P
Peter_J
Guest
Yes, but still it would be nice to have more to go on than one person’s opinion. (I’m not trying to start an argument. I’m “just saying”.)
- Status
J
JohnSix68
Guest
I understand that you may want more than one person’s opinion. No problem. However, this best selling series has helped many others and me come to the Catholic Church. As a former LCMS member who once worked closely with a District Vice President for many years, I recommend this CDseries to all Lutherans and non-Lutherans. I also enjoyed his “Calvin, Inside The Protestant Mind” CD series. saintjoe.com/products.asp?dept=4&pagenumber=7&sort_on=&sort_by= or
saintjoe.com/prodinfo.asp?number=8512
Shalom
L
LutheranDK
Guest
LCMS has absolution/confession as a sacrament???
Whoa…that was news to me! On what grounds?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
The LCMS as a constitution does not regard Absolution as a Sacrament; some individual congregations refer to it as a Sacrament.
LCMS has absolution/confession as a sacrament???
Whoa…that was news to me! On what grounds?
In either case it is regarded as a means of grace.
L
LutheranDK
Guest
Ah, ok, yes, now I can breathe more easily
Means of grace - indeed. Sacrament - no.
S
stbruderklaus
Guest
Actually, if you confer with the Augsburg Confession, and the Apology, several references are made to Confession and Absolution as a Sacrament. The problem is that Lutherans have not been consistent in this regard.
Further, if you spend some time with Melancthon in the Apology, you will find that the Lutheran theologians were not terribly interested in debating the number of the Sacraments-- they were willing, if push came to shove, to number them as seven with the Romans. However, they did insist that there was a hierarchy among the Sacraments, and that Baptism and the Eucharist were at the top of the proverbial heap. I believe you will find similar sentiments in the Roman communion.
As for this video series being suggested, I can’t help but wonder why the polemics against Luther become the foundation for why people either come or go from the Lutheran communion(s). Luther, by his own hand, did not want to be the measure of doctrine or confession-- he wrote a great deal, both good and ill, but at the end of his life, he was much more interested in people reading Holy Scripture than anything that flowed from his pen.
Lutheran Christians are defined by their confessions. I find it strange that Roman apologetics often prefer to focus, like this CD series, on the person of Luther than on the Lutheran Confessions-- particularly the Augsburg Confession, as the centerpiece to the Book of Concord. Is it perhaps a latent acknowledgement that Lutheran confessional Christianity has a validity that Rome is slowly coming to acknowledge? The Augsburg Confession is, after all, the root document from which the ecumenical dialogues are moving.
Cheers,
Further, if you spend some time with Melancthon in the Apology, you will find that the Lutheran theologians were not terribly interested in debating the number of the Sacraments-- they were willing, if push came to shove, to number them as seven with the Romans. However, they did insist that there was a hierarchy among the Sacraments, and that Baptism and the Eucharist were at the top of the proverbial heap. I believe you will find similar sentiments in the Roman communion.
As for this video series being suggested, I can’t help but wonder why the polemics against Luther become the foundation for why people either come or go from the Lutheran communion(s). Luther, by his own hand, did not want to be the measure of doctrine or confession-- he wrote a great deal, both good and ill, but at the end of his life, he was much more interested in people reading Holy Scripture than anything that flowed from his pen.
Lutheran Christians are defined by their confessions. I find it strange that Roman apologetics often prefer to focus, like this CD series, on the person of Luther than on the Lutheran Confessions-- particularly the Augsburg Confession, as the centerpiece to the Book of Concord. Is it perhaps a latent acknowledgement that Lutheran confessional Christianity has a validity that Rome is slowly coming to acknowledge? The Augsburg Confession is, after all, the root document from which the ecumenical dialogues are moving.
Cheers,
C
Contarini
Guest
Actually, it’s a latent acknowledgment that most “Roman apologetics” is the work of shallow propagandists who are out of step with the best theology of their own Communion.
Edwin
R
ralphinal
Guest
Would you not say “amature” or at least “Lay” there? THose who actually work for the Church today tend to be different.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I have noticed that, and yes it is rather peculiar. But I also note that when people want to criticize the RCC, they often focus not on statements from the Ecumenical Councils or from the Catechism, but on say an article in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia or something said by Fr. John Corapi or Dr. Scott Hahn.
S
stbruderklaus
Guest
Indeed-- that’s a common failing in non-Roman circles. As a bit of defense, I’d offer that most non-Roman Christians simply don’t understand what is and is not authoritative in the Roman communion. We know enough to say that the Pope and the Church are the final authority for them, but that can a be very confusing labyrinth to navigate for those outside their communion. Lutherans tend to look at Rome and ask, “what is their confessional position?” Conversely, I think Romans tend to look at Lutherans and ask, “where is your pope?”
I know that when we tend to discuss Roman issues in our parish or side groups, I try to bring people back to their Catechism, so that we can understand them in their own words. It tends to help keep the conversation from drifting down poorly articulated roads, such as, “Well I heard this pope did/said/taught this…,” or “I know this catholic who thinks/does/says…” Roman Christians can be just as out of step with their formal theology, as Lutherans can be with ours.
While I know that Martin Chemnitz provided what is considered the benchmark analysis of the Council of Trent, I think it would be interesting 450 or so years later now, to examine side by side the Roman Catholic Catechism and the Lutheran Book of Concord. They are about the same length, and hold similar positions for each communion’s people. I’ve always found apologetics based on confessional positions much more fulfilling, than the apologetics which focus on individuals. Of course, the more irenic parts of the BOC are better for ecumenical dialogue than the polemical sections.
I wonder, though, whether even this kind of attempt would bring much fruit. Lutherans tend to see the proclamation of doctrine as a closed issue, and Romans tend to see Church as retaining an ongoing prophetic role which can declare new and binding dogma. I believe it was CS Lewis, an Anglican, who said that the primary reason he could not convert to Rome was less about the current teachings of the Roman communion, but that to do so would bind him to whatever Rome decided to declare down the road… and subscribing to future “infallible” pronouncements of newly binding dogmas was something he couldn’t in good conscience do. I’m quite simpathetic with his quandary.
Perhaps until Rome comes around, at least to the point of the Eastern Orthodox, who refuse to declare anything new outside a truly ecumenical council, even the comparison of confessions might be ill fated over time. For example, what good is it for Lutherans and Romans to agree today on the doctrine of justification as expressed in the JDDJ, when Romans are willing to say that if the Pope tosses it out tomorrow, our previous agreement is gone? From a Lutheran perspective, it’s almost as if Rome wants to retain the ability to spark another Reformation revolt, by declaring through the office of one Patriarch something binding upon every other bishop in Christendom, with or without their subscription.
Anyway, I’m rambling… I would just like to see more apologetics based on confessional positions, rather than personal attacks. Even if that ground could be shakey over time, at least it seems more satisfying than the other.
Grace and peace–
I know that when we tend to discuss Roman issues in our parish or side groups, I try to bring people back to their Catechism, so that we can understand them in their own words. It tends to help keep the conversation from drifting down poorly articulated roads, such as, “Well I heard this pope did/said/taught this…,” or “I know this catholic who thinks/does/says…” Roman Christians can be just as out of step with their formal theology, as Lutherans can be with ours.
While I know that Martin Chemnitz provided what is considered the benchmark analysis of the Council of Trent, I think it would be interesting 450 or so years later now, to examine side by side the Roman Catholic Catechism and the Lutheran Book of Concord. They are about the same length, and hold similar positions for each communion’s people. I’ve always found apologetics based on confessional positions much more fulfilling, than the apologetics which focus on individuals. Of course, the more irenic parts of the BOC are better for ecumenical dialogue than the polemical sections.
I wonder, though, whether even this kind of attempt would bring much fruit. Lutherans tend to see the proclamation of doctrine as a closed issue, and Romans tend to see Church as retaining an ongoing prophetic role which can declare new and binding dogma. I believe it was CS Lewis, an Anglican, who said that the primary reason he could not convert to Rome was less about the current teachings of the Roman communion, but that to do so would bind him to whatever Rome decided to declare down the road… and subscribing to future “infallible” pronouncements of newly binding dogmas was something he couldn’t in good conscience do. I’m quite simpathetic with his quandary.
Perhaps until Rome comes around, at least to the point of the Eastern Orthodox, who refuse to declare anything new outside a truly ecumenical council, even the comparison of confessions might be ill fated over time. For example, what good is it for Lutherans and Romans to agree today on the doctrine of justification as expressed in the JDDJ, when Romans are willing to say that if the Pope tosses it out tomorrow, our previous agreement is gone? From a Lutheran perspective, it’s almost as if Rome wants to retain the ability to spark another Reformation revolt, by declaring through the office of one Patriarch something binding upon every other bishop in Christendom, with or without their subscription.
Anyway, I’m rambling… I would just like to see more apologetics based on confessional positions, rather than personal attacks. Even if that ground could be shakey over time, at least it seems more satisfying than the other.
Grace and peace–
- Status