No doubts about converting from LCMS

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11821470]
From the extreme brevity and vagueness of your response I concluded that you were not interested in providing a more complete explanation of your views. As for your views of the Sacraments, I appreciate them as far as they go.

And I have great appreciation for the Catholic and Orthodox views of the sacraments. As I have stated often, it is the sacraments that would keep me from virtually any protestant communion.

If you want to satisfy yourself as to Tillich’s qualifications, it would take you a couple of minutes to do so.

I know who he is. I had to read him in college, some 40 years ago.

Ok, so who, specifically speaks for Protestantism as a whole? If not Tillich then who? It seems to me that when I make comments about Protestantism in general, the next thing I know, somebody posts something about the Lutheran Confessions, AS IF they speak for Protestantism as a whole.

Why would expect someone to speak for protestantism? Protestant, in modern usage, is simply a catch term for most any non-Catholic western communion. Even in its original meaning, it had far more to do with a “protest” of government limits on religious practice than about the Catholic Church, per se. Reformed Christians are Reformed, or Calvinist. Baptists are Baptists, etc. There is no “Protestant Church”, but instead various communions with their particular roots, often directly within the Catholic Church, and not spin-offs from other communions, though that is true regarding later groups, usually coming out of Reformed settings.
So when you ask who speaks for protestantism, the answer is properly, its the wrong question. Who speaks for Baptists? Not Tillich, that I recall, and certainly not Sasse, or Pieper, or Piepkorn or Krauth. I would suspect that Baptists would be outraged at the thought. In the same way, Sproul, for instance, in no way speaks for Lutherans.

Indeed ALL Protestants are ‘set aside’, Lutherans and Anglicans included. ALL have reduced the number of Sacraments from 7 to some much smaller number. Some down to three, some to two, and of course some to zero. ALL Protestant’s, including Lutherans, have cast aside Sacraments.

Many Anglicans recognize seven sacraments. Lutherans, OTOH, recognize all of the 7 as important rights of the Church, but we have a narrower definition. It isn’t a casting aside, by any means.

I completely fail to understand how the comments of a Protestant Theologian about the Protestants and the Sacraments can be seen as irrelevant in a conversation about Protestants and the Sacraments. I do though understand how you don’t like what he said.

Because how protestants view the sacraments is not something I can defend. I cannot defend the Reformed view of the Eucharist, or the Baptist view of Baptism, or the American Evangelical view of auricular confession, and Holy Absolution. Therefore, how Tillich thinks of their views, while I might agree with him, isn’t particularly important to me.

As you wish – but I doubt it.

I’ve never put anyone on ignore, but I easily can choose not to respond.

I am shocked that you would bring up Augsburg. Would you like to revisit the comments made by Marius, Holborn, Schweibert, and Carroll about how the Augsburg Confession was basically an attempt to deceive and to cover over the differences between Catholicism and Lutheranism? Those quotes can be posted again if you like. Furthermore, I have to wonder whether your representation of Ratizinger’s quote is ‘accurate’, or if is more like the ‘fact’ that the Confessions do not speak of anything but the ‘office’ of the papacy.

This is more likely what I’ve come to suspect, rather than the dialogue about critical differences you mentioned earlier. That is, what seems more important to you is the polemics around the Augsburg Confession than what it says.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

What separates us Jon IS YOUR CONFESSIONS. Do you honestly believe that the RCC and the LCMS can reach FULL COMMUNION without a substantial and formal ‘revision’ of the FC, or at least those portions which are so blatantly anti-Catholic?

While it is in no way Anti-Catholic, the obvious answer is no, but you have it backwards: formal revision of anything in the BoC, and Trent for that matter, would happen because of the reaching of full communion, not in advance of it.

We HAVE discussed those portions of the FC and I don’t think that many people were satisfied with your representation of them in that it went directly against the clear sense of the text. In addition, it seems that your attitude is in opposition to your ordained leadership in the form of Preus and Fisk.

It may be in opposition to it. I don’t see the quotes previously provided here from Pastors Preus and Fisk properly reflect Lutheran doctrine, and Fisk’s comments about Jesuits, as I recall it, is outside both synodical statements, and our understanding of the 8th commandment. However, the clear sense of the text has been provided to you, from our synod statements. No pope’s Christianity is questioned. No Catholic’s Christianity is questioned.

“Balderdaah” – Is that like “Horsefeathers” with a British accent? Please don’t tell me you don’t like it when I tell you what you think or believe and then INACCURATELY tell me what I believe! I stand by what I said 100%, and like everything else I say, am more than willing to amplify with actual substance that backs up my point of view.

Horse-pucky, if you choose. You said I preferred to keep Luther in the shadows. I will point out again, Luther’s writings are right there, in the confessions, the Small and Large Catechisms. Those are his writings that we include in our teachings. Not in the shadows, and nor should they be.

That is the second time in a row you have avoided the question, which is again:

“How do you defend Luther’s ‘authority’ to change EVEN ONE Catholic Sacrament, let alone some number between 7 and 4?”

And here it is again, my answer. Melanchthon says it clearly, the authority by which we understand the meaning and numbering of sacraments:

But here they bid us also count seven sacraments. We hold that it should be maintained that the matters and ceremonies instituted in the Scriptures, whatever the number, be not neglected. Neither do we believe it to be of any consequence, though, for the purpose of teaching, different people reckon differently, provided they still preserve aright the matters handed down in Scripture. Neither have the ancients reckoned in the same manner. [But concerning this number of seven sacraments, the fact is that the Fathers have not been uniform in their enumeration; thus also these seven ceremonies are not equally necessary.] *

We believe it to be no consequence that people reckon the numbering differently. It is of little importance to us that you number seven. Prayer could be numbered as a sacrament - a rite instituted by God, to which a promise of grace is attached. And scripture reading.

The authority to number differently, and yet we maintain all of the rites, is sufficient for us, and consistent with the Fathers, who also were not uniform in their numbering.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11821474]

Jon, I would suggest that there is no answer you can provide to that question which does not seriously damage your position and THAT is why you won’t answer it.

If you thought there was you would be happy to provide it.

If I thought it would make a difference to you, not in your belief and Catholic faith, I have no interest in proselytizing any Catholic, perhaps I would cheerfully indulge it more.

That was not the point at all. Luther is in large part responsible for our doctrinal division and for the disunity of Western Christianity, not to mention the even worse disunity within Protestantism. He weakened Christianity for all time, but he DID NOT succeed in changing even ONE doctrine of the Church which Christ founded on earth for us ALL.

It certainly is the point, as Melanchthon makes clear. Not even the Fathers were uniform in their numbering. If you think one friar from the 1500’s has weakened Christianity forever, seems to indicate a lack of confidence in the Holy Spirit. I certainly do not hold that position about anyone, regardless of their heterodox errors.
If he didn’t change one doctrine, how did he weaken the Church? Luther was no saint. he had his flaws. So have a number of popes, not the least of which one of them in Luther’s time. And none of them, not one, has weakened Christ’s Church forever. Even those on both sides of the Great Schism did not weaken the Church forever. The Church Triumphant is not weakened. And any flaws in the human handling of His Church on Earth will be heeled at the Parousia.

Your Confessions bear the imprint of Martin Luther, including his hatred for the Catholic Church and Her teachings. They include the exact same terminology that Luther used to denigrate the Church and turn the uneducated common people of his time against the Church.

Sorry, Luther did not denigrate the Church. You can have your bias, but I ask again, what have you added to the conversation to lift the Church up?

Jon, you may have respect for the Catholic Church and I appreciate that,

I honestly view this as unlikely, as what you say next, what you say about my attitude (which I appreciate BTW), sheds doubt over your entire anti-Lutheran discourse. I suspect I am a bit of a threat to it.

but your denomination does not share your attitude AT ALL. Your attempts to portray your denomination as being as ‘ecumenical’ as you are have fallen flat, and as you have noted, not just with me. Since you wrote your post we have ‘received information’ thanks to Betsy. In that we now know that your Protestant denomination will not allow it’s pastors to pray with other Christians and in fact, other Lutherans. Astonishing! Two months ago I would have thought that that story was a joke. I am glad that I do not suffer from that bit of naiveté anymore, and in fact, at this point, would not be shocked by anything originating from the LCMS.

Sorry you feel that way. But, OTOH, it seems your bias was well in place long before you came to CAF.

Jon

 

[GraceofGod31]

I’m aware of the fellowship issue. I’m speaking to PUBLIC PRAYER.

Why is there this confusion among your leaders when this is appropriate in the issues such as 911 and Sandy Hook? The 911 situation was unbelievable with a Pastor getting permission then reprimanded, the Lutheran Hour pastor’s situation etc.

Why is it so difficult for your leaders to understand that their participation was against
Synod policy on unionism and syncretism.

Public Prayer to my synod is part of fellowship and is exactly why we do not participate in it with people outside our communion. Those examples you gave of LCMS pastors being reprimanded are why when you move from scriptural and historical doctrinal positions you end up in a gray area.

 

[Topper17]

Hi GG,

Thanks for your response.

Topper,

Luther was able to see Scripture giving authority to three of what the RCC calls sacraments.

The question of course was:

“How do you defend Luther’s ‘authority’ to change EVEN ONE Catholic Sacrament, let alone some number between 7 and 4?”

I very much appreciate your answer. As we move forward, please feel free to amend it or add to it in any way.

Just as a bit of background – When Luther ‘demoted’ at least 4 of the 7 Sacraments to ‘less than Sacramental status’, he was an Augustinian monk, a Catholic Priest, and a relatively young and inexperienced Professor of Theology with a relatively new Doctorate in Theology. In refuting the teaching of the Catholic Church as to number of Sacraments, he was actually disagreeing with A LOT of people. At the time there were easily many tens of millions of individual Catholics, probably many tens of thousands of Catholic Priests, who knows how many monks and nuns, and probably at least many hundreds of Catholic Theologians, many of which of course also had their Doctorate in Theology or something ‘like’ Scripture studies. (People who want to appear to engage with this argument can take issue with the above estimates and address nothing else.) There is also the issue of all of those like the above who had passed on. In other words, at the beginning of Luther’s ‘reformation’, he was all alone in his challenge to, not just the number of Sacraments, but several dozen other doctrinal issues also. This is why the matter of Luther’s ‘authority’ to challenge Catholic doctrine is so crucial.

In order for the Reformation to be viewed as having ‘gotten off on the right foot’, we would need to have a good sense that Luther was correct in all of those challenges to Catholic teaching.

Since you seem to have chosen to justify his Authority to define the number of Sacraments as being related to his being “*able to see Scripture giving authority to three of what the RCC calls sacraments”, *you are obviously appealing to Luther’s ability to interpret Scripture, in essence claiming that he was a Scriptural Exegete with no equal. Not only that, but he was a Scriptural Exegete whose “Exegetical powers” were superior to the COMBINED Exegetical ‘gifts’ of the entire Catholic Church up to and including his own day. That’s a pretty huge claim to make. In fact, that would be a claim which would defy logic and reason AND the idea that Scripture is perspicuous?

Was he REALLY that good, or, on the other hand, could it be that he was wrong and that ALL of those other people were actually correct?

If Luther was actually that much better than everybody else, and in fact that much better else then everybody else put together, then certainly there is going to be a TON of evidence to that ‘fact’. He will have to have proved himself with an astonishing academic career and will have gained an astonishing reputation from the very beginning of his career as a Professor. In to be considered to be THAT GOOD, he will have to have demonstrated an amazing Exegetical ‘Gift’ throughout his whole career, on issue after issue. In fact, he will have to have few if any Exegetical ‘black marks’ on his record. Truthfully, it would take a ‘record’ THAT ASTONISHING to justify rejecting or revising more than four dozen important Catholic doctrines.

How does Luther stand up to the requirements necessary to justify him as being THAT MUCH BETTER as an Exegete than everyone else?

There is the other possibility though that we must consider. That Luther, while correct in rebuking the Church for its wayward practices, was in fact, not correct to turn those objections to practices into a full on assault on the doctrinal teachings of the Church.

GG, with all that being said, do you think that Luther’s ‘career’ shows him to be THAT GOOD?

Just a reminder – you can amend or revise your statement at any time.

God Bless You GG, Topper

 

[GraceofGod31]

Hi GG,

Thanks for your response.

The question of course was:

“How do you defend Luther’s ‘authority’ to change EVEN ONE Catholic Sacrament, let alone some number between 7 and 4?”

I very much appreciate your answer. As we move forward, please feel free to amend it or add to it in any way.

Just as a bit of background – When Luther ‘demoted’ at least 4 of the 7 Sacraments to ‘less than Sacramental status’, he was an Augustinian monk, a Catholic Priest, and a relatively young and inexperienced Professor of Theology with a relatively new Doctorate in Theology. In refuting the teaching of the Catholic Church as to number of Sacraments, he was actually disagreeing with A LOT of people. At the time there were easily many tens of millions of individual Catholics, probably many tens of thousands of Catholic Priests, who knows how many monks and nuns, and probably at least many hundreds of Catholic Theologians, many of which of course also had their Doctorate in Theology or something ‘like’ Scripture studies. (People who want to appear to engage with this argument can take issue with the above estimates and address nothing else.) There is also the issue of all of those like the above who had passed on. In other words, at the beginning of Luther’s ‘reformation’, he was all alone in his challenge to, not just the number of Sacraments, but several dozen other doctrinal issues also. This is why the matter of Luther’s ‘authority’ to challenge Catholic doctrine is so crucial.

In order for the Reformation to be viewed as having ‘gotten off on the right foot’, we would need to have a good sense that Luther was correct in all of those challenges to Catholic teaching.

Since you seem to have chosen to justify his Authority to define the number of Sacraments as being related to his being “*able to see Scripture giving authority to three of what the RCC calls sacraments”, *you are obviously appealing to Luther’s ability to interpret Scripture, in essence claiming that he was a Scriptural Exegete with no equal. Not only that, but he was a Scriptural Exegete whose “Exegetical powers” were superior to the COMBINED Exegetical ‘gifts’ of the entire Catholic Church up to and including his own day. That’s a pretty huge claim to make. In fact, that would be a claim which would defy logic and reason AND the idea that Scripture is perspicuous?

Was he REALLY that good, or, on the other hand, could it be that he was wrong and that ALL of those other people were actually correct?

If Luther was actually that much better than everybody else, and in fact that much better else then everybody else put together, then certainly there is going to be a TON of evidence to that ‘fact’. He will have to have proved himself with an astonishing academic career and will have gained an astonishing reputation from the very beginning of his career as a Professor. In to be considered to be THAT GOOD, he will have to have demonstrated an amazing Exegetical ‘Gift’ throughout his whole career, on issue after issue. In fact, he will have to have few if any Exegetical ‘black marks’ on his record. Truthfully, it would take a ‘record’ THAT ASTONISHING to justify rejecting or revising more than four dozen important Catholic doctrines.

How does Luther stand up to the requirements necessary to justify him as being THAT MUCH BETTER as an Exegete than everyone else?

There is the other possibility though that we must consider. That Luther, while correct in rebuking the Church for its wayward practices, was in fact, not correct to turn those objections to practices into a full on assault on the doctrinal teachings of the Church.

GG, with all that being said, do you think that Luther’s ‘career’ shows him to be THAT GOOD?

Just a reminder – you can amend or revise your statement at any time.

God Bless You GG, Topper

Well first of all just because millions believe something is truth, that fact in of itself does not make it such. At the time of Luther how many of those priests and monks laid there eyes on actual copy of scripture on regular basis? And even if how many regular priests and monks were properly educated in Latin? The facts are pretty clear that the majority of Christendom by that point got proper exegesis directly from the Papacy.

Do I think Luther was better than the minority of theologians( minority being the small amount of people who could read and write about scripture compared to the overwhelming amount that were told what to believe)? No I don’t, nor do I believe he was the first to challenge the authority of the church. What is the difference maker in the time of Luther is Gutenberg’s printing press. When people were able to hear Scripture in their own language they could see what was wrong.

Was the church wrong for selling indulgences to the poor of Europe to fund St. Peter’s Basilica? You indicate it is possible he was correct for rebuking the church for “wayward practices” such as that example above. So can the Papal authority fail to teach truth?

Who is good? Not a single one of us, that is why appealing to the only good and true thing is Scripture. I don’t feel the need to amend my statement. However you may want to amend your statement of the second possibly of Luther being correct in rebuking the church, for that would mean the church was wrong. The entire authority for the Papacy rests on infallible exegesis, if wrong one time how can it be trusted?

God bless you brother

 

[AmbroseSJ]

GraceofGod31:

Who is good? Not a single one of us, that is why appealing to the only good and true thing is Scripture. I don’t feel the need to amend my statement. However you may want to amend your statement of the second possibly of Luther being correct in rebuking the church, for that would mean the church was wrong. The entire authority for the Papacy rests on infallible exegesis, if wrong one time how can it be trusted?

Wow, your post is so full of errors I hardly know where to begin, so I’ll just start with your quip above.

The entire authority for the Papacy does NOT rest on infallible exegesis, but the word of Jesus Christ Himself to Peter. If some people in the church are wrong sometimes, then yes, they should be corrected, but the Church itself is a Divine Institution, founded by Jesus Christ our King, and always guided by the Holy Spirit. Protestants commonly think of the church (any church) as a man-made institution which can not always be trusted. That is very intelligent of them too. But the Catholic Church is NOT that type of church. The Catholic Church is the oracle of Divine Revelation. It is the source for the Scriptures, and it’s infallible teachings represent Divine Revelation even now. We have Divine guidance, leadership and authority. THAT IS A MATTER OF DIVINE FAITH with us.

 

[MaryT777]

Wow, your post is so full of errors I hardly know where to begin, so I’ll just start with your quip above.

The entire authority for the Papacy does NOT rest on infallible exegesis, but the word of Jesus Christ Himself to Peter. If some people in the church are wrong sometimes, then yes, they should be corrected, but the Church itself is a Divine Institution, founded by Jesus Christ our King, and always guided by the Holy Spirit. Protestants commonly think of the church (any church) as a man-made institution which can not always be trusted. That is very intelligent of them too. But the Catholic Church is NOT that type of church. The Catholic Church is the oracle of Divine Revelation. It is the source for the Scriptures, and it’s infallible teachings represent Divine Revelation even now. We have Divine guidance, leadership and authority. THAT IS A MATTER OF DIVINE FAITH with us.

:tiphat:
Mary.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response. My tendency is to respond to everything that people write to me. Sometimes it gets a little long. When I am in dialogue with people who generally do the same it can spiral into massive but very fragmented responses. Yours of three pages is an example. It is out of control and losing focus. I am going to post a complete response and then hit the ‘reset button’. After that I am going to pick and choose the parts of our dialogue that are the most important. I have little time and there is much that needs to be said. You can have the last word if you like in this phase, but I am going to try to keep our dialogue out of the weeds.

Why would expect someone to speak for protestantism? Protestant, in modern usage, is simply a catch term for most any non-Catholic western communion. Even in its original meaning, it had far more to do with a “protest” of government limits on religious practice than about the Catholic Church, per se. Reformed Christians are Reformed, or Calvinist. Baptists are Baptists, etc. There is no “Protestant Church”, but instead various communions with their particular roots, often directly within the Catholic Church, and not spin-offs from other communions, though that is true regarding later groups, usually coming out of Reformed settings.
So when you ask who speaks for protestantism, the answer is properly, its the wrong question. Who speaks for Baptists? Not Tillich, that I recall, and certainly not Sasse, or Pieper, or Piepkorn or Krauth. I would suspect that Baptists would be outraged at the thought. In the same way, Sproul, for instance, in no way speaks for Lutherans.

If we follow this ‘logic’, nobody would be able to speak to the trends within Protestantism as a whole. The term a employed refers to non-Catholic, non-EO traditions born out of the Reformation and it’s ‘successors’. What I find fascinating is that so many ‘Protestants’ prefer to be thought of as being ‘set aside’, as opposed to ‘those Protestants’, whom they generally look down upon, at least doctrinally, whether they admit it or not.

Many Anglicans recognize seven sacraments. Lutherans, OTOH, recognize all of the 7 as important rights of the Church, but we have a narrower definition. It isn’t a casting aside, by any means.

Already this reminds me of the discussion about Luther downgrading the 4 NT books into a category which is not to be used to determine doctrine. That is clearly a downgrading regardless of how you chose to describe it. By the same token Luther very clearly DID downgrade at least 4 Sacraments to something less than “full Sacraments” in the Catholic sense. In other words, he took it on his own personal, private, individual authority to alter the significance and importance of 4 full-fledged Catholic Sacraments.

You can claim that you ‘practice‘ these 4 in some manner so ‘its all good’, but there is absolutely NO doubt that Luther and Lutherans have reduced the 4 to a lesser significance. There is absolutely no reason to dance around interminably on this. It is a fact and no amount of parsing can change it. You can offer alternative definitions if you like but then that only further proves my point about Luther changing SO MUCH, including definitions.

Because how protestants view the sacraments is not something I can defend. I cannot defend the Reformed view of the Eucharist, or the Baptist view of Baptism, or the American Evangelical view of auricular confession, and Holy Absolution. Therefore, how Tillich thinks of their views, while I might agree with him, isn’t particularly important to me.

That may be true, but it was Luther who set the precedent for using his Private Interpretation to establish whatever number of Sacraments ‘feels good’. As such it is Luther who is to answer for the plethora of different combinations and definitions of Sacraments.

This is more likely what I’ve come to suspect, rather than the dialogue about critical differences you mentioned earlier. That is, what seems more important to you is the polemics around the Augsburg Confession than what it says.

Jon, you can impugn my motives or my tactics in whatever manner suits your purposes. What you seem not to be able to understand though is that I might not be as interested in discussing what you want to discuss as you are. You seem to automatically assume that I want to discuss the intricacies of the Lutheran Confessions. So far, the Lutheran Confessions have been shown to extremely anti-Catholic, which to me and more than half of Christianity, makes it the doctrines of man only. What you refer to as ‘polemics’ surrounding the Augsburg doesn’t accurately describe the facts of the matter. Would you like to see those quotes again about how the Lutherans were attempting to fool the Catholics into thinking that they were not that far apart doctrinally? This is not to ask whether you see the exact same thing happening here on the threads.

BTW, I noticed that you did not step up and post the Ratzinger quote about how the Augsburg Confession is ‘Catholic’. That confirms my suspicions.

To Be Continued

 

[Topper17]

While it is in no way Anti-Catholic, the obvious answer is no, but you have it backwards: formal revision of anything in the BoC, and Trent for that matter, would happen because of the reaching of full communion, not in advance of it.

Jon, Catholics ‘get a say’ about what is ‘anti-Catholic’ and what is not. It’s like Jews having a say as to whether Luther’s horrific writings against them are anti-Semitic. If the Confessions calling the Pope (NOT the office) the anti-Christ, plus all of the stuff about the ‘adherents’, the Mass, etc, etc. – are NOT ‘anti-Catholic’, then you tell me, what possibly could be?

Please help me to understand this because I really want to understand your position here. Are you saying that you think that the Catholic Church would, could, or SHOULD accept the LCMS into full communion with Rome WITHOUT all of those anti-Catholic (yes, Anti-Catholic) statements in your Confessions? And are you really suggesting that what – that the Catholic Church should accept the LCMS into full communion with the expectation that AFTER that full communion the LCMS would jettison those offensive passages? Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church would, could or SHOULD trust, your leadership, people like Preus, to ‘do the right thing’ after full communion has been achieved?

For the record, this offers a LOT more latititude than would be realistic on either side. Plus from what I have seen, if you personally proposed, in person, such a thing to people like Harrison and Preus, my guess is that they would throw you out on your ear and excommunicate you for being THAT UNLCMS. In other words, I think that your idea about ‘after reaching full communion’ is completely unrealistic. In addition, given what I have learned over the last 4 months or so about the anti-Catholicism that is so deeply embedded into the LCMS, there is NO reason to believe that your leadership has ANY inclination towards reunion.

In the same manner as the discussion about those 4 downgraded NT books, I don’t think there is a compelling argument for why, specifically and exactly, Lutherans have decided to lock in on the 3 you ended up with. This is of course knowing that not all Lutherans have the same set of Sacraments. Any explanation that you could offer could also be used by people to justify their own unique list of Sacraments or non-Sacraments. Again, Luther set that precedent and it is being used to come up with conclusions with which Lutherans disagree.

Jon, you are aware aren’t you that the anathemas of Trent do not apply to you or to any living person. Right?

It may be in opposition to it. I don’t see the quotes previously provided here from Pastors Preus and Fisk properly reflect Lutheran doctrine, and Fisk’s comments about Jesuits, as I recall it, is outside both synodical statements, and our understanding of the 8th commandment. However, the clear sense of the text has been provided to you, from our synod statements. No pope’s Christianity is questioned. No Catholic’s Christianity is questioned.

Jon, what I am talking about here is the reality of the situation of the situation, not how you wish it would be. Preus, Fisk, and for that matter, Harrison, are the ones who are authorized to officially represent the various positions of the LCMS. Sadly you are not in a position to bend the curve.

Maybe this brings us to the crux of it Jon. You claim that the statements of Fisk and Preus do not properly represent Lutheran doctrine. Yet they are ordained as LCMS ministers in the case of Preus, the #2 man in your denomination. As I have said before, you don’t rise to that position without correctly representing the positions of your organization. Thus, it appears that it is you who is not correctly representing the positions of the LCMS. What Preus says is pretty much automatically official LCMS ‘doctrine’. How do you reconcile your position to that of your denomination?

Horse-pucky, if you choose. You said I preferred to keep Luther in the shadows. I will point out again, Luther’s writings are right there, in the confessions, the Small and Large Catechisms. Those are his writings that we include in our teachings. Not in the shadows, and nor should they be.

Pucky sounds equally ‘fecal’. In fact, a complete understanding of Luther requires more than just the Catechisms. Other situations need to be included to arrive at a ‘full understanding’ of Luther, don’t you think?

And here it is again, my answer. Melanchthon says it clearly, the authority by which we understand the meaning and numbering of sacraments:

I often have a problem obtaining answers to the questions that I have actually asked, but get a lot of answers to the questions that people wish I had asked. I didn’t ask for an ‘after the fact’ explanation from Melanchthon. In fact, when Luther (didn’t) post his 95 Theses, he may not have known that Philip existed. Melanchthon was not even of legal drinking age and was not an influence on Luther at the time that he began to seriously challenge Catholic doctrines and dogma. Thus he cannot be a part of the answer about Luther’s authority when he first began his revolt. Luther began his ‘reformation’ totally on his own, and as such the answer to the question has to address Luther specifically and nobody else (Solo Marto). This is not to say that he didn’t gain support, but then Protestant history proves nothing if not that virtually anybody with virtually ANY set of doctrinal teachings WILL gain a following.

To Be Continued

 

[Topper17]

If I thought it would make a difference to you, not in your belief and Catholic faith, I have no interest in proselytizing any Catholic, perhaps I would cheerfully indulge it more.

It certainly is the point, as Melanchthon makes clear. Not even the Fathers were uniform in their numbering. If you think one friar from the 1500’s has weakened Christianity forever, seems to indicate a lack of confidence in the Holy Spirit. I certainly do not hold that position about anyone, regardless of their heterodox errors.

If he didn’t change one doctrine, how did he weaken the Church? Luther was no saint. he had his flaws. So have a number of popes, not the least of which one of them in Luther’s time. And none of them, not one, has weakened Christ’s Church forever. Even those on both sides of the Great Schism did not weaken the Church forever. The Church Triumphant is not weakened. And any flaws in the human handling of His Church on Earth will be heeled at the Parousia.

What else could you say in again refusing to answer the most important question before us? Could you possibly, as a Lutheran, acknowledge the damage that Luther did to the unity of Western Christendom? Apparently not.

Sorry, Luther did not denigrate the Church. You can have your bias, but I ask again, what have you added to the conversation to lift the Church up?

Luther did not “denigrate the Church”? How you could possibly say that knowing what you know about Luther is completely beyond me. As for ‘bias’, you would have us believe that YOU don’t have one after that statement? What I am doing here is defending the Church that Luther denigrated and the Church that the Lutheran Confessions continue to denigrate to this day. That’s what.

I honestly view this as unlikely, as what you say next, what you say about my attitude (which I appreciate BTW), sheds doubt over your entire anti-Lutheran discourse. I suspect I am a bit of a threat to it.

Thanks for the chuckle. If it suits your purposes to question my sincerity, then do so. We all know that when people challenged Luther, he cursed them, called them liars, and then claimed that they were knowingly agents of Satan. It’s a ‘fine tradition’.

Sorry you feel that way. But, OTOH, it seems your bias was well in place long before you came to CAF.

For the record, I was not all than enamored with Lutheranism when I came here in November, but I didn’t have any ‘feeling’ (a very Protestant term) for the LCMS one way or the other. Since then though, after becoming much more familiar with the Lutheran Confessions AND the positions of your leadership regarding the Catholic Church, I have developed an “informed opinion” in regards to the LCMS.

When you say, ‘Sorry you feel that way’ you make it sound as if I am way off base to consider the Lutheran Confessions and the LCMS to be officially anti-Catholic and that only my bias would have me think such a thing. This would suggest that one of us is not viewing the evidence objectively.

Like I said Jon. This dialogue needs to be ‘reset’. Please feel free to respond to as much of his as you choose. But in the interest of paring it down to the ‘essentials’ I am going to focus on those aspects of our dialogue which I feel to be the most important.

For the record, I do not have any interest in being dragged into the weeds to discuss the minutia of any particular aspect of whatever number of Sacraments this or that communion practices. My interest is in taking a 30,000’ view of the situation in order to determine, not only what happened, but also who is ‘responsible’, which then actually COULD lead to what to ‘do about it’.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[spina1953]

Wow, your post is so full of errors I hardly know where to begin, so I’ll just start with your quip above.

The entire authority for the Papacy does NOT rest on infallible exegesis, but the word of Jesus Christ Himself to Peter. If some people in the church are wrong sometimes, then yes, they should be corrected, but the Church itself is a Divine Institution, founded by Jesus Christ our King, and always guided by the Holy Spirit. Protestants commonly think of the church (any church) as a man-made institution which can not always be trusted. That is very intelligent of them too. But the Catholic Church is NOT that type of church. The Catholic Church is the oracle of Divine Revelation. It is the source for the Scriptures, and it’s infallible teachings represent Divine Revelation even now. We have Divine guidance, leadership and authority. THAT IS A MATTER OF DIVINE FAITH with us.

Hi Ambrose SJ: I agree with you! I would like to point out that Graceof God31’s statement that funding St. Peter’s Basilica with indulgences with the truth of Scripture makes no sense ;it is like comparing apples and pears and has nothing to do with Scripture and what it teaches. Just because a Pope says or does one things does not mean that as a man it somehow is truth, when in fact when the Pope speaks on the truth of Scripture, it is by the Holy Spirit which is much different than when he speaks or does something as a human being and not being guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Novocastrian]

Already this reminds me of the discussion about Luther downgrading the 4 NT books into a category which is not to be used to determine doctrine. That is clearly a downgrading regardless of how you chose to describe it. By the same token Luther very clearly DID downgrade at least 4 Sacraments to something less than “full Sacraments” in the Catholic sense. In other words, he took it on his own personal, private, individual authority to alter the significance and importance of 4 full-fledged Catholic Sacraments.

I’d be careful with this line of argument. Before the dogmatic definitions of the later middle ages, lots of people you would recognise as orthodox Catholics held to a different numbering of the sacraments. St. John Damascene, if I remember correctly, spoke of only two!

 

[GraceofGod31]

What else could you say in again refusing to answer the most important question before us? Could you possibly, as a Lutheran, acknowledge the damage that Luther did to the unity of Western Christendom? Apparently not.

Luther did not “denigrate the Church”? How you could possibly say that knowing what you know about Luther is completely beyond me. As for ‘bias’, you would have us believe that YOU don’t have one after that statement? What I am doing here is defending the Church that Luther denigrated and the Church that the Lutheran Confessions continue to denigrate to this day. That’s what.

Thanks for the chuckle. If it suits your purposes to question my sincerity, then do so. We all know that when people challenged Luther, he cursed them, called them liars, and then claimed that they were knowingly agents of Satan. It’s a ‘fine tradition’.

For the record, I was not all than enamored with Lutheranism when I came here in November, but I didn’t have any ‘feeling’ (a very Protestant term) for the LCMS one way or the other. Since then though, after becoming much more familiar with the Lutheran Confessions AND the positions of your leadership regarding the Catholic Church, I have developed an “informed opinion” in regards to the LCMS.

When you say, ‘Sorry you feel that way’ you make it sound as if I am way off base to consider the Lutheran Confessions and the LCMS to be officially anti-Catholic and that only my bias would have me think such a thing. This would suggest that one of us is not viewing the evidence objectively.

Like I said Jon. This dialogue needs to be ‘reset’. Please feel free to respond to as much of his as you choose. But in the interest of paring it down to the ‘essentials’ I am going to focus on those aspects of our dialogue which I feel to be the most important.

For the record, I do not have any interest in being dragged into the weeds to discuss the minutia of any particular aspect of whatever number of Sacraments this or that communion practices. My interest is in taking a 30,000’ view of the situation in order to determine, not only what happened, but also who is ‘responsible’, which then actually COULD lead to what to ‘do about it’.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Not anti-catholic, rather anti-roman catholic heterodoxy!!!

 

[GraceofGod31]

Hi Ambrose SJ: I agree with you! I would like to point out that Graceof God31’s statement that funding St. Peter’s Basilica with indulgences with the truth of Scripture makes no sense ;it is like comparing apples and pears and has nothing to do with Scripture and what it teaches. Just because a Pope says or does one things does not mean that as a man it somehow is truth, when in fact when the Pope speaks on the truth of Scripture, it is by the Holy Spirit which is much different than when he speaks or does something as a human being and not being guided by the Holy Spirit.

So I would concur with you on that point in the sane way I believe all men sinful. However said Pope was speaking on the “truth” of Scripture (I use parenthetical around truth because we don’t believe Scripture supports purgatory or indulgences) So regardless of selling said indulgences, the people were told the indulgence took time off a loved one’s stay in purgatory. So was he speaking as a man or through the Holy Spirit about that dogma? If the answer is as a man then were those loved one’s really given an indulgence? And if he was speaking through the Holy Spirit why the need to sell them?

How can one distinguish in a closed system such as that office when he is speaking or doing from either position if the Pope himself defines what is dogma. I think if were to ask the parishioners at the time they were being offered said indulgences, they were not debating if was dogma or the Pope acting as a man otherwise the Basilica may have remained unfinished!!!

 

[Topper17]

I’d be careful with this line of argument. Before the dogmatic definitions of the later middle ages, lots of people you would recognise as orthodox Catholics held to a different numbering of the sacraments. St. John Damascene, if I remember correctly, spoke of only two!

 

[AmbroseSJ]

So I would concur with you on that point in the sane way I believe all men sinful. However said Pope was speaking on the “truth” of Scripture (I use parenthetical around truth because we don’t believe Scripture supports purgatory or indulgences) So regardless of selling said indulgences, the people were told the indulgence took time off a loved one’s stay in purgatory. So was he speaking as a man or through the Holy Spirit about that dogma? If the answer is as a man then were those loved one’s really given an indulgence? And if he was speaking through the Holy Spirit why the need to sell them?

How can one distinguish in a closed system such as that office when he is speaking or doing from either position if the Pope himself defines what is dogma. I think if were to ask the parishioners at the time they were being offered said indulgences, they were not debating if was dogma or the Pope acting as a man otherwise the Basilica may have remained unfinished!!!

You asked several very sensible questions. I can offer a couple of simple Catholic answers.

1. The Divine Truthfulness of Indulgences: True. This is not a pope-defined doctrine, but a Church defined doctrine = Scripture + Sacred Tradition.
2. The Pope can make infallible statements about Doctrine, but there are many qualifications. First of all it must already be in agreements with Church Teaching. IOW, he can’t spring a doctrine out of thin air. Secondly it must be taught as definitive for the entire Universal Church. The only undisputed examples of such papal infallible doctrines are the Assumption and Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. Catholics believe these doctrines with Divine Faith.

So Catholics are not in the position, which you seem to have implied, of believing someone with Divine Faith who can just invent stuff to suit his purposes.

 

[MaryT777]

Not anti-catholic, rather anti-roman catholic heterodoxy!!!

I admire your honesty. You reflect the truth of confessional Lutheranism. It is not at all remotely Catholic friendly. In your eyes we are considered a heterodox Church body.

Let us know why the other LCMS posters don’t express the doctrine with the same honesty as you do.

Mary.

 

[Novocastrian]

I admire your honesty. You reflect the truth of confessional Lutheranism. It is not at all remotely Catholic friendly. In your eyes we are considered a heterodox Church body.

Let us know why the other LCMS posters don’t express the doctrine with the same honesty as you do.

Mary.

I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive. You think that we’re heterodox, but I’m sure you’d describe yourself as friendly towards Protestants!

 

[Topper17]

Hi GG,

Thanks for your response.

Well first of all just because millions believe something is truth, that fact in of itself does not make it such. At the time of Luther how many of those priests and monks laid there eyes on actual copy of scripture on regular basis? And even if how many regular priests and monks were properly educated in Latin? The facts are pretty clear that the majority of Christendom by that point got proper exegesis directly from the Papacy.

Do I think Luther was better than the minority of theologians( minority being the small amount of people who could read and write about scripture compared to the overwhelming amount that were told what to believe)? No I don’t, nor do I believe he was the first to challenge the authority of the church. What is the difference maker in the time of Luther is Gutenberg’s printing press. When people were able to hear Scripture in their own language they could see what was wrong.

Was the church wrong for selling indulgences to the poor of Europe to fund St. Peter’s Basilica? You indicate it is possible he was correct for rebuking the church for “wayward practices” such as that example above. So can the Papal authority fail to teach truth?

Who is good? Not a single one of us, that is why appealing to the only good and true thing is Scripture. I don’t feel the need to amend my statement. However you may want to amend your statement of the second possibly of Luther being correct in rebuking the church, for that would mean the church was wrong. The entire authority for the Papacy rests on infallible exegesis, if wrong one time how can it be trusted?

God bless you brother.

I think the story of Luther’s debate with John Eck at Leipzig in 1519 worth summarizing.

Luther and John Eck debated for almost a week. At the conclusion, virtually everyone agreed that Luther had been defeated by Eck. The interesting thing as it relates to our current discussion is WHY.

It wasn’t because Eck was a greater intellect than Luther, although he was. It wasn’t because Eck was a better debater than Luther, although he was. It wasn’t because Eck had a better reputation as a Scholar than Luther, although he did. Eck schooled Luther at Leipzig because the ‘knowledge’ of the facts that Luther brought to Leipzig was faulty. In other words, he didn’t have his facts straight on several key issues, which led him to misunderstand the role of ‘Authority’ in the historic Church.

If you need confirmation that Luther was defeated at Leipzig all you have to do is ask yourself how much you know about it. Honestly, if there was ANY way that Protestantism could possibly represent Luther as having won, you would know ALL about it, from the Protestant ‘perspective’ of course. But since he lost what was probably the most important debate in Christian history, you are probably like the vast majority of Protestants and have never heard of it.

In fact, this debate, contains the rough outline of all of the basic disputes that we still have to this day.

The lesson here is that when you begin with a misunderstanding of the facts, you are likely to come to the wrong conclusions.

God Bless You GG, Topper