Lutheran's

[gcnuss]

ctos,

You wrote (to paleolutheran):

You don’t have to answer every point made. And, you can feel free to invite your Lutheran friends to join in the discussion. Wouldn’t they like to help convert some Catholics?

I hope you don’t believe that we Lutherans (or, at least, this Lutheran) participate in this forum for the purpose of converting Catholics. I do hope that through discussion we can begin to understand one another better, even if it doesn’t end with us agreeing.

 

[gcnuss]

ctos,

Again, writing to paleolutheran:

Why are we eager to understand exactly how God works? This seems to be a difficulty for Protestants.

We would reverse this statement, saying that Catholics have difficulty with letting things remain mysteries. Why else would the Church resort to Aristotelian metaphysics to explain the mystery of the Real Presence? Is it not enough to admit that human understanding fails when confronted with this divine mystery? Is it not enough to trust the words of our Lord, “this is my body, given for you,” and, “this cup is the new covenant in my blood, shed for you and for (many/all) that’s a subject for another thread] for the forgiveness of sins?”

 

[ctos]

ctos, I hope you don’t believe that we Lutherans (or, at least, this Lutheran) participate in this forum for the purpose of converting Catholics. I do hope that through discussion we can begin to understand one another better, even if it doesn’t end with us agreeing.

I was just kidding. Invite your pals.

 

[ctos]

We would reverse this statement, saying that Catholics have difficulty with letting things remain mysteries.

We call it the mysterium fidei.

Why else would the Church resort to Aristotelian metaphysics to explain the mystery of the Real Presence?

Faith seeks understanding, and some of our authors, who are pre-Luther btw! sought to borrow from valid paradigms of reason in other fields. The Church doesn’t assume that pagan or other philosophy is incorrect or invalid. It is perfectly comfortable looking around at the world to see what might be good. And think about it: don’t the accidents remain the same, while the substance changes? Doesn’t that make perfectly good sense? It doesn’t cease to be a divine mystery. And after all we say it is a mystery. I for one have no idea how God does it. I’m just glad He does!

You know, this very issue, the way the Church clarifies, expands, enforces, and so on: it really is the point of contention, as a whole. All the specific issues are really just instances of the overall paradigm.

 

[pablo_rafael]

Being a Catholic who converted from Lutheranism I am well aquainted with both religions. It is my opinion that the things we have in common far outweigh the differences. The differences in understanding communion are mostly semantics; the basic idea is the same. Lutheran believe in the sacraments though the definition of the word sacrament is a little different. The liturgy is very much the same in style though the Lutherans have a tendency to be more old-fashioned in musical selections. Both churches value the Word of God.

There are some differences, but of all protestant churches (And not all Lutherans consider themselves protestant) only the Anglicans are possible closer in my opinion. I have heard Lutheran services called “Catholic Light”; I think that is rather amusing. The Lutheran church can be a transitional church between protestant and Catholic because it has some characteristics of both.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

 

[Paleolutheran]

We call it the mysterium fidei.

Faith seeks understanding, and some of our authors, who are pre-Luther btw! sought to borrow from valid paradigms of reason in other fields. The Church doesn’t assume that pagan or other philosophy is incorrect or invalid. It is perfectly comfortable looking around at the world to see what might be good. And think about it: don’t the accidents remain the same, while the substance changes? Doesn’t that make perfectly good sense? It doesn’t cease to be a divine mystery. And after all we say it is a mystery. I for one have no idea how God does it. I’m just glad He does!

You know, this very issue, the way the Church clarifies, expands, enforces, and so on: it really is the point of contention, as a whole. All the specific issues are really just instances of the overall paradigm.

Ctos,

I understand that there were pre-Luther theologians who wished to explain the mysteries using pagan paradigms, such as St. Aquinas (thanks for letting me get by with not answering everyone’s points btw…you and I seem to be discussing the most and it was just getting way to intense! I don’t have many Lutheran friends anymore, most went East), but as I had earlier quoted St. Chrysostom I believe concerning that we should not seek to understand the mysteries, I still fail to see why the church would do this. “Faith seeks understanding,” yes, but shouldn’t true faith also understand that God has made the wisdom of this world foolish (1 Corinthians 1:20)?

What do the fathers say concerning the wisdom of the world? St. Basil the Great told his students to take the honey from the world as it was planted by God so that men may know of the coming of the Lord, but leave the rest. That is why the Orthodox and Lutherans will use science and reason for apologetics, but we try to not let it affect out doctrine, while Rome builds doctrine from reason and science. I thought it interesting that one Roman source I looked up concerning the biography of Luther made the accusation that he went overboard into mysticism to develop his “theology of the cross,” yet this is no different from the ascetics, who spend much of their time in prayer, fasting, and eventually service to others in the form of teaching. Many of these men and women have followed a life in pursuit of mystical knowledge which in some cases God has chosen to reveal to them.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[rr1213]

I think this is my last active post. I do not have the time to continuously discuss this with four people and anymore who might chime in without some assistance. I do hope you all understand.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

Don’t feel that you need to respond to everything. Respond to what you find interesting. Everything you have listed above (much of what I agree with btw) has been addressed in numerous different threads in these forums. Believe me, Catholics have a response for each item…some convincing, some not so convincing. Take a look around the threads and you’ll see what I mean. There is nothing new under the Sun.

 

[Suudy]

1. Innovations against Scripture. I was asked to show one, I will show several. I. Forced cellibacy of priests.

This is a discipline of the Church, not dogma. In fact, as I am sure you are aware, there exist married priests. It is, however, not the norm. But is does happen. And I think if you look at the historical record, the Church has allowed married men to be come priests, but never allowed unmarried priests to become married men.

Discipline is changeable, dogma is not. I think that we as Catholics, when we refer to Sacred Tradition, refer to dogmas taught by the Church. You will find no dogmas that contradict Sacred Scripture.

The Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos. While some reason would be used to accept that she was purified when Christ was conceived within her, the Roman explanation is not found in Scripture and even contradicts passages which refer to Mary as needing a savior and all men falling short of the glory of God.

Careful, you are sounding very much like a Bible Only Christian. The “Roman explanation” does not need be be found in Scripture to be true.

However, I know Catholic Answers has a tract wherein they say that Mary still had the chance of inheriting Original Sin, she did not. The problem with that view though, is that the Scriptures say all HAVE sinned, not all MIGHT sin.

I think a better way to put it is Mary would have inherited original sin. Not that there was a chance, but a certainty, had not she been preserved from it. As Pope Pius IX put it, “by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race” Mary was preserved. Thus she still needed a savior. And I submit that the “all” in Romans 3:23 refers to all who are born with the stain of original sin.

III. Papal Infallibility. St. Peter messed up in matters of doctrine (Council of Jerusalem). Again, coupled with the rejection of this teaching by the Orthodox Church, it stand to reason that the church has not always taught this practice, and therefore it is most likely an innovation. Even the Orthodox will admit that their Ecumenical Patriarch is not infallible in matters of doctrine.

I’m sure you have heard this before, but we believe that Catholics do not profess that papal infallibility means on is free from error. And to be an infallible teaching the Pope “proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.” I understand this to mean that there are two aspects: a definitive act and it pertains to faith or morals. What Peter did at the Council of Jerusalem was not a “definitive act” thus was not promulgating an infallible doctrine.

Not every opinion (or teaching) the Pope gives is infallible. Is Humane Vitae an infallible teaching? Pope Paul VI did not claim to be speaking ex cathedra, thus it isn’t infallible (though there are those who argue it is).

So I don’t see where, in these examples, you show a contradiction between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. And I still submit there is no contradiction.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

1. Innovations against Scripture. I was asked to show one, I will show several. I. Forced cellibacy of priests. In 1 Timothy Scripture says that a man wishing to be an “overseer” (the term which can also be translated “bishop”) must be the husband of only one wife. This indicates that clergyman can be married, yet this gift is limited to those who are currently priests. In his first letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul (in chapter 7) claims that marriage is not as good a gift as celibacy…and this much Lutherans admit. However, he talks of those who cannot control their passions as marrying. Nowhere does he instruct this congregation that their priests and bishops may not marry, even though much of this letter has to do with practices that the priest or bishop would be able to fix if he has control over matters of practice and doctrine.

Priests aren’t “forced” to be celibate, it is a vow that they take freely before their ordination. Only in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is this a discipline. The Latin Rite makes up one rite of the Church, and while being the biggest, isn’t the only one and isn’t the only valid discipline in the church. The Eastern Catholics are allowed to be married before ordination, but not after and certainly not after their wife has died. The same is true of the Eastern Orthodox.

Paleolutheran:

II. The Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos. While some reason would be used to accept that she was purified when Christ was conceived within her, the Roman explanation is not found in Scripture and even contradicts passages which refer to Mary as needing a savior and all men falling short of the glory of God.

Of course Mary needed a savior! Where does the Church proclaim different?

Paleolutheran:

However, I know Catholic Answers has a tract wherein they say that Mary still had the chance of inheriting Original Sin, she did not. The problem with that view though, is that the Scriptures say all HAVE sinned, not all MIGHT sin. Compounded by the fact that the Orthodox Church also denies this belief make it an innovation both against the Scriptures and the church catholic (and yes, I know Luther held a private view on this which is against mine, but we are able to disagree with opinions of our doctors if they are against Scripture).

The Orthodox deny Original Sin altogether. As far as I know, Lutherans do not. They maintain, however, that Mary remained free of personal sin.

Paleolutheran:

III. Papal Infallibility. St. Peter messed up in matters of doctrine (Council of Jerusalem). Again, coupled with the rejection of this teaching by the Orthodox Church, it stand to reason that the church has not always taught this practice, and therefore it is most likely an innovation. Even the Orthodox will admit that their Ecumenical Patriarch is not infallible in matters of doctrine.

St. Peter is the shepherd of the Church, the First of the Apostles, and this doesn’t mean that the Pope cannot err, it just means he can’t err in the matters of faith and morals while acting as the leader of all Christians. St. Peter wasn’t making a decision which was i. binding upon all Christians, ii. defining a matter of faith and morals.

 

[Paleolutheran]

Priests aren’t “forced” to be celibate, it is a vow that they take freely before their ordination. Only in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is this a discipline. The Latin Rite makes up one rite of the Church, and while being the biggest, isn’t the only one and isn’t the only valid discipline in the church. The Eastern Catholics are allowed to be married before ordination, but not after and certainly not after their wife has died. The same is true of the Eastern Orthodox.

Of course Mary needed a savior! Where does the Church proclaim different?

The Orthodox deny Original Sin altogether. As far as I know, Lutherans do not. They maintain, however, that Mary remained free of personal sin.

St. Peter is the shepherd of the Church, the First of the Apostles, and this doesn’t mean that the Pope cannot err, it just means he can’t err in the matters of faith and morals while acting as the leader of all Christians. St. Peter wasn’t making a decision which was i. binding upon all Christians, ii. defining a matter of faith and morals.

Semper,

The fact that I cannot be a priest in Roman Catholicism and still be married is one of the main reasons I did not become Roman Catholic! It is not a choice one makes, it is a rule forced upon an office. I am aware of the Eastern practice, that is why I did not mention it. Even they, however, prevent their bishops from being married, and this they must decide before their ordination. That is why there is a difference between the “black clergy” and the “white clergy.”

Eastern Orthodox do not reject Original Sin, they reject Augustinian Original Guilt, and they greatly reduce the extent that sin has affected man’s will. If Mary was sinless, why would she even need a savior??? Save me from…um…I’ll think of something later? She still had the effects of sin, the Orthodox will admit she had Original Sin…and that is why they celebrate her Dormition before her Assumption.

On the Pope: I understand what you are saying you believe about the Pope being infallible in matters of faith and morals…I’m asking WHERE IS IT WRITTEN in the ancient church or Scripture??? How would you even connect “The gates of Hell will not prevail against the church” with “feed my sheep?” Only one apostle is made by you to currently be the head of the church, rather than all of the apostles and their disciples.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Semper,

The fact that I cannot be a priest in Roman Catholicism and still be married is one of the main reasons I did not become Roman Catholic! It is not a choice one makes, it is a rule forced upon an office. I am aware of the Eastern practice, that is why I did not mention it. Even they, however, prevent their bishops from being married, and this they must decide before their ordination. That is why there is a difference between the “black clergy” and the “white clergy.”

But… you could be a Catholic priest. There’s like 24 different rites of the (Roman) Catholic Church. The Latin (Roman) Rite makes up just one.

Paleolutheran:

Eastern Orthodox do not reject Original Sin, they reject Augustinian Original Guilt, and they greatly reduce the extent that sin has affected man’s will. If Mary was sinless, why would she even need a savior??? Save me from…um…I’ll think of something later? She still had the effects of sin, the Orthodox will admit she had Original Sin…and that is why they celebrate her Dormition before her Assumption.

Protestants are s’posed to be Sola Scriptura, it’s this thing Martin Luther conjured up which is pretty much what Protestants claim to subscribe to today. So, based of Sola Scriptura, show me one instance of the Mother of God sinning in the New Testament canonical scriptures. Also, we Catholics believe Mary died! Betchya didn’t know that… but if you read Ineffabilis Deus, then you will see it with your own two eyes. No Orthodox will admit that Mary had Original Sin, Original Sin is a different concept in the East. In the East they’ll tell you that Mary was born just like everybody else, but that she remained personally sinless throughout her own life through the Grace of God. Also, St. Mary needed a savior because she was a creature. Adam and Eve were created sinless, and had they not sinned, we wouldn’t have needed Jesus to come down from the Right Hand of God to redeem us all.

 

[rr1213]

Protestants are s’posed to be Sola Scriptura, it’s this thing Martin Luther conjured up which is pretty much what Protestants claim to subscribe to today. So, based of Sola Scriptura, show me one instance of the Mother of God sinning in the New Testament canonical scriptures.

It is an argument from the negative which proves nothing. There is nothing in the New Testament explicitly saying that RR1213 sins either but, I assure you, I most certainly do. (Yet, I do fall under that admonishment from Romans–“all have sinned”–that Catholics are so good at explaining away).

C’mon, Semper Fi. This is a strawman…and you’ve been around long enough to know that it is a strawman. You don’t appreciate Protestants making similar specious arguments about Catholic teachings, so don’t return the favor.

 

[Paleolutheran]

But… you could be a Catholic priest. There’s like 24 different rites of the (Roman) Catholic Church. The Latin (Roman) Rite makes up just one.

Protestants are s’posed to be Sola Scriptura, it’s this thing Martin Luther conjured up which is pretty much what Protestants claim to subscribe to today. So, based of Sola Scriptura, show me one instance of the Mother of God sinning in the New Testament canonical scriptures. Also, we Catholics believe Mary died! Betchya didn’t know that… but if you read Ineffabilis Deus, then you will see it with your own two eyes. No Orthodox will admit that Mary had Original Sin, Original Sin is a different concept in the East. In the East they’ll tell you that Mary was born just like everybody else, but that she remained personally sinless throughout her own life through the Grace of God. Also, St. Mary needed a savior because she was a creature. Adam and Eve were created sinless, and had they not sinned, we wouldn’t have needed Jesus to come down from the Right Hand of God to redeem us all.

Semper,

I was unaware of the different rites. While I will not become Roman Catholic for other reasons, I would like to have some resources on what you spoke of.

The Orthodox claim: “Humans (Orthodox usually teach) automatically inherit Adam’s corruption and mortality, but not his guilt: they are only guilty in so far as by their own free choice they imitate Adam.”-Orthodox Church, Kalistos Ware pg. 224. The same author indicates on pg. 259 and 260 that while the Orthodox come close to accepting the Immaculate Conception as it is taught in the West, they now reject it since it. They believe she had Original Sin because of her death, but was free of Actual Sin by the grace of God acting by synergy. This is why I thought that the Romans deny that Mary died, since you deny she had Original Sin. It should be worth pointing out however, that only her ever-virginity and title of Theotokos are dogma. The rest is from the church’s inner tradition. Ott (Book 3, part III, Chapter 2?) seems to indicate that her death was not from punishment for sin, but from a result of her mortality and her accpeting to follow the law of death since her son experienced it as well. I am unsure as to why this distinction is made though, since her ascension is mostly talked about in the West, not her dormtion. One of the reasons the Orthodox reject the Immaculate Conception as the West understands it is because it separates her from us as humans. That she was mortal they hold to, that she was a creature they hold to, but they also hold that she was affected by Original Sin.

BTW, we are Sola Scriptura because we test everything with the Holy Scriptures, not that we GET everything from the Scriptures. The Scriptures are sufficient with regards to matters of faith/salvation/morality. Luther was mad that traditions and authority were getting equal footing with what was clearly God’s Word and which seemed in both theory and practice to be violating it which even the church recognizes is impossible (truth cannot contradict truth). The Lutheran Churches I know still give statements on their interpretation of Scripture, but you are allowed to disagree with them and still remain Lutheran. Acceptance of the three creeds and the Small Catechism is again, what is required from members, but priests need to accept all 9 Confessional documents.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[timjp77]

Malachi4U,

The Lutheran’s believe in consubstantiation. I do not believe in transubstantiation. I believe about the Holy Eucharist the same way that the Lutheran’s do and that is I believe in consubstantiation.

Albert

Then Albert, I suggest you change your profile to reflect that you’re not Catholic

 

[AlegreFe]

Then Albert, I suggest you change your profile to reflect that you’re not Catholic

Albert is banned from CAForums. That post is two years old.

 

[GKC]

PL,

If you did happen to be Lutheran clergy, and married, and wished to unite with Rome, you might apply under the Pastoral Provision. It’s not limited to Episcopalians.

Awkward way to plan your career/marriage, though.

GKC

 

[Paleolutheran]

PL,

If you did happen to be Lutheran clergy, and married, and wished to unite with Rome, you might apply under the Pastoral Provision. It’s not limited to Episcopalians.

Awkward way to plan your career/marriage, though.

GKC

Well, as I said before, it is one of the major reasons, but not the only one.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Paleolutherean,

The answer to your question

the question to bear in mind is not just whether the Lutheran church is apostolic, but is the Roman Church from the Reformation till now? What is Papal Primacy and when, if it were used in the early church would we have vastly different doctrine than we do?

can be found in the bible in numberous places:

Matthew 16 : 13-16

“16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 26 : 16-20

"16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make the diciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

John 6 : 48-51 55-59

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which cometh down out of heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: yea and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven: not as the fathers ate, and died; he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

Luke 22 19-20

“19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, [even] that which is poured out for you.”

The authority to bind and loose sins was given to Peter by Jesus directly. Again Jesus told the gathered 11 to go forth and teach them all that I have commanded and that he would be with them until the end of time. Jesus made a clear distinction between Peter, the first Pope, and the disciples who were the first Bishops.

In the above passages Jesus was unequivical. He knew that Peter and the Apostles were motals and would someday die. When Jesus said he would be with them until the end of the age he meant the Church. That is why Peter and the Apostles were careful to appoint successors.

In John 6 and Luke 22 Jesus was again unequivocal; “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him.” At the Last Supper he said, “This IS my body…this is my blood”, this do in rememberance of me". He said this to the twelve (notice he did not exclude Judas). Jesus didn’t say, this is bread and also my body, he didn’t say this represents my body or this is symbolic of my body, or this is my body until our supper is over…he said this IS…

I believe the above establishes the Papacy and Apostolic Succession. I’ve seen nothing that would change this. More importantly I see nothing in Scripture or elsewhere that supports Luther’s apostacy. I think Luther rightly began calling for reform regarding the giving of Indulgences but he quickly changed from trying to resolve abuses to attacking the core faith. To me he looks like just another heretic.

Iowa Mike

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Semper,

I was unaware of the different rites. While I will not become Roman Catholic for other reasons, I would like to have some resources on what you spoke of.

The Orthodox claim: “Humans (Orthodox usually teach) automatically inherit Adam’s corruption and mortality, but not his guilt: they are only guilty in so far as by their own free choice they imitate Adam.”-Orthodox Church, Kalistos Ware pg. 224. The same author indicates on pg. 259 and 260 that while the Orthodox come close to accepting the Immaculate Conception as it is taught in the West, they now reject it since it. They believe she had Original Sin because of her death, but was free of Actual Sin by the grace of God acting by synergy. This is why I thought that the Romans deny that Mary died, since you deny she had Original Sin. It should be worth pointing out however, that only her ever-virginity and title of Theotokos are dogma. The rest is from the church’s inner tradition. Ott (Book 3, part III, Chapter 2?) seems to indicate that her death was not from punishment for sin, but from a result of her mortality and her accpeting to follow the law of death since her son experienced it as well. I am unsure as to why this distinction is made though, since her ascension is mostly talked about in the West, not her dormtion. One of the reasons the Orthodox reject the Immaculate Conception as the West understands it is because it separates her from us as humans. That she was mortal they hold to, that she was a creature they hold to, but they also hold that she was affected by Original Sin.

BTW, we are Sola Scriptura because we test everything with the Holy Scriptures, not that we GET everything from the Scriptures. The Scriptures are sufficient with regards to matters of faith/salvation/morality. Luther was mad that traditions and authority were getting equal footing with what was clearly God’s Word and which seemed in both theory and practice to be violating it which even the church recognizes is impossible (truth cannot contradict truth). The Lutheran Churches I know still give statements on their interpretation of Scripture, but you are allowed to disagree with them and still remain Lutheran. Acceptance of the three creeds and the Small Catechism is again, what is required from members, but priests need to accept all 9 Confessional documents.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

Brother Chris,

One more thing worth mentioning is that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined as infallible before Papal Infallibility itself was defined by the First Vatican Council.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3c.htm

 Addressing a jubilant crowd of more than 500,000 people packed into St. Peter's Square,     Pope Pius XII solemnly defined in *Munificentissimus Deus* on Nov. 1, 1950, that the     "*Immaculate Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, having completed the course of her     earthly life*, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." Although the solemn     definition may have been at the midpoint of the 20th century, the belief in the Assumption     of our Blessed Mother exemplifies the dynamism of revelation and the Church's ongoing     understanding of it as guided by the Holy Spirit.

As for the Byzantine Catholics www.byzantines.net/ and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Rite for more of the Catholic Rites.