No doubts about converting from LCMS

[Goya]

Hi Goya,

Actually, it wasn’t ‘nothing’.

If you want to know who God revealed these things to, and ‘what Prophet’, the answer is the same as for many other questions – Martin Luther. He was very clear on the matter. The following quotes are from Hartman Grisar, “Luther, Vol. IV", pgs. 334, 333

“I am he to whom God first revealed it.” Luther, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8 ; Erl. ed., 28, p. 212.

“And now, dear Germans, I have told you enough; you have heard your prophet; God grant we may obey His words.” 1 " Werke," Woim. ed., 15, p. 30

Grisar’s 6 Volume Biography of Luther is excellent. He is one of only a few Catholic authors that I post.

These are not isolated pronouncements but only two of several dozen. Most of the rest of them are extremely explicit.

God Bless You Goya, Topper

That’s truly staggering–I was not aware of these claims. I wonder how many of our separated brethren are even aware of this. For years, I have stated that "…Luther didn’t even pretend or claim to be a prophet…’, citing as the most glaring omission of his theology, the absence of so much as a claim to divine revelation.

…and now I see that my assessment has been way off.

So the question is no longer where is their claim for divine revelation, but rather…

DO YOU ACCEPT MARTIN LUTHER AS A PROPHET?

…and I guess it is now perfectly appropriate for me to refer to Mr. Luther, as ’the Prophet Martin Luther.'

At least he’s now squarely on the same footing as that other famous prophet--the Prophet Mohamed.

Thank you for the information, kind sir.

 

[steido01]

We have taken steps in great length at ecumenism. As it is witnessed with the documents I referred to you in regards to difficult statements made by the Church in the past.

Indeed, and it is celebrated on both sides - even though we still have a long way to go, doctrine-wise.

However, I have not seen any official documentation from the LCMS or Lutheranism in general - addressing the Smalcald articles.

And please don’t get me wrong, but when I ask for official I do mean official - not blog posts or opinions, but the hierarchy of the LCMS and/or LWF or any other authoritative body for Lutheranism.

Sure. The FAQ answer posted earlier in this thread, although brief, was a direct statement from the LCMS Commission on Theology. It accurately portrays the view of the Synod, which is the same as Lutheranism has always taught. The Lutheran objections to the Office of the Papacy are, and have always been understood to be, conditional. Every Lutheran, whether they believe [some/none/all] the marks of anti-Christ to still apply to today’s Papal Office or not, at least understands them to be conditional – dependent on the application of the office, not the men holding it.

If you’re looking for some grand statement with a Latin title, I think it’s important to bear in mind the difference between our communions when it comes to polity. The Evangelical Lutheran Church, in general, and the LCMS, in particular, do not function under the same paradigm that your communion does, in that our Ministerium doesn’t dictate doctrine hierarchically as does your Magisterium. Instead, each of our bishops/pastors are beholden to Holy Scripture as reflected in the Confessions, and as agreed to in Synod.

If you’re looking for additional proof of our intentions toward ecumenism, then I think our actions speak quite loudly. We wouldn’t participate in ecumenical prayer services with Roman Catholics if we didn’t think them Christian. Nor would our presiding bishop stand with “our Catholic friends” if we weren’t trying to work together. Lastly, I would hope that our patient witness on these boards shows that Lutherans are rational, regular, beer-drinking creatures who -without compromising on unmovable doctrine- are willing to work together where we can and acknowledge that situations change.

 

[steido01]

The difficulty, Jon, is that Lutherans are in fact pulling farther and farther away with their liberal doctrines which allow openly gay men and lesbians to be bishops of their Church. Perhaps the LCMS continues to resist, but YOU KNOW it is only a matter of time before the LCMS aligns itself with ECLA, Just as the Anglicans, and every other Episcopal denomination has caved in to the current social mores.

A matter of time, eh? I suppose it’s a matter of time before all Roman Catholics start agreeing with Roman Catholic Womenpriests, too? Methinks you don’t know us Confessional Lutherans so well.

The Protestant churches will never stand up to social pressures, because the very foundation and first principle of Protestantism is grounded in private judgment. They have doctrines, but they can be “reconciled” with today’s popular culture.

We disagree.

I believe that tendency to reconciliation will NEVER be in the direction of Catholicity. That is why Lutherans should be realistic when it comes to what their Church REALLY stands for. IOW, when at a crossroad, which direction will it move? Toward Catholicity or toward the current social customs and mores?

Perhaps, in the long run, your view will prove correct. But if the past is any indicator of what is to come, I am not worried. In the LCMS, we suffered such a crossroads in the 1960’s-70’s (as did your communion, which continues to battle the same influences). At great pain, we chose to remain Confessional. As Western social customs and morals continue to decline, I see a world where we traditional Christians are bound closer together - and possibly not by choice. We have a common Enemy, and it is not each other.

 

[Peter_J]

A matter of time, eh? I suppose it’s a matter of time before all Roman Catholics start agreeing with Roman Catholic Womenpriests, too?

Thought you were going to say “It’s just a matter of time until Rome agrees with Lutheranism and declares that Luther was the real Catholic and Pope Leo was the real Protestant.”

Kidding.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

A matter of time, eh? I suppose it’s a matter of time before all Roman Catholics start agreeing with Roman Catholic Womenpriests, too? Methinks you don’t know us Confessional Lutherans so well.

This has been taken care of:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

 

[JonNC]

=AmbroseSJ;11766092]The difficulty, Jon, is that Lutherans are in fact pulling farther and farther away with their liberal doctrines which allow openly gay men and lesbians to be bishops of their Church.

Curiously, that is why the dialogue seems to be turning toward ILC member synods, because we haven’t drifted.

Perhaps the LCMS continues to resist, but YOU KNOW it is only a matter of time before the LCMS aligns itself with ECLA, Just as the Anglicans, and every other Episcopal denomination has caved in to the current social mores.

I more concerned about the influence of “church growth” evangelicalism than liberalism, quite frankly. But ether way, if the synod does succumb to either, my choices become basically two (and you know which two I mean).

The Protestant churches will never stand up to social pressures, because the very foundation and first principle of Protestantism is grounded in private judgment. They have doctrines, but they can be “reconciled” with today’s popular culture.

That’s not the Lutheran approach, but, like a said above…

I believe that tendency to reconciliation will NEVER be in the direction of Catholicity. That is why Lutherans should be realistic when it comes to what their Church REALLY stands for. IOW, when at a crossroad, which direction will it move? Toward Catholicity or toward the current social customs and mores?

I think I’ve made my preference known.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Goya;11766441]

= you maintaining that the PAPACY = the antichrist–OR you acknowledging that the PAPACY was never the ‘antichrist’.

One or the other; you simply cannot have it both ways. Not you, nor any protestant, no matter how slickly you would seek to spin it.

Antichrist, in this sense, means apposed to Christ’s teaching. I don’t like the term for the reasons I’ve mentioned. My issue remains as it has been; that being the disagreement within the Church regarding the universal jurisdiction of the pope.

If you believe–as the LCMS obviously still does–that the 'pope is the antichrist’–please own it; we can go from there, and see how well the allegation actually stands up to biblical and historical scrutiny.

I believe as I have stated; the teaching that
*The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom]. *
is heterodox, or at least not held by all of the patriarchs and thus, disputed.

-]2] Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.]. /-]
is moot

*3] And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth. *
is also heterodox.
These are the basis of the charge, and without an agreement between our communions on the issue, or an agreement between the CC and the EO on the issue, it stands.

Now, if your contention is that the Pope, at the time of the Reformation was in fact the antichrist (’…historically contingent…’)…let’s sort through that–and figure out when the pope supposedly ceased being the antichrist–(or if not, then I guess that puts you squarely back in the LCMS camp–but at least we’ll know where you stand, rather than continuing with this charade of you mis-representing the LCMS as some benign, charitable, ecumenical, well-meaning group of Christians, who actually seek to work with their Catholic counterparts).

Again, Lutherans do not believe any one pope is or was the Antichrist. Pope Leo X was not THE Antichrist, and Pope Francis is not THE Antichrist, nor were any for or since Leo X. That is not now, nor has ever been the stance of Lutheranism. It is not an LCMS stance, but one of pan-Lutheranism, based on primarily the three charges above, that those teachings are opposed to the historic teaching of scripture and the Church.

I do not mis-represent the LCMS when I say uncategorically that we are an ecumenically minded catholic communion that seeks genuine unity. The efforts to work with Catholics is in various settings, including the pro-life movement, the movement against the current regime’s attempts to dismantle you religious liberty and ours with the HHS Mandate and our successful stance to protect the ministerial exception against the EEOC.
The LCMS has and continues to participate in Lutheran - Catholic dialogue, most recently signing the joint document, “The Hope of Eternal Life”.

So here’s the point, you can believe what others say we believe, or you can believe what we say we believe. If you choose what others say, then you have no complaint when non-Lutheran protestants claim you are not Christian, or that you worship the Blessed Virgin, or you worship crackers, because you are then as wrong about us as they are about you. I have been on CAF for a long time, and I have often defended the CC here when these charges have arisen against you, and will continue to do so. I would hope to get the same courtesy in return.

Well, let’s see how true your claim here is.

And yours, as well.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

This is plainly untrue, if one understands that the charge (that the pope is antichrist) is directly linked to teaching, historically conditional.

I understand the ‘historically conditional’ argument and I don’t buy it any more than any other Catholic here seems to. So far it seems that there has be a lot of focus on the ‘pope as the antichrist’, but that it not the only issue which reveals the true nature of the Official position of the Lutheran church. Please note that I am not speaking of the opinions of individual Lutherans or the positions of this or that Lutheran denomination, but the Official Teaching of the Lutheran church as seen in it’s Confessional Documents. I very much appreciate that you disagree with what your Confessions ‘appear to say’, but the real issue is what they say.

What do the Lutheran Confessional documents say about the Catholic Church Itself?

The Smalcald Articles, Part II, Article II: Of the Mass.

“1] That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious. For it has been held that this sacrifice or work of the Mass, even though it be rendered by a wicked [and abandoned] scoundrel, frees men from sins, both in this life and also in purgatory, while only the Lamb of God shall and must do this, as has been said above. Of this article nothing is to be surrendered or conceded, because the first article does not allow it.”

OK, so the Catholic Mass is the ‘greatest and most horrible abomination’. This has nothing to do with the ‘office of the papacy’ but everything to do with how Catholics worship.

“5] ……. I wager [Thus it will come to pass] that the Mass will then collapse of itself, not only among the insane [rude] common people, but also among all pious, Christian, reasonable, God-fearing hearts; and that the more, when they would hear that the Mass is a [very] dangerous thing, fabricated and invented without the will and Word of God.”

Luther wagers – and so that means it will come to pass?

Given that this is the official teaching of the Lutheran church, should Catholics be willing to concede that the Mass is something evil so as to achieve union with Lutherans?

“7] Fifthly. But since the Mass is nothing else and can be nothing else (as the Canon and all books declare), than a work of men (even of wicked scoundrels), by which one attempts to reconcile himself and others to God, and to obtain and merit the remission of sins and grace (for thus the Mass is observed when it is observed at the very best; otherwise what purpose would it serve?), for this very reason it must and should [certainly] be condemned and rejected.”

I would really love for Lutherans and Catholics to be in full communion someday, but it appears that they only way that this is going to happen would be if the Lutherans formally and publically repeal some of these official statements, because I can say, for a fact, that the Catholic Church will NEVER give up the Mass.

“10] Thus we are and remain eternally separated and opposed to one another. They feel well enough that when the Mass falls, the Papacy lies in ruins.”

Ok, I think I have the picture. And who is responsible for writing this ‘stuff’? None other than Martin Luther, and by the way, this ‘stuff’ is MILD by comparison with a lot of what he wrote about the Church.

“And the point is that they (Catholics) allege that we have fallen away from the holy church and set up a new church. This then is the answer: since they themselves boast that they are the church, it is for them to prove that they are. If they can prove it with a single reason (I don’t ask for more), then we shall give ourselves up as prisoners, willingly saying, “We have sinned, have mercy upon us.” But if they cannot prove it, they must confess (whether they like it or not) that they are not the church and that we cannot be heretics since we have fallen away from what is not the true church. Indeed, since there is nothing in-between, we must be the church of Christ and they the devil’s church, or vice versa. Therefore it all turns on proving which is the true church.” Against Hanswurrst, Luther Works, Vol. 41, pg. 193

This quote fascinates me. Luther challenges the 1500 year old founded at Pentecost Roman Catholic Church, and then demands that the Church prove that it is the Church? As opposed to what, the one that bears his name? Wouldn’t it make more sense that Luther prove that HIS Church was ‘The Church’? After all, HE was the one who was teaching doctrines which had NEVER been taught before in Christian history.

The one thing I would agree with Luther on is that, yes, “it all turns on proving which is the true church.” The Catholic Church and the Lutheran church cannot BOTH be teaching Christian doctrine correctly.

There is nothing ‘historically conditional’ about these particular Confessional statements Or the Luther quote.

Personally, I believe that we SHOULD be able to tell which one is correct (presuming for the moment that one is). It would also seem logical that the key to figuring out which one is “The One”, would be found in the arguments that each side made against the other when the dispute first began, which of course means that a study of Martin Luther is necessary.

Do you think that the history of the early Reformation supports the idea that Luther was right to challenge so many well accepted doctrines?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Peter_J]

Curiously, that is why the dialogue seems to be turning toward ILC member synods, because we haven’t drifted.

Indeed. I don’t doubt that there are Catholics who favor the ELCA, since they don’t regard us as “heterodox”, but many of us find it much more meaningful that the LCMS has stuck to traditional Lutheranism.

 

[JonNC]

Indeed. I don’t doubt that there are Catholics who favor the ELCA, since they don’t regard us as “heterodox”, but many of us find it much more meaningful that the LCMS has stuck to traditional Lutheranism.

Hi Peter,
The problem with the ELCA is they don’t consider anyone heterodox anymore.
OTOH, they have provided a path forward in Lutheran/Catholic dialogue for the LCMS/ILC synods to follow. And the hope is we won’t be a moving target like the ELCA/LWF is.

Despite what is being posted by some of our more strident Catholic siblings, the LCMS is dedicated, now more than ever it seems, to improving ties with communions that have views similar to ours, particularly sacramental communions that closely share our moral values. We have ongoing talks with the Anglican ACNA, in hopes that they don’t fold on women’s ordination, but the most obvious partners in what I’ve described here is the Catholic Church and EO. For example,
todayscatholicnews.org/2012/04/lutheran-church-missouri-synod-offers-solidarity-with-catholics-defending-religious-liberty/

We also recognize that theologically, our stance has to be with other sacramental communions, hence this:
firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/02/roman-catholics-and-confessional-lutherans-explore-deeper-ties

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JonNC:

Despite what is being posted by some of our more strident Catholic siblings, the LCMS is dedicated, now more than ever it seems, to improving ties with communions that have views similar to ours, particularly sacramental communions that closely share our moral values. We have ongoing talks with the Anglican ACNA, in hopes that they don’t fold on women’s ordination, but the most obvious partners in what I’ve described here is the Catholic Church and EO. For example,

It is encouraging to have allies on the various battle fronts of infidelity, despite our deep differences. But it should also be born in mind that non-denominational fundamentalist evangelicals are also allies on that front. We might also add the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. So despite our differences, we DO share a moral view.

I think what your strident Catholic siblings are trying to get across is that the differences are still profound. One might say that ELCA has a better chance of coalescing with Catholicity than the hardened LCMS Lutherans who continue to hold to the original 16th century doctrines without admitting any change. On the one hand, they preserve the Sacramental principle, but on the other they confirm the original errors against Catholicity without abatement. (such as the Papacy is the Antichrist, Salvation by Faith alone, and Scripture (using private judgement) as the only rule of faith.) For these reasons, especially the Protestant abhorrence of religious authority beyond the private judgement interpretation of Scripture, they will always present a mixed bag of opinions and doctrines loosely tied to various 16th century documents. (I speak of Protestants in general)

The LCMS is not immune. Their leadership must justify their opinions with convincing arguments from Scripture. Their membership must agree. However, even if their membership doesn’t agree, like Pastor Fisk, it will be tolerated, if not rewarded. The membership itself will ultimately decide the fate of the LCMS.

 

[Lion_Heart]

BTW, in case it was lost on anyone–from the cut and pasted quote above (ref. post at top of page, in turn/originally from SPH1’s link), please note the significance of the claim made within that quote:

Did you catch that? “…God revealed…through the Reformation…”

And what basis is there, other than their very own convenience, to base this blasphemous claim–that GOD REVEALED anything to anyone, through the reformation???

What is the source of this alleged Divine Revelation??? What Prophet…what express prophecy…what Angel…what manifestation of the Holy Spirit…what undeniably divine source can the Protestant site, to bolster this claim???

Nothing.

Just a grotesquely unfounded, bald faced lie, to take liberties with the Will of God, to justify their own church, to compete with the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that Christ Himself actually founded, upon the Apostles that He actually selected, which can actually trace its roots back to the Pentecost, and the Apostles.

Greetings in Christ Goya,

CATHOLIC EDUCATION RESOURCE CENTER
Justification by Faith
PETER KREEFT

Peter Kreeft is on the Advisory Board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.
He is one of the most popular and widely read Catholic authors today.

Quote: The Protestant Reformation began when a Catholic monk REDISCOVERED a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book.

The monk, of course, was Luther; the doctrine was JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH; and the book was the Bible.

One of the tragic ironies of Christian history is that the deepest split in the history of the Church, and the one that has occasioned the most persecution, hatred, and bloody wars on both sides, from the Peasants’ War of Luther’s day through the Thirty Years’ War, which claimed a larger percentage of the population of many parts of central Europe than any other war in history, including the two world wars, to the present-day agony in Northern Ireland — this split between Protestant and Catholic originated in a misunderstanding.

And to this day many Catholics and many Protestants still do not realize that fact.

Luther’s story is well known. Passionate, impetuous, demanding, sensitive, and pessimistic in temperament, Luther had never been able to find inner peace.

He could not overcome his sense of guilt despite all his good works, prayers, penances, and alms. His confessor advised him to read Romans.

No more historically momentous advice was ever given by a confessor.

In Romans Luther discovered the simple BOMBSELL TRUTH that God had forgiven his sins freely, NOT because of Luther’s works in Germany BUT because of Christ’s work on Calvary.

That discovery freed Luther’s spirit and ignited a fire that swept over Europe.
The watchword of the Reformation became Saint Paul’s summary of the gospel: “The just (justified, saved) shall live [have eternal life] by faith [in Christ]” (Rom 1: 17)

Where then do good works come in? In CHRISTIAN LIBERTY, Luther explains that after the great LIBERATION about faith — that we are SAVED BY FAITH in Christ’s work, NOT BY OUR WORKS — comes a great LIBERATION about works:
they need not be done slavishly, to BUY our way into heaven, to pile up merits or Brownie points with God, but can be done freely and spontaneously and naturally, out of GRATITUDE to God — not to get to heaven but because heaven has ALREADY gotten to us.

Thus they can be done for the sake of our neighbor, NOT for our own sake, to PURCHASE salvation.
And this is winsome. NO ONE wants to be loved as someone else’s GOOD DID for the day.

Continued on the next post.

 

[Lion_Heart]

Continuation.

The origin of the Reformation is often said to be Luther’s act of nailing ninety-five theses against the sale of indulgences to the door of the church in Wittenberg.

Luther’s decision to go public was occasioned by the scandal of Tetzel, a Dominican monk who shamelessly peddled forgiveness of sins for a fee. He even had a singing commercial:
“Sobald das Geld im Kasten klingt,/Die Seele aus dem Fegfeuer springt!” (“As soon as the money clinks in the casket, the soul springs free from the fires of purgatory!”)

The story was told of the thief who asked Tetzel whether he could buy forgiveness for all his future sins as well as his past sins.

Tetzel said yes, but it would cost him a thousand gold pieces.
The thief paid the money, took the indulgence, and then stole back the money from Tetzel!

But the scandal of selling indulgences was only the catalyst, not the cause, of the Reformation.

The Church soon cleaned up its act and forbade the sale of indulgences at the Council of Trent, agreeing with Luther on this point.

But one does not split the Church over a practice; one splits the Church over a doctrine, for the Church can change its practice but never its doctrine.
To change a practice, one stays in the Church; to change a doctrine, one must start a new Church.

Many Catholics to this day have not learned the Catholic and biblical doctrine.
They think we are saved by good intentions or being nice or sincere or trying a little harder or doing a sufficient number of good deeds.

Over the past twenty-five years I have asked hundreds of Catholic college students the question:
If you should die tonight and God asks you why he should let you into heaven, what would you answer?

The vast majority of them simply do not know the right answer to this, the most important of all questions, the very essence of Christianity. They usually do not even mention Jesus!

Until we Catholics know the foundation, Protestants are not going to listen to us when we try to teach them about the upper stories of the building.

Perhaps God allows the Protestant/Catholic division to persist not only because Protestants have abandoned many precious truths taught by the Church but also because many Catholics have never been taught the most precious truth of all, that SALVATION IS A FREE GIFT OF GRACE, ACCEPTED BY FAITH

I remember vividly the thrill of discovery when, as a young Protestant at Calvin College, I read Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent on justification.
I did not find what I had been told I would find, “another gospel” of do-it-yourself salvation by works, but a clear and forceful statement that we can do nothing without God’s grace, and that this grace, accepted by faith, is what saves us.

The split of the Protestant Reformation began when a Catholic discovered a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book.

It can end only when both Protestants and Catholics do the same thing today and understand what they are doing: discovering a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book. End quote. Emphasize mine.

With love in Christ,
LH

 

[spina1953]

Hi Jon,

I understand the ‘historically conditional’ argument and I don’t buy it any more than any other Catholic here seems to. So far it seems that there has be a lot of focus on the ‘pope as the antichrist’, but that it not the only issue which reveals the true nature of the Official position of the Lutheran church. Please note that I am not speaking of the opinions of individual Lutherans or the positions of this or that Lutheran denomination, but the Official Teaching of the Lutheran church as seen in it’s Confessional Documents. I very much appreciate that you disagree with what your Confessions ‘appear to say’, but the real issue is what they say.

What do the Lutheran Confessional documents say about the Catholic Church Itself?

The Smalcald Articles, Part II, Article II: Of the Mass.

“1] That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious. For it has been held that this sacrifice or work of the Mass, even though it be rendered by a wicked [and abandoned] scoundrel, frees men from sins, both in this life and also in purgatory, while only the Lamb of God shall and must do this, as has been said above. Of this article nothing is to be surrendered or conceded, because the first article does not allow it.”

OK, so the Catholic Mass is the ‘greatest and most horrible abomination’. This has nothing to do with the ‘office of the papacy’ but everything to do with how Catholics worship.

“5] ……. I wager [Thus it will come to pass] that the Mass will then collapse of itself, not only among the insane [rude] common people, but also among all pious, Christian, reasonable, God-fearing hearts; and that the more, when they would hear that the Mass is a [very] dangerous thing, fabricated and invented without the will and Word of God.”

Luther wagers – and so that means it will come to pass?

Given that this is the official teaching of the Lutheran church, should Catholics be willing to concede that the Mass is something evil so as to achieve union with Lutherans?

“7] Fifthly. But since the Mass is nothing else and can be nothing else (as the Canon and all books declare), than a work of men (even of wicked scoundrels), by which one attempts to reconcile himself and others to God, and to obtain and merit the remission of sins and grace (for thus the Mass is observed when it is observed at the very best; otherwise what purpose would it serve?), for this very reason it must and should [certainly] be condemned and rejected.”

I would really love for Lutherans and Catholics to be in full communion someday, but it appears that they only way that this is going to happen would be if the Lutherans formally and publically repeal some of these official statements, because I can say, for a fact, that the Catholic Church will NEVER give up the Mass.

“10] Thus we are and remain eternally separated and opposed to one another. They feel well enough that when the Mass falls, the Papacy lies in ruins.”

Ok, I think I have the picture. And who is responsible for writing this ‘stuff’? None other than Martin Luther, and by the way, this ‘stuff’ is MILD by comparison with a lot of what he wrote about the Church.

“And the point is that they (Catholics) allege that we have fallen away from the holy church and set up a new church. This then is the answer: since they themselves boast that they are the church, it is for them to prove that they are. If they can prove it with a single reason (I don’t ask for more), then we shall give ourselves up as prisoners, willingly saying, “We have sinned, have mercy upon us.” But if they cannot prove it, they must confess (whether they like it or not) that they are not the church and that we cannot be heretics since we have fallen away from what is not the true church. Indeed, since there is nothing in-between, we must be the church of Christ and they the devil’s church, or vice versa. Therefore it all turns on proving which is the true church.” Against Hanswurrst, Luther Works, Vol. 41, pg. 193

This quote fascinates me. Luther challenges the 1500 year old founded at Pentecost Roman Catholic Church, and then demands that the Church prove that it is the Church? As opposed to what, the one that bears his name? Wouldn’t it make more sense that Luther prove that HIS Church was ‘The Church’? After all, HE was the one who was teaching doctrines which had NEVER been taught before in Christian history.

The one thing I would agree with Luther on is that, yes, “it all turns on proving which is the true church.” The Catholic Church and the Lutheran church cannot BOTH be teaching Christian doctrine correctly.

There is nothing ‘historically conditional’ about these particular Confessional statements Or the Luther quote.

Personally, I believe that we SHOULD be able to tell which one is correct (presuming for the moment that one is). It would also seem logical that the key to figuring out which one is “The One”, would be found in the arguments that each side made against the other when the dispute first began, which of course means that a study of Martin Luther is necessary.

Do you think that the history of the early Reformation supports the idea that Luther was right to challenge so many well accepted doctrines?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

WOW! Cool

 

[Goya]

JonNC;11767896]

Antichrist, in this sense, means apposed to Christ’s teaching. I don’t like the term for the reasons I’ve mentioned. My issue remains as it has been; that being the disagreement within the Church regarding the universal jurisdiction of the pope.

More personal spin on the meaning you WISH was intended by ‘Antichirst’.

Here’s LCMS’s actual take:

The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view
of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows

by the Synod’s
Theological Commission: “The New Testament predicts that the church
throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5 ,23-24;
Mark 13:6, 21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18,22; 2 John 7). All false
teachers who teach contrary to Christ’s Word are opponents of Christ
and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.” …

This is what you’re trying to sell us—but IT DOESN’T STOP THERE.

However, the Scriptures also teach that there is*** one climactic “Anti-Christ” ***(Dan.7:8,11,20-21,24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . . Concerning the historical identity of theAntichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions’ identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. …

So to be clear–the LCMS (and basically all Lutherans) don’t view the Papacy as some anti-christ, or just some entity that is anti-Christ–but as THE Anti-Christ.

I believe as I have stated; the teaching that The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom]. is heterodox, or at least not held by all of the patriarchs and thus, disputed.

This claim is based on Scripture and Sacred Tradition; Christ expressly delegated several authorities to St. Peter, and Sacred Tradition maintained this status for St. Peter’s successors.

Luther (along with the Churches of the East) may disagree with this; but we’re not talking about the Primacy of Peter; we’re talking about going from:

“…*is the proper and duly authorized successor of the bishopric of St. Peter above all the other proper Apostolic successors, or on the same footing with them…” * to:

THE PROPER SUCCESSOR TO THE BISHOPRIC OF ST. PETER IS THE ANTICHRIST (by mere virtue of holding that office, I should add).

…based on some prophecy claimed by Martin Luther–self proclaimed prophet, it appears (hat tip to Topper).

That is the Lutheran position–which you have confirmed.

(and that’s without even commenting on the anit-Mass claims, posted by Topper).

But, at least we know where we stand with one anther, vis a vis the Papacy, and Martin Luther–and where Lutheranism (even the supposedly more benign LCMS variety)–which sorry to say, is not at all what you’d have so many readers on here believe.

cont’d.

 

[Goya]

Cont’d from above:

…

I do not mis-represent the LCMS when I say uncategorically that we are an ecumenically minded catholic communion that seeks genuine unity. The efforts to work with Catholics is in various settings, including the pro-life movement, the movement against the current regime’s attempts to dismantle you religious liberty and ours with the HHS Mandate and our successful stance to protect the ministerial exception against the EEOC. The LCMS has and continues to participate in Lutheran - Catholic dialogue, most recently signing the joint document, “The Hope of Eternal Life”.

Sure.

But again, let us be perfectly clear here: the unity you seek–or at least Lutherans–would have Catholics reject the Pope, and frankly, far more egregiously: THE MASS (again, hat tip to Topper).

Allow me translate: asking the Catholic Christian to reject the Mass, would be akin to the Catholic Church asking the Protestants, to reject the Bible.

***The Mass is the ‘source and summit’ of the Faith. ***

Actually, that analogy doesn’t even go far enough–the Lutheran position* vis a vis* Catholic Mass, would be akin to the Catholic Church decrying the Protestant Bible, as Satanic rabble.

So here’s the point, you can believe what others say we believe, or you can believe what we say we believe. If you choose what others say, then you have no complaint when non-Lutheran protestants claim you are not Christian, or that you worship the Blessed Virgin, or you worship crackers, because you are then as wrong about us as they are about you. I have been on CAF for a long time, and I have often defended the CC here when these charges have arisen against you, and will continue to do so. I would hope to get the same courtesy in return.
And yours, as well.

Jon

This is complete non-sense, because you have repeatedly attempted to downplay what Lutherans actually believe through your spin:

“…well, we don’t think it’s the antichrist…what we mean by that, is you know, golly gee, just someone or something that’s like…kinda’ against Christ…”

Lo and behold, the actual statements from the Church–don’t quite have your back on your whitewashed version of things…

Sorry to inform sir, but you’ve kinda’ discredited yourself about what Lutheranism actually believes/teaches/maintains–although you’re quite good at articulating what you wish Lutheranism actually stands for.

…and to be perfectly honest–I like your posts, Jon; I certainly like you (to the extent I can discern from your posts), much better than what I actually read about what the LCMS actually stands for.

As for your defense of Catholicism–duly appreciated; but I’m sure you’ve realized in your defense of her…that that, is a matter of Truth.

Finally, I’ll yield to you the last word in our little exchange here on this thread, as I will shortly be commencing my annual hiatus from all posting on any forums, during Lent.

(So I’ll catch y’all on the flip side of Easter).

God bless.

 

[steido01]

More personal spin on the meaning you WISH was intended by ‘Antichirst’.

Jon can correct me if I have misunderstood him, but his ‘personal spin’ seems only in his aversion to a term that carries strange and unfortunate connotations in modern times; his words here have not contradicted what Lutheranism has consistently taught regarding what that term actually means. And I think that point that has been lost on you and several other Roman Catholic posters here. Instead of listening to us Lutherans and our Synod, you’ve assigned meanings that simply aren’t there (Last I checked, it was the LCMS -not Roman Catholic laypersons- that explains LCMS doctrine to the LCMS…). Let’s take one more look at what the LCMS teaches - please follow with an open mind and perhaps you’ll understand what we mean:

The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist.

Rather straightforward there.

The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod’s Theological Commission: The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5,23-24; Mark 13:6,21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ’s Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.

Again, rather straightforward. Essentially, Lutherans consider any heterodox body to be under the influence of the spirit of anti-Christ. This does not necessarily mean that Lutherans consider Word and Sacrament to be absent in those bodies (On the contrary! We recognize your Sacraments as valid!) - only that the Truth is clouded or obscured insofar as doctrine is taught in conflict to Christ’s Word. Not terribly difficult to understand.

However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ” (Dan. 7:8,11, 20-21, 24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . . Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions’ identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above.

Here, the Treatise gives three reasons (and 38 paragraphs) why the actions and powers claimed for the Office of the Papacy are considered by Lutherans to be anti-to-Christ. Again, the understanding is that this applies insofar as these actions and powers are practiced - this is the only was to understand our beliefs. Come on, folks, this can’t mean what you’re accusing us of believing - you just read that we do not consider any individual pope as a person to be identified with the Antichrist. So long as the Office bears the marks, however, we can only assume that it will remain the source of future anti-Christ. The Synod restates its position:

It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) [read: the actions and powers claimed for it, insofar as they are practiced] and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person’s heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.

And there’s the biggest point - all three of our charges against the Papacy are conditional. Some Lutherans even believe that some of the charges no longer apply. The LCMS still objects for the following reason:

In a footnote, the Commission adds: To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine “that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified,” the judgment of the Lutheran confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.

And there appears to be some movement here by recent popes. I, and many of my fellow Lutherans were overjoyed to read Pope Benedict XVI’s acknowledgement of our teaching on Faith:​

Cont…

 

[steido01]

Cont…

Our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

…based on some prophecy claimed by Martin Luther–self proclaimed prophet, it appears (hat tip to Topper).

That is the Lutheran position–which you have confirmed.

(and that’s without even commenting on the anit-Mass claims, posted by Topper).

Luther was no prophet and never claimed to be. I assure you, those quotes and objections were taken out of context. It’s important to read not just that we disagree - but why. I’ve noticed a tendency of some posters to omit the reasons in favor of “FLASH! BANG!” polemics. If we were to read more about the Lutheran objection to the Roman Mass, we’d learn that Lutherans are offended because the priest claims to have made a new sacrifice himself, when we believe it is Christ who made one sacrifice for all. Still a very important point that we need to iron out - but the reasons for it are out of reverence for what the Mass ought to be, not out of some violent hatred of all things Roman.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

steido01:

If we were to read more about the Lutheran objection to the Roman Mass, we’d learn that Lutherans are offended because the priest claims to have made a new sacrifice himself, when we believe it is Christ who made one sacrifice for all. Still a very important point that we need to iron out - but the reasons for it are out of reverence for what the Mass ought to be, not out of some violent hatred of all things Roman.

That’s interesting. For someone who is so sensitive about Catholics misrepresenting Lutheran beliefs, you (and based on your statement, I suppose the entire LCMS) mistake our beliefs!

Never has the Catholic Church taught what you suggest above. It wasn’t true in Luther’s time, and it isn’t true now. I’m surprised you would even level such a false charge at Catholics which is so easily disproved.

In Catholicism (which includes Eastern Orthodoxy) the priest functions “in persona Christi” and not of himself. This is taught to our first communicants in 2nd grade. Jesus Christ is our King, and our High Priest (according to the order of Melchizedek) who offers (through the ordained priest) the bread and wine (which is also OUR GIFT and sacrifices), and by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, transforms these offerings into His own Body and Blood, which he re-presents before the Father in Heaven, an eternal remembrance of the Once for All bloody Sacrifice on Calvary. Is the Mass still a sacrifice? Indeed it is! It is the sacrifice offered by our High Priest Jesus Christ. Our High Priest is a priest FOREVER, according to the order of Melchizedek. That means our High Priest NOT ONLY offered his ONCE for ALL bloody Sacrifice on Calvary, but continues to RE-PRESENT that sacrifice in an unbloody manner into our own day through this most Holy Mystery and Sacrifice throughout the world, fufilling Malachai’s prophecy. The Mass was originally called the Sacred Mysteries in the early Church.

The problem isn’t that we need to iron this out, the problem is that Lutherans need to iron this out. Or, you need to rephrase WHAT it is that REALLY offends Lutherans about the Mass.

 

[MaryT777]

That’s interesting. For someone who is so quick to accuse Catholics of misrepresenting Lutheran beliefs, you (and based on your statement, I suppose that includes the entire LCMS) mistake our beliefs!

Never has the Catholic Church taught what you suggest above. It wasn’t true in Luther’s time, and it isn’t true now. I’m surprised you would even level such a false charge at Catholics which is so easily disproved.

In Catholicism (which includes Eastern Orthodoxy) the priest functions “in persona Christi” and not of himself. This is taught to our first communicants in 2nd grade. Jesus Christ is our King, and our High Priest (according to the order of Melchizedek) who offers (through the ordained priest) the bread and wine (which is also OUR GIFT and sacrifices), and by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, transforms these offerings into His own Body and Blood, which he re-presents before the Father in Heaven, an eternal remembrance of the Once for All bloody Sacrifice on Calvary. Is the Mass still a sacrifice? Indeed it is! It is the sacrifice offered by our High Priest Jesus Christ. Our High Priest is a priest FOREVER, according to the order of Melchizedek. That means our High Priest NOT ONLY offered his ONCE for ALL bloody Sacrifice on Calvary, but continues to RE-PRESENT that sacrifice in an unbloody manner into our own day through this most Holy Mystery and Sacrifice throughout the world, fufilling Malachai’s prophecy. The Mass was originally called the Sacred Mysteries in the early Church.

The problem isn’t that we need to iron this out, the problem is that Lutherans need to iron this out. Or, you need to rephrase WHAT it is that REALLY offends Lutherans about the Mass.

The issue I have with the LCMS is that some in it seem to believe they are experts in Catholicism because they study a lot about it; but as we see above the misconceptions are grave indeed.
Mary.