Vatican II” have not yet been altogether silenced.

See: www.religionnews.com/2013/06/14/buoyed-by-a-new-pope-priests-gather-to-urge-church-reform/

Our Good Catholic friends have Vatican II, we have our Semenex.

It seems that a common sin in this modern era is that we keep saying “I have a new idea!” - when instead should be listening for God’s Word.

 

[Jotto]

You have to remember that the Catholic Church is more than just the the Roman rite of the Church. We have a rich Eastern presence. The Church isn’t ‘Roman’, it is Catholic.

Yes, there are indeed other rites within the Church Catholic than the Roman Rite. But when it is asserted that the Bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction, then it follows that what is being said is that in a very basic sense the whole Church Catholic is Roman.

 

[MaryT777]

More preventing and educating non-communicants about the dangers of receiving from a separate communion.

Members (and particularly rostered workers) should know better than to disregard the views of Synod and commune with those who do not share our beliefs - another viewpoint that confessional Lutherans share with the Pope!

 

[Jotto]

Interesting article. It reminds me of the question in the garden, “Did God really say…” when it refers to

The LCMS will surely see plenty of those questions at the Synod convention in July, too. Women’s ordination is a perpetual favorite. Why can’t some questions simply be closed to further discussion?

Such questions do become “closed” once the perceived inconsistency that has generated them is resolved. The question of whether only men are capable of re-presenting Christ in the worshipping community may well be closed for you and many others; but clearly it is not resolved for many, many others. And for now perhaps the only resolution possible is for Roman Catholics to do what they now in growing numbers are doing, namely, establish schismatic communities where the core of the Faith is maintained and practiced but where women and homosexual people are not excluded from leadership within the community. Men and women who have grown up within the Missouri Synod who come to find this perception of womanhood no longer tolerable can readily transfer their membership to other Lutheran communities.

On the other hand, I must say, it seems to me the Missouri Synod handles this question in a manner that is somewhat more consistent with Scripture than the Roman Catholic Church currently does. For you all appear to perceive quite correctly that reflecting the consensus of its surrounding society, the Apostolic Church did not believe that women by their very nature were fit to be leaders in any social context other than the running of a household. And since it was generally seen as inappropriate for women to be the leader in any community where, with the exception of slaves, adult men were members, the question of women being set aside as the leaders of Christian communities was not an issue.

Thus in an attempt to conform itself to this Biblical model, the Missouri Synod classically did not and, I believe, still usually does not accept women in any leadership position in the congregation where they would then have authority over men. If the Missouri Synod were more thoroughly consistent with this Biblical norm (perhaps we should say New Testament Norm as clearly in the early life of Israel reported in the Torah, women once did have authority over men as “judges,”) they would actively discourage women from playing leadership roles not only within the institution of the Church but in society at large. But realizing that this battle is long lost, you content yourselves with maintaining the subjection of women to men only within the public life of the congregation.

Roman Catholic and Orthodox practice choose to ignore the historical likelihood that the Early Church was against women being leaders in any social context that would give them authority over men; and they therefore draw the line only at ordination to the presbytery and the episcopacy. This adjustment makes their communities far more amenable to how modern men and women perceive of themselves. But from the perspective of mainline Protestants (as well as many members of the Roman Catholic Church), it denigrates the significance of baptism as a sacramental rite, which we now realize under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, makes women as much as men full members of the Body of Christ and therefore inherently capable of re-presenting Christ in any human context to the same extent as men.

 

[Jotto]

More preventing and educating non-communicants about the dangers of receiving from a separate communion.

Members (and particularly rostered workers) should know better than to disregard the views of Synod and commune with those who do not share our beliefs - another viewpoint that confessional Lutherans share with the Pope!

But not a viewpoint that over-rides the practice of the Roman Catholic Church that the Missouri Synod vociferously condemns, i.e. praying with Christians who have heretical beliefs - not to mention with members of non-Christian religions.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Roman Catholic and Orthodox practice choose to ignore the historical likelihood that the Early Church was against women being leaders in any social context that would give them authority over men; and they therefore draw the line only at ordination to the presbytery and the episcopacy. This adjustment makes their communities far more amenable to how modern men and women perceive of themselves. But from the perspective of mainline Protestants (as well as many members of the Roman Catholic Church), it denigrates the significance of baptism as a sacramental rite, which we now realize under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, makes women as much as men full members of the Body of Christ and therefore inherently capable of re-presenting Christ in any human context to the same extent as men.

Or rather we choose to not go beyond that which is written in this case. If the gospel and the teaching of the church is open to social change then perhaps we ought introduce homosexual marraige and then eventually when incest becomes accepted we should accept it. Perhaps since modern society also accepts sex before marriage we ought recognise it as one of those social practices of the time and ought accept that it is good practice now. Where do you limit it with this justification of yours for women priests? Perhaps a priest doesn’t need be held to the very high standards of Saint Paul in his epistle to timothy.

 

[Jotto]

Our Good Catholic friends have Vatican II, we have our Semenex.

It seems that a common sin in this modern era is that we keep saying “I have a new idea!” - when instead should be listening for God’s Word.

Yes, but unfortunately - unlike our Roman sisters and brothers, the magisterium of the Missouri Synod ignores the truth that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church’s understanding and subsequently proclamation of the Faith evolves. Despite the fact that the Missouri Synod affirms, as do all Lutheran communities, the Anathanisian understanding of the Holy Trinity and the Calcedonian understanding of our Lord’s two natures, both dogma that evolved from how the Trinity and the person of Christ were understood in Apostolic times, you all assert that the New Testament understanding of how men and women are related to one another must be repristinated in our day for the Church to remain true to the Gospel.

 

[steido01]

But not a viewpoint that over-rides the practice of the Roman Catholic Church that the Missouri Synod vociferously condemns, i.e. praying with Christians who have heretical beliefs - not to mention with members of non-Christian religions.

I was simply pointing out what we do have in common with Rome; I’m not sure what, at all, corporate prayer has to do with what I said?

But since you’ve mentioned it, let’s not misrepresent the LCMS’ position - participating in worship with heterodox Christians is certainly opposed, but there is no syncretism in simple prayer with our fellow Christians. Prayer is one of God’s most precious gifts, granted to all His people. My Roman Catholic wife and I pray together daily. I assure you that both of us remain in good standing in our churches.

From the Committee on Theology and Church Relations “Practice of Prayer”:

Another thing is clear about the way or manner of Christian prayer. We do not pray alone. We pray as members of the Body of Christ, and so, first, with Christ our Head. He told us to pray with Him—”Our Father”—so we pray in plural, but not simply because there are other Christians. We pray first with Him, who enabled our adoption as sons and daughters who say, “Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:4–7; cp. Rom. 8:15, 23; Eph. 1:3–6). Then, in and with Christ, we pray as part of the entire family of faith, His body—the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. The life of prayer given to each who believes in Christ, is given to all who believe in Him, so the concern of such Christian prayer is never for self alone. None who prays in Christ can pray without concern for the whole Body of Christ (Luke 9:28; Matt. 19:13; Col. 4:2-3; 1 Thess. 5:25; James 5:16; Acts 12:5).

 

[steido01]

Or rather we choose to not go beyond that which is written in this case. If the gospel and the teaching of the church is open to social change then perhaps we ought introduce homosexual marraige and then eventually when incest becomes accepted we should accept it. Perhaps since modern society also accepts sex before marriage we ought recognise it as one of those social practices of the time and ought accept that it is good practice now. Where do you limit it with this justification of yours for women priests? Perhaps a priest doesn’t need be held to the very high standards of Saint Paul in his epistle to timothy.

The slope is slippery.

 

[JonNC]

=Jotto;10886264]

On the other hand, I must say, it seems to me the Missouri Synod handles this question in a manner that is somewhat more consistent with Scripture than the Roman Catholic Church currently does. For you all appear to perceive quite correctly that reflecting the consensus of its surrounding society, the Apostolic Church did not believe that women by their very nature were fit to be leaders in any social context other than the running of a household. And since it was generally seen as inappropriate for women to be the leader in any community where, with the exception of slaves, adult men were members, the question of women being set aside as the leaders of Christian communities was not an issue.

Let’s be clear that scripture is not intended to reflect the consensus of societal norms of the time, but to provide God’s will for us today and in all generations past and future. We must assume that God approves the roles of women and men He establishes in His word.

Thus in an attempt to conform itself to this Biblical model, the Missouri Synod classically did not and, I believe, still usually does not accept women in any leadership position in the congregation where they would then have authority over men. If the Missouri Synod were more thoroughly consistent with this Biblical norm (perhaps we should say New Testament Norm as clearly in the early life of Israel reported in the Torah, women once did have authority over men as “judges,”) they would actively discourage women from playing leadership roles not only within the institution of the Church but in society at large. But realizing that this battle is long lost, you content yourselves with maintaining the subjection of women to men only within the public life of the congregation.

Congregational polity allows for varying policies from parish to parish. In mine, the are women on church council, but not the Board of Elders.
But that said, there is no subjection of women here. To say so indicates an attempt to apply current societal norms on to God’s word.

From A.L.Barry,late past president of the LCMS:

Together,men and women serve their Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ.Men have the divine obligation to be the spiritual
leaders of the church.Women are called to be of assistance to
men in this capacity. An attitude of service guides what we do
in the church, not a demand for “rights” or an attitude of
“lording it over” one another.We have one Lord and one
Master,Jesus Christ.We serve Him in the ways He desires.
God has given the responsibility to serve as pastors only to
certain qualified men.The church calls these men to serve as
representatives of Jesus Christ,the Son of God,in the pastoral
office.Women are not called to serve in this way because God
has not given this responsibility to women.
Why didn’t Jesus call a woman to serve as an apostle? Why,
through the Apostle Paul,does He prohibit women from serving
as pastors in the church? We must leave the answers to
these questions to God.We remain with what has been given to
us by God in His Word. God has not given the church the
option of calling and ordaining women to the pastoral office.
We honor and respect God’s will in these matters and praise
Him for the many gifts He has given us all,including the marvelous
opportunities He provides to both men and women to
serve Him.

Jon

 

[Jotto]

Yes, because Lutherans have a bit more freedom to differ whereas Catholics have to tow the line more. All Lutherans teach that abortions are wrong but some Lutherans acknowledge that a forcible rape or life threatening pregnancy may require an abortion.

While it is true that Lutheran clergy are generally quite uncomfortable with the way the choice crowd frames the question, it is also probably true that they generally are much more comfortable with the classical Catholic understanding that question of abortion comes into play only at the time of “quickening” rather than the current (since the 19th Century) teaching. While abortion has always been condemned by the Church, before the time of quickening (in modern terms before the central nervous system has been fully formed and has begun to function), this was a considered a sin because the command of God to procreate was being disobeyed not because it was considered to be a murder of a human being.

 

[rfournier103]

In almost all cases where someone speaks of a “Roman Church”, that actually mean one of three things:

1. the Roman Rite
2. the Latin Church (which contains the Roman Rite, and also several lesser-known rites, e.g. the Ambrosian Rite)
3. the entire Roman Communion (i.e. all the churches in full communion with Rome)

none of which can correctly be called the “Roman Church”.

To further complicate things, many people shorten “Roman-Rite Catholic” to “Roman Catholic”.

THANK YOU!!! I have been dying to say that, but I wasn’t sure of the best way to say it.

 

[Jotto]

Or rather we choose to not go beyond that which is written in this case. If the gospel and the teaching of the church is open to social change then perhaps we ought introduce homosexual marraige and then eventually when incest becomes accepted we should accept it. Perhaps since modern society also accepts sex before marriage we ought recognise it as one of those social practices of the time and ought accept that it is good practice now. Where do you limit it with this justification of yours for women priests? Perhaps a priest doesn’t need be held to the very high standards of Saint Paul in his epistle to timothy.

The Church both West and East has throughout history gone “beyond that which is written.” The Ecumenical Councils of necessity all went beyond what was written in Scripture so that what was written might be understood in the context of a Hellenistic society. We have also changed our sense of right and wrong. In the West, sexual engagement during the Middle Ages was in many societies begun at the time of engagement (much as increasingly the case today) the sacrament of wedding coming afterwards.

The early Church’s band upon participation in any war was with Ambrose overruled through the introduction of the Stoic ethic of just war. But, with the exception of war, in regard to behaviors that are obviously detrimental to human well being such as incest, the early ethical consensus of the Church appears to hold without challenge. Admittedly how committed homosexual relationships are detrimental to human well being is still under consideration by Christians of all traditions though what the earlier generations of Christians most clearly were condemning, i.e., homosexual relations between people who were perceived to be heterosexual is still universally rejected by all Christian communions as acceptable behavior.

 

[Jotto]

I was simply pointing out what we do have in common with Rome; I’m not sure what, at all, corporate prayer has to do with what I said?

But since you’ve mentioned it, let’s not misrepresent the LCMS’ position - participating in worship with heterodox Christians is certainly opposed, but there is no syncretism in simple prayer with our fellow Christians. Prayer is one of God’s most precious gifts, granted to all His people. My Roman Catholic wife and I pray together daily. I assure you that both of us remain in good standing in our churches.

From the Committee on Theology and Church Relations “Practice of Prayer”:

I suspect that few if any Missouri Synod pastors would criticize you and your wife for praying together. But if a Missouri Synod pastor prays together in public with other non-Missouri Synod Christians and most certainly non-Christians (as the Pope has done), he would very likely be called on the carpet by his district president as the pastor who participated in such a prayer session during a commemoration of 9/11 was.

 

[MaryT777]

I suspect that few if any Missouri Synod pastors would criticize you and your wife for praying together. But if a Missouri Synod pastor prays together in public with other non-Missouri Synod Christians and most certainly non-Christians (as the Pope has done), he would very likely be called on the carpet by his district president as the pastor who participated in such a prayer session during a commemoration of 9/11 was.

Could a Missouri Synod pastor be in the audience of the Pope as a visitor which may include prayers?
Thanks,
Mary.

 

[Jotto]

Congregational polity allows for varying policies from parish to parish. In mine, the are women on church council, but not the Board of Elders.
But that said, there is no subjection of women here. To say so indicates an attempt to apply current societal norms on to God’s word.

Jon

Please explain how having women on the council of your congregation is consistent with the Scriptural injunctions to be found in First Timothy 2:12. Or is the council in your congregation like most lay councils in Roman Catholic parishes which have a consultative role but no real authority?

 

[steido01]

I suspect that few if any Missouri Synod pastors would criticize you and your wife for praying together. But if a Missouri Synod pastor prays together in public with other non-Missouri Synod Christians and most certainly non-Christians (as the Pope has done), he would very likely be called on the carpet by his district president as the pastor who participated in such a prayer session during a commemoration of 9/11 was.

Again, let us not give an uncharitable misrepresentation of the LCMS. Prayer with fellow Christians, whether private or public, is never an issue. What is important is the context: is it simply an opportunity for prayer, or is it actually an “ecumenical” worship service? It is acceptable to participate in the first, it would promote syncretism to “robe up” and participate in the second. LCMS Guidelines for Participation in Civic Events:

It is understood that LCMS pastors who participate in civic events of any kind will take care to ensure that their prayers clearly and faithfully reflect Scripture’s teaching regarding the nature of the true God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit and the
exclusivity of access to God through faith in Christ alone. In many situations it is more appropriate for a Christian to give a public witness to his/her faith in the Triune God rather than to offer a prayer (cf. 1 Pet 3:15; Mt 28:18–20; Lk 24:46–48; see also Acts 19:8, where Paul preaches in a Jewish synagogue for three months).** And of course it may be possible, and even beneficial, for LCMS pastors to participate in certain religious events (e.g., religious dialogs, ecumenical meetings, ministerial association meetings, scholarly conferences, “pro-life” rallies sponsored by religious groups), as long as such events do not involve assumptions, requirements or activities that are at odds with the biblical, confessional commitments made by LCMS pastors.**

Emphasis mine.

Could a Missouri Synod pastor be in the audience of the Pope as a visitor which may include prayers?

Absolutely, Mary. I am happy and proud to say that the question is not a hypothetical one: blogs.lcms.org/2008/lcms-leaders-attend-ecumenical-meeting-with-pope. I have bolded the key issue. Note that the article makes a special point to say that the entire service was performed by Roman Catholics. It would have been wrong, in the LCMS’ view, to participate (as we do not share communion).

 

[Jotto]

EvangelCatholic;10874180:

Ufam, my brother/ sister. I have close ties with Roman Catholics among family [daughter in laws] and friends. Whenever there is a Baptism, 1st Communion, weddings/ burials we worship as a family and take holy communion together no matter if it is a Lutheran or Catholic parish. Some view Lutherans as “professing catholics” in the Roman

What??! You have the Eucharist in a Catholic Mass??? You aren’t suppose to, nor are Catholics suppose to have communion at non Catholic parishes… I don’t understand this.

mlz

Don’t want to scandalize you, Miz. But Catholic pastors in many parishes allow Christians who are not in full communion with them but who, they know, have a Catholic understanding of communion to communion at their altars. And I have had more than one Catholic priest, not to mention lay people, receive communion at a Mass I have presided at. In the former case, in some Catholic dioceses priests have the permission of their ordinary to offer communion to Protestants who believe in the Real Presence in certain circumstances as provided for by Canon Law.