Lutherans...closest to Catholics?

[JonNC]

I probably shouldn’t have taken up Jon’s point about Augsburg, because the question of “intending to split the Church” is bigger than that. I’m honestly a bit confused as to what people mean when they talk about this.** I’d like to here a coherent example of a Protestant Reformer who did intend to split the Church, or at least a theoretical description of what an intention to split the Church would look like**. All the Protestant Reformers thought they were reforming the Church, but by the [visible] Church they meant the historic body of people professing the Christian Faith throughout history. They didn’t think that Pope or even bishops constituted the Church. So they could have an intention of splitting from the Pope (or more ideally abolishing the Papacy outright) without seeing this as “splitting the Church.”

Anabaptists?
Jon

 

[IowaJay]

All the Protestant Reformers thought they were reforming the Church, but by the [visible] Church they meant the historic body of people professing the Christian Faith throughout history. They didn’t think that Pope or even bishops constituted the Church. So they could have an intention of splitting from the Pope (or more ideally abolishing the Papacy outright) without seeing this as “splitting the Church.”

Edwin

Some reformers did not even want to split from the Pope. Some of the Lutherans, Melanchthon in particular, made it clear that they were willing to submit to the papacy as long as the papacy would allow them to preach the Lutheran emphasis on justification.

 

[Contarini]

Some reformers did not even want to split from the Pope. Some of the Lutherans, Melanchthon in particular, made it clear that they were willing to submit to the papacy as long as the papacy would allow them to preach the Lutheran emphasis on justification.

Can you give me any evidence that Melanchthon thought this was a realistic possibility? Of course he would say this diplomatically, and of course in principle he would be willing to do this. But he told Bucer in a letter in the late 1530s that he agreed that there was no possibility of reconciliation with the papacy–instead, they were working for union with reformist Catholics in France and Germany.

The Protestants did not object to the papacy as an office per se. They objected to the papal claims, and they objected to what they saw as the Popes’ opposition to the Gospel.

Jon, I don’t know that it’s fair to say that the Anabaptists wanted to “split the Church” any more than they wanted to rebaptize (since they didn’t think infant baptism was baptism in the first place), but it’s certainly fair to say that they didn’t recognize the medieval Church as authentic. The magisterial Reformers, on the other hand, did. And I can’t see that the Reformed were more grudging in this respect than the Lutherans.

If by “wanting to split the Church” you mean “wanting to make a decisive break with pre-Reformation Catholicism,” then I would argue that neither Lutherans nor Reformed wanted to split the Church, though by that definition I’ll certainly give you the Anabaptists.

Edwin

 

[IowaJay]

Can you give me any evidence that Melanchthon thought this was a realistic possibility? Of course he would say this diplomatically, and of course in principle he would be willing to do this. But he told Bucer in a letter in the late 1530s that he agreed that there was no possibility of reconciliation with the papacy–instead, they were working for union with reformist Catholics in France and Germany.

The Protestants did not object to the papacy as an office per se. They objected to the papal claims, and they objected to what they saw as the Popes’ opposition to the Gospel.

Maybe by the late 1530s he believed that (although there were still significant attempts at reunion after that), but clearly at the time of the Augsburg Confession in 1530 his efforts were focused on reconciliation with Rome and there is no evidence he believed he was wasting his time writing the Augsburg Confession. This website, albeit from a partisan Catholic blog, cites quite a bit of what (mostly) appears to be decent source material regarding Melanchthon’s correspondence from the time about the papacy.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/11/philip-melanchthon-in-1530-longs-for.html

 

[JonNC]

With the OP’s permission, an interesting and perhaps more important question: With which of the western faith communions has the CC had the most success in ecumenical dialogue?

Jon

 

[Newbie2]

Hey, you don’t need my permission to hijack my thread. LOL

Good, pertanent question. A follow-up would be what would be “successful”? (I guess that would depend on which side one was on ).

I wrote a paper on the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) between Lutherans and Catholics, which if memory serves was written in 1999. It was OK, nothing terribly strong written therein and rejected by the LCMS and several other Lutheran groups. But, I guess ya gotta start somewhere.

I also read a book on Anglican-Catholic dialogue a couple of years back that was interesting.

I guess that I didn’t consider the Anglicans in my OP…probably since they don’t have that visible a presence at least in my neck of the woods.

 

[Peter_J]

Hey, you don’t need my permission to hijack my thread. LOL

Good, pertanent question. A follow-up would be what would be “successful”? (I guess that would depend on which side one was on ).

I wrote a paper on the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) between Lutherans and Catholics, which if memory serves was written in 1999. It was OK, nothing terribly strong written therein and rejected by the LCMS and several other Lutheran groups. But, I guess ya gotta start somewhere.

With all due respect to the LCMS, the Joint Declaration was signed by the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) which represents more than 60 million Lutheran. Nothing to sneeze at.

 

[grandfather]

Not true in either case. We do pray for those who die. And while we don’t practice intercessory prayer to them, we believe the saints do pray for the Church Militant to our benefit.

I don’t think so. We can listen until the cows come home and be no better off than we were with our ears plugged. I do not know what the first step is, but I think I do know what the various steps are. We have to love one another. We have to desire unity and reject division. We have to pray to God to heal the divisions and separations, and reject them. Maybe the first step is declaring our will for one another. What I hope and will for you is heaven. I hope that your soul is united to God for all eternity. I reject your religion, but not you. I want you to dwell among the saints forever. I hope nothing bad ever befalls you. I hope God hears and answers your prayers for others and your loved ones. I hope God strengthens and increases you in all virtue and grace, that you overcome your sins and that He uses you to be an instrument of grace for others. I suspect you share those sentiments about non-Lutherans. If we declare these things it does establish a unity, or it begins to do so, maybe not doctrinal unity, but that just might follow. Maybe we do not need to listen to one another as much as we need to pray for one another.

 

[JonNC]

Did Luther teach that the saints in heaven assist us by their prayers for us?

Yes, but not in a specific sense. The Church Triumphant prayers for the Church Militant in a general sense.

Right. You do not believe in these sacraments. That is what I said. You deny them, as sacraments.

If that’s the way you want to put it, fine. All I am saying is we don’t deny these things as important means of grace. Define and deny are two different things, but I can see why you, as a Catholic, would view it differently than I do.

quote:
*This is untrue. Please, a Lutheran reference.
vatican.va/roman_curia/po…ration_en.html *

A cornerstone Lutheran doctrine is that souls are saved by faith alone. That means that souls are saved by faith and nothing else. Hope and love are not faith. They are different from faith. If you want to say hope and love are necessary for salvation you must deny sola fide, or play word games.

We are justified by grace alone through faith alone. But in the same way that justification must be followed with sanctification, faith cannot be alone.
Once again, I ask you to provide a quote from a Lutheran source that says that hope and love are not necessary, that we deny the importance of good works. I provided two that says we consider hope and love necessary, and can provide more if you wish.

quote:
*Every other non-Catholic Church mentioned is this thread, including PNCC and Orthodox
do, as well. *

So what!

So, as this thread was intended to be comparative, I am pointing out that this is not a comparative difference between Lutheranism and any other Christian communion not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Quote:
*Not true. This is not how Lutherans define sola scritpura, and we uphold the authority of the Church to teach rightly. *

What church? Which Church? How do you know what right teaching is? Who defines it?
Luther taught sola scriptura. You can’t have all authority in scripture and authority in the Church. If all authority is in scripture there is none left over. Luther concocted his doctrine to be able to use his personal interpretation of scripture to refute the position of the Church and support his novel doctrines. He knew he could not get away with saying he was teaching under his own authority, so he said the authority behind his doctrine was scripture, his personal interpretation, a new one that refuted the teaching of the Church. He had to find a way to deny the teaching of the Church and her authority. So he said scripture held all authority. If you say the Church has authority you deny Luther’s doctrine of sola scriptura.

Scripture holds final authority.
Once again, I gave you two Lutheran quotes regarding the Lutheran position on the authority of the Church to teach. Lutheran understanding of SS only says that scripture is the final norm. It does not eliminate Church authority, Tradition, the ECF’s, creeds and confessions, etc.
Please provide a Lutheran reference that Luther said what you say here.

quote:
Luther is responsible for Luther. Calvin, Zwingli, anabaptists, Anglicans, etc. are responsible for themselves, as their break from Rome is completely unrelated to Luther.

The doctrine of sola scriptura is responsible for the advent of denominationalism, Protestantism. Anyone can take the Bible and determine truth for himself and start his own church as long as he has the Bible, and call it a Bible believing church. Luther set the precedent for this. It is what he did and what those who followed him in multiplying division did. It is an ever mutating multiplication of one heresy after another. That might be a forbidden word on the forums.

Somehow I think members of other faith traditions would be offended at your implication that their leaders - Calvin, Zwingli, etc - simply followed Luther off the cliff like Lemmings.
But that is exactly what you are saying, that they were fools who were somehow spellbound by Luther’s words or award-winning personality rolleyes. They were quite capable of choosing on their own to stay within the Catholic Church.
Once again, provide a Lutheran source that says anyone can take a Bible and determine truth for himself.

quote:
*Separation goes both ways. You are separated from us as well. *

Yes we are separated from you. Luther rejected Catholic teaching and broke unity. He started a new religion based on his personal beliefs. He separated himself and his followers from the Catholic Church. We are not one. This is painful. It is tragic. The consequences of a divided Christendom are the destruction of Christian civilization in the west. We are living it.

I could sit here and write about the abuses of the Church in Luther’s time, abuses that were a rejection of historic Church teaching. I could say that Pope Leo X, in his stubborn, prideful unwillingness to listen to Luther about the abuses going on in the Church’s name, did as much to cause the separation as Luther. But none of it does any good now.
I agree with the highlighted part. We have so much to do to fix this.

quote:
It seems to me that the first step in returning to unity is to listen to and understand what the other believes. Only then can we work together to find our way back together.

I don’t think so. We can listen until the cows come home and be no better off than we were with our ears plugged. I do not know what the first step is, but I think I do know what the various steps are. We have to love one another. We have to desire unity and reject division. We have to pray to God to heal the divisions and separations, and reject them. Maybe the first step is declaring our will for one another. What I hope and will for you is heaven. I hope that your soul is united to God for all eternity. I reject your religion, but not you. I want you to dwell among the saints forever. I hope nothing bad ever befalls you. I hope God hears and answers your prayers for others and your loved ones. I hope God strengthens and increases you in all virtue and grace, that you overcome your sins and that He uses you to be an instrument of grace for others. I suspect you share those sentiments about non-Lutherans. If we declare these things it does establish a unity, or it begins to do so, maybe not doctrinal unity, but that just might follow. Maybe we do not need to listen to one another as much as we need to pray for one another.

Listening to what each other believes establishes a baseline - to celebrate and rejoice in our agreements, and to better understand our differences. For 450 years, our two communions didn’t listen, didn’t talk to each other. Often we talked past each other, and spent more time condemning each other.
As for the rest of your statement here, I could not agree more! And Ipray only His grace and peace to you.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

With all due respect to the LCMS, the Joint Declaration was signed by the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) which represents more than 60 million Lutheran. Nothing to sneeze at.

And as an LCMS member, the leadership is wrong for not signing on. Any concerns about what was missing or unclear could be put in a followup document, just like Rome did.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

And as an LCMS member, the leadership is wrong for not signing on.

Not being an LCMS member (or a Lutheran at all) I can’t agree or disagree with that specifically; but I agree with the general sentiment. It really bothers me when some of my fellow RCs speak about the Joint Declaration as though it were some kind of plot destroy the Catholic Church.

 

[Contarini]

Maybe by the late 1530s he believed that (although there were still significant attempts at reunion after that), but clearly at the time of the Augsburg Confession in 1530 his efforts were focused on reconciliation with Rome and there is no evidence he believed he was wasting his time writing the Augsburg Confession. This website, albeit from a partisan Catholic blog, cites quite a bit of what (mostly) appears to be decent source material regarding Melanchthon’s correspondence from the time about the papacy.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/11/philip-melanchthon-in-1530-longs-for.html

Yes, but it’s interesting that the statement about the papacy comes in the letter to Campeggio. The letter to Camerarius only mentions the bishops. And even in the letter to Campeggio, he doesn’t offer the papacy a lot of power–he speaks vaguely of “the Roman see having its own honor” but clearly envisions authority within the German Church being wielded more by the local hierarchy.

You have to put the Reformation in the context of longstanding German grievances about the papacy and about Italy generally. Also, it’s easy to forget how local and regional the organization of the medieval Church was–Rome was not as directly involved as it is today. All of this adds up to the fact that Melanchthon could sincerely desire the preservation of traditional episcopal polity (as happened in England and Sweden) without necessarily seeing union with the papacy as a good. I said in my previous post that I am not claiming that Melanchthon was dishonest in expressing his willingness to accept the papacy in principle. I also think you are probably right that Melanchthon became more pessimistic about union with the papacy in the course of his work for unity during the 1530s–no doubt in large part precisely because overtures like the letter to Campeggio didn’t get anywhere.

Edwin

 

[Newbie2]

I reject your religion, but not you. .

Careful…we share certain things in common. Better to say that you reject many things about the religion, no?

 

[Peter_J]

I reject your religion, but not you.

This is an issue that came up on another recent thread. Namely, that some Protestants (some Evangelicals in particular) and some Catholics as well, consider Catholicism and Protestantism to be 2 different religions. Very sad, in my opinion. (It can also make conversation rather confusing, e.g. when someone says “I reject your religion.” Personally, I would never say that to a Protestant, because then I would be saying that I reject my own religion, i.e. Christianity.)

 

[JonNC]

This is an issue that came up on another recent thread. Namely, that some Protestants (some Evangelicals in particular) and some Catholics as well, consider Catholicism and Protestantism to be 2 different religions. Very sad, in my opinion. (It can also make conversation rather confusing, e.g. when someone says “I reject your religion.” Personally, I would never say that to a Protestant, because then I would be saying that I reject my own religion, i.e. Christianity.)

And even if you say you reject another Christian’s faith communion, you could br rejecting many of your own teachings. It might be best to say that where our communions disagree, I reject your church’s teachings.
Jon

 

[PJM]

=Newbie2;5073197]It occured to me that Lutheran theology seems to be closest to Catholic theology, more so than any other branch of Protestantism. Do you agree or disagree and why?

If you argree, is this because Lutheranism is a “first-generation” split and they retained many elements of Catholic theology?

I don’t have a firm opinion, although the idea of Ist. Seperation seems logical. Luther was not out to reinvent a New Religion, rather he hoped to make improvements to a model that he felt needed change. He modified not re-invented.

It appears from by restricted vantage point that the Protestant Revolutation took more aim at Luther and his ideas than they did for a while, Catholic belief and teaching.

That has certainly changed, and once again the RCC is Enemey #1.

From a Theological and faith practice point of view, it seems to me that perhaps the Methodtist (Traditional Methodist compared to true Roman Catholics) share the most in common belief and practice.

For example. I understand they accept the Seven Sacraments?

 

[grandfather]

This is an issue that came up on another recent thread. Namely, that some Protestants (some Evangelicals in particular) and some Catholics as well, consider Catholicism and Protestantism to be 2 different religions. Very sad, in my opinion. (It can also make conversation rather confusing, e.g. when someone says “I reject your religion.” Personally, I would never say that to a Protestant, because then I would be saying that I reject my own religion, i.e. Christianity.)

They are most definitely different religions. They hold different beliefs, some the same and some similar. A cat is not a dog. They both have fur, four legs, two eyes and tails. They are both mammals with similarities, but different animals. The same is true within the Protestant phenomenon itself. Anglicans and Calvinsts do not belong to the same religion, for example.

 

[Peter_J]

They are most definitely different religions.

Thank you for illustrating my point (to wit, that “some Catholics … consider Catholicism and Protestantism to be 2 different religions”) although to be honest I don’t think it was entirely necessary.

 

[JonNC]

They are most definitely different religions. They hold different beliefs, some the same and some similar. A cat is not a dog. They both have fur, four legs, two eyes and tails. They are both mammals with similarities, but different animals. The same is true within the Protestant phenomenon itself. Anglicans and Calvinsts do not belong to the same religion, for example.

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

817 Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279

Grandfather,
Unless I am reading this wrong, your position is not supported by the Catholic Catechism. You and I are brothers in Christ, joined in an admittedly imperfect unity through our trinitarian Baptism. We are both of the same religion - Christianity. And I’m honored to consider you a brother in Christ.
Jon

 

[Newbie2]

They are most definitely different religions. They hold different beliefs, some the same and some similar. A cat is not a dog. They both have fur, four legs, two eyes and tails. They are both mammals with similarities, but different animals. The same is true within the Protestant phenomenon itself. Anglicans and Calvinsts do not belong to the same religion, for example.

You seem to be using a very different definition of “religion” than the rest of us, and, as has been pointed out out, than the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps you are of a different “religion” than RCC?