No doubts about converting from LCMS

[JonNC]

=Goya;11763455]Well golly gee, that just makes it all better now, doesn’t it?

You sarcasm aside, no it does not make anything “better”, but it does explain the meaning. I am not going to sit here and type that what happened 500 years ago, and it was all a big misunderstanding. The fact is we each consider some of the teachings of the other as heterodox. It is sad, but true. It is also sad but true that during the Reformation era both sides used harsh and not very nice language toward each other.

Why Pope Francis isn’t himself, the Antichrist…he’s just occupying the Office of Antichrist…and as Pope Benedict is no longer the occupant of that office, why he is now “Antichrist Emeritus”.

Sure, that makes it all just hunky dory and peachy keen…

And the “positive” development of *extra Ecclesiam nulla salus * doesn’t make things hunky dory and peachy either.

Silly, ignorant posters on here…daring to make up such inflammatory stuff up about how the LCMS views Catholicism…and daring to conflate what this one Pastor says of Catholicism, with …

…wait…never mind…

Looks like the truth is actually even worse.

And Father O’Hare is supposed to be a beacon of reconciliation. Please. The log in your eye is no smaller than the plank in mine.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

From the link posted by SPH1, that it may not be lost by so much diversionary tactics by our well-meaning Lutheran disciples, who would have so many on here intentionally deceived as to what the Lutheran church–Martin Luther’s Church–actually maintains, vis a vis the papacy, here it is, Cut & Pated:

lcms.org/doctrine/doctrinalposition#antichrist

Just…wow…

Kindly spare us your righteous indignation about your precious LCMS being ‘mis-characterized’, when its own actual characterization of its own views, serves as a more scathing indictment, and more uncharitable proclamation, than the most mal-intended of ‘caricatures.’

And kindly spare us yours. You know the history of the things that have happened between the Lutheran and Catholic communions. To pretend outrage doesn’t impress. And all of this, all of this means what has been stated before, that it is evidence of the sin of separation and division that we both have a part in.
The language of the Reformation era is harsh and even in many ways vulgar, in light of the progress made between our communions these last few decades. And well it should be.
But that isn’t the issue anymore, and neither is faux outrage on either side. The issue is how can we build upon the growth that our leaders, willing to look past the hateful language of the past, to seek to work together for a unified future. That’s the issue. Its an issue that needs to trickle down from theologians and leaders into apologetics.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

You sarcasm aside, no it does not make anything “better”, but it does explain the meaning. I am not going to sit here and type that what happened 500 years ago, and it was all a big misunderstanding. The fact is we each consider some of the teachings of the other as heterodox. It is sad, but true. It is also sad but true that during the Reformation era both sides used harsh and not very nice language toward each other.

And the “positive” development of *extra Ecclesiam nulla salus * doesn’t make things hunky dory and peachy either.

And Father O’Hare is supposed to be a beacon of reconciliation. Please. The log in your eye is no smaller than the plank in mine.

Jon

Official documents speak for themselves in my opinion, Jon. The office of the Papacy IS still the antichrist, the LCMS does believe the Catholic church has perverted the Gospel,
by adding works righteousness, indulgences, etc. That’s just the fact of the matter really still to this day.

The LCMS in this town teaches the recent Popes as well ARE the ANTICHRIST for they still add works to the equation of salvation in a way the LCMS finds improper and justification is the key issue. The LCMS did not agree with the signing and did not sign the JDDJ as you know; and you have shared your views on that Those however are your personal views and not as of yet official.

We are miles apart on some very key issues The differences are very great in my opinion with the LCMS/WELS and the Catholic Church. The ELCA appears closer in the key issue of justification however the moral differences between the two regarding abortion,
homosexuality, women ordination, gay marriage etc is astounding.

Mary

 

[Peter_J]

We are miles apart on some very key issues.

I hate to say, but I’m always hearing (I won’t name names) that the only reason that Catholics and Orthodox, and even Anglicans and Lutherans, are still separated is “Because __________ is stubborn and doesn’t want unity.” I mean,please. We all want unity, it’s just that each side wants unity on their own terms.

However, to be fair I think that Jon understands that better than most.

 

[JonNC]

Official documents speak for themselves in my opinion, Jon. The office of the Papacy IS still the antichrist, the LCMS does believe the Catholic church has perverted the Gospel,
by adding works righteousness, indulgences, etc. That’s just the fact of the matter really still to this day.

The LCMS in this town teaches the recent Popes as well ARE the ANTICHRIST for they still add works to the equation of salvation in a way the LCMS finds improper and justification is the key issue. The LCMS did not agree with the signing and did not sign the JDDJ as you know; and you have shared your views on that Those however are your personal views and not as of yet official.

We are miles apart on some very key issues The differences are very great in my opinion with the LCMS/WELS and the Catholic Church. The ELCA appears closer in the key issue of justification however the moral differences between the two regarding abortion,
homosexuality, women ordination, gay marriage etc is astounding.

Mary

Here’s the thing, Mary, I have never heard any pastor even speak about the issue, except if asked, and never from the pulpit. It isn’t part of the catechesis.
Frankly, Lutherans such as me are embarrassed by the language. There’s no need for it anymore, when other terms that express our disagreements without the emotion.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=250002
The second thread I authored here.

Jon

 

[Goya]

And kindly spare us yours. You know the history of the things that have happened between the Lutheran and Catholic communions. To pretend outrage doesn’t impress. And all of this, all of this means what has been stated before, that it is evidence of the sin of separation and division that we both have a part in.
The language of the Reformation era is harsh and even in many ways vulgar, in light of the progress made between our communions these last few decades. And well it should be. But that isn’t the issue anymore, and neither is faux outrage on either side. The issue is how can we build upon the growth that our leaders, willing to look past the hateful language of the past, to seek to work together for a unified future. That’s the issue. *** Its an issue that needs to trickle down from theologians and leaders into apologetics.***

Jon

You continue to attempt to sweep this under the rug, casting it in the past tense, as though the LCMS–or any other similar authority, has disowned or disavowed, or renounced that doctrine (or ‘statement of doctrinal position’, as it identifies itself–as you would surely attempt to split hairs over some minute distinction without a difference here).

The Catholic Church actually stopped referring to protestants as heretics. From its highest office/authority, no less.

LCMS (notwithstanding what kind of spin you’d place on it) continues to maintain this garbage of Pope=antichrist.

Only a handful of foot soldiers–such as yourself–seem to take exception to this.

Point being: You say it is something that must “…trickle down from theologians and leaders, into apologetics…” --seems to me YOUR theologians and leaders, don’t quite have your back on this count–even if the footsoldiers (apologists–again, such as yourself) would like to believe otherwise.

…or worse still, have others fraudulently believe otherwise is the case–in furtherance of their (your) apologetic interests.

Sorry sir, but…it’s just not true. Not yet, anyway.

Hopefully, if enough members, such as yourself, raise the objection loudly enough, change will come (Apparently, the olive branch extended by the ‘antichrist’…'er, the Vatican…hasn’t quite been accepted by the offerree–and the call for such mutual respect from the highest levels of the Catholic Church, have simply not been reciprocated…)–but such change won’t come, by pretending that something is what it isn’t; or that something isn’t, that is.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I was speaking from the Lutheran perspective. Clarified above; this is a truth to Lutherans, not to Roman Catholics. The reasons we Lutherans think this is manifest in our Confessions.

Got it.

Of course. Thank you, Jose. I appreciate your willingness to teach me when/if I should ever misconstrue Roman doctrine (I don’t think I have on this thread). I hope I prove receptive to your explanations.

You have so far, thanks. And you are welcome.

But… (see below)

I am familiar with those documents, and although I have not studied them at particularly great length, Unam Sancta seems difficult -at face value- to reconcile with Roman Catholicism’s more recent teachings – but I take my Roman Catholic friends’ word for it when they explain that it doesn’t necessarily mean what it initially appears to mean (either by my misunderstanding of it or by ‘Development of Doctrine’). If this was the point you were making, Jose, I agree. The difference between us, however, is that Rome allows for the ‘Development of Doctrine,’ whereas Wittenberg simply holds to the Confessions as the “bare-bones basic” starting block while acknowledging that circumstances can change (convergence, then, becomes a possibility! ). An example of this can be seen in the second reason the Treatise gives for rejecting Papal Supremacy: The Papal Office no longer claims to wield both swords, at least in the way it did in Unam Sancta, so one of the charges we hold against the Papal Office is already moot.

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.

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.

 

[Goya]

Here’s the thing, Mary, I have never heard any pastor even speak about the issue, except if asked, and never from the pulpit. It isn’t part of the catechesis.
Frankly, Lutherans such as me are embarrassed by the language. There’s no need for it anymore, when other terms that express our disagreements without the emotion.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=250002
The second thread I authored here.

Jon

btw: I opened up your link to the article you wrote back in '08.

Your contention is that the claim that "…the pope as the antichrist has been rendered moot’:

In addition, I contend that it no longer applies to the current papacy, and offer two proofs.

Quote:
Thus the Papacy also will be a part of the kingdom of Antichrist if it thus defends human services as justifying.
The Apology to the Augsburg Confession

The language and stance of the Catholic Church in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification now renders this charge moot.

Quote:
10] This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God.

As well, The language of Lumen Gentium renders this charge moot. …,

While your proposal would certainly be preferable to…nothing at all (let alone the express affirmative maintenance of that position)–you must know, as intelligent and well read as you are, that even that is inaccurate characterization.

It was never rendered moot, because*** IT NEVER WAS. PERIOD.***

First, you can’t even pretend to make such a silly argument as casually, arbitrarily, whimsically, imposing a time limit on **THE ANTICHRIST. ** It either is and remains, or never was, ‘the antichrist’. There simply is no middle ground here;

Secondly, you must know that neither LG nor the JDDOJ rendered anything moot at all, because neither party changed any teaching or position, at all.

I know you mean well; I know you wish deeply for unity between our churches; and I appreciate and respect that…but you can’t spin Truth; it is what it is.

Our task is to discover Truth, and reconcile ourselves to it; not twist it, to conform to our desires, or circumstances.

 

[JonNC]

=Goya;11764135]You continue to attempt to sweep this under the rug, casting it in the past tense, as though the LCMS–or any other similar authority, has disowned or disavowed, or renounced that doctrine (or ‘statement of doctrinal position’, as it identifies itself–as you would surely attempt to split hairs over some minute distinction without a difference here).

I promise you, I am not attempting to sweep anything under the rug. No one has said that the charge has changed, unfortunately. And it isn’t splitting hairs. I have no more right to judge the heart of Pope Francis or you, than you do me or President Harrison.

The Catholic Church actually stopped referring to protestants as heretics. From its highest office/authority, no less.

Have the anathemas or Trent been lifted?

LCMS (notwithstanding what kind of spin you’d place on it) continues to maintain this garbage of Pope=antichrist.

Of course you consider it garbage.

Only a handful of foot soldiers–such as yourself–seem to take exception to this.

Point being: You say it is something that must “…trickle down from theologians and leaders, into apologetics…” --seems to me YOUR theologians and leaders, don’t quite have your back on this count–even if the footsoldiers (apologists–again, such as yourself) would like to believe otherwise.

Let me ask you, when President Harrison sat next to Bishop Lori in front of Congress, do you think he said, by the way, your papacy is antichrist? When our leaders shared the table to agree to the document, “The Hope For Eternal Life”, do you think the dialogue started with “you guys teach heresy”? Of course not, and this is what I mean when I say the leaders seem to understand the history and nature of the accusations both ways.

…or worse still, have others fraudulently believe otherwise is the case–in furtherance of their (your) apologetic interests.

Sorry sir, but…it’s just not true. Not yet, anyway.

Hopefully, if enough members, such as yourself, raise the objection loudly enough, change will come (Apparently, the olive branch extended by the ‘antichrist’…'er, the Vatican…hasn’t quite been accepted by the offerree–and the call for such mutual respect from the highest levels of the Catholic Church, have simply not been reciprocated…)–but such change won’t come, by pretending that something is what it isn’t; or that something isn’t, that is.

I think you will find that this isn’t the case.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Here’s the thing, Mary, I have never heard any pastor even speak about the issue, except if asked, and never from the pulpit. It isn’t part of the catechesis.
Frankly, Lutherans such as me are embarrassed by the language. There’s no need for it anymore, when other terms that express our disagreements without the emotion.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=250002
The second thread I authored here.

Jon

Hi Jon. First, I very much appreciate your unpolemical approach. (Incidentally, I often think seriously about forsaking all forums, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, because of the endless trotting-out of the same old polemics.)

However, with regard to your saying that it is moot because it doesn’t apply to the modern papacy, I would say two things. First, I’m not sure that all would agree that it doesn’t apply. But even if all do, we would still be in disagreement as to whether it applied to the sixteenth century papacy.

 

[JonNC]

=Goya;11764199]btw: I opened up your link to the article you wrote back in '08.

Your contention is that the claim that "…the pope as the antichrist has been rendered moot’:

While your proposal would certainly be preferable to…nothing at all (let alone the express affirmative maintenance of that position)–you must know, as intelligent and well read as you are, that even that is inaccurate characterization.

It was never rendered moot, because*** IT NEVER WAS. PERIOD.***

I wouldn’t expect you to say anything less.

First, you can’t even pretend to make such a silly argument as casually, arbitrarily, whimsically, imposing a time limit on THE ANTICHRIST. It either is and remains, or never was, ‘the antichrist’. There simply is no middle ground here;

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

Secondly, you must know that neither LG nor the JDDOJ rendered anything moot at all, because neither party changed any teaching or position, at all.

Perhaps you are right, in retrospect. That said, the atmosphere between our communions, and dramatically lately between the ILC and CC, has changed, due to a number of things, the domestic political situation for one, and the drifting of the ELCA/LWF.

I know you mean well; I know you wish deeply for unity between our churches; and I appreciate and respect that…but you can’t spin Truth; it is what it is.

Our task is to discover Truth, and reconcile ourselves to it; not twist it, to conform to our desires, or circumstances.

No one agrees with this more than I do.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon. First, I very much appreciate your unpolemical approach. (Incidentally, I often think seriously about forsaking all forums, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, because of the endless trotting-out of the same old polemics.)

However, with regard to your saying that it is moot because it doesn’t apply to the modern papacy, I would say two things. First, I’m not sure that all would agree that it doesn’t apply. But even if all do, we would still be in disagreement as to whether it applied to the sixteenth century papacy.

First, Peter, thank you for your kind words.

In retrospect, I probably overstated the point. Certainly some of the issues remain an issue, universal jurisdiction being the main one for me.
I don’t think it is an overstatement, however, to say that, despite the polemics one often sees in apologetics on both sides, our communions are closer now than since Trent, theologically, and how we respond to the world. In some ways, ILC/LCMS confessional Lutherans and Catholics are being pushed together by issues and events not foreseen by either party. When the LCMS president can sit next to a Catholic bishop and speak of our “Catholic friends”, when faculty and students from an LCMS seminary march to the nearby Catholic Cathedral voice support for the CC regarding the HHS Mandate, it is evidence that things are changing.
And I pray that the Spirit will continue to guide us closer together.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Goya,

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.

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

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

And Father O’Hare is supposed to be a beacon of reconciliation. Please. The log in your eye is no smaller than the plank in mine.

Are you referring to Msgr. Patrick F. O’Hare, who wrote “The Facts About Luther” in 1916 with Pastor Fisk, an ordained LCMS Minister who recorded and posted his rant on U tube 5 weeks ago?

If so, are you suggesting that that is a valid comparison?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[betsybug354]

Here’s the thing, Mary, I have never heard any pastor even speak about the issue, except if asked, and never from the pulpit. It isn’t part of the catechesis.
Frankly, Lutherans such as me are embarrassed by the language. There’s no need for it anymore, when other terms that express our disagreements without the emotion.

Jon

But then you have language in the constitution of the LCMS church where I am still officially a member, which reads as follows:

*This congregation acknowledges and accepts all the canonical books of the Old and New Testament as the revealed Word of God, verbally inspired, and acknowledges and accepts all the confessional writings of the Evangelical Lutheran church contained in the Book of Concord of the year 1580 to be the true and genuine exposition of the doctrines of the Bible. These confessional writings are the three ecumenical creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, Athanasian), the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, The Apology of the Augsburg
Confession, the Smalcald Articles, Luther’s Large and Small Catechisms and the
Formula of Concord.
*

What I wonder about, Jon, and I guess it would be a question to ask the pastor, is how the congregation “accepts” all the Lutheran confessional writings of the Book of Concord according to the church constitution but catechizes members using only the Small Catechism, which (except for Luther’s Preface, which is a bit fiery) avoids the traditional Lutheran protests against the RCC. I’d venture to guess that even lifelong Lutherans in the pew are largely unfamiliar with the bulk of the Lutheran confessional writings, let alone the bulk of my church’s membership who are former evangelicals and were drawn in to the church by the school and its tuition discount for members.

Anecdotally I would have to say that most American Christians today don’t dig deeply enough to even begin to understand the differences in their own church’s teachings versus another’s. And then of course, there’s the tendency of people in our culture to not want to offend. Many times I’ve heard a friend or acquaintance say a blanket statement like “we all believe the same thing,” even if it’s a Catholic talking to a Lutheran.

 

[JonNC]

=betsybug354;11765015]But then you have language in the constitution of the LCMS church where I am still officially a member, which reads as follows:

*This congregation acknowledges and accepts all the canonical books of the Old and New Testament as the revealed Word of God, verbally inspired, and acknowledges and accepts all the confessional writings of the Evangelical Lutheran church contained in the Book of Concord of the year 1580 to be the true and genuine exposition of the doctrines of the Bible. These confessional writings are the three ecumenical creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, Athanasian), the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, The Apology of the Augsburg
Confession, the Smalcald Articles, Luther’s Large and Small Catechisms and the
Formula of Concord.
*

What I wonder about, Jon, and I guess it would be a question to ask the pastor, is how the congregation “accepts” all the Lutheran confessional writings of the Book of Concord according to the church constitution but catechizes members using only the Small Catechism, which (except for Luther’s Preface, which is a bit fiery) avoids the traditional Lutheran protests against the RCC. I’d venture to guess that even lifelong Lutherans in the pew are largely unfamiliar with the bulk of the Lutheran confessional writings, let alone the bulk of my church’s membership who are former evangelicals and were drawn in to the church by the school and its tuition discount for members.

I am an elder in my parish, and my main concern for the catechesis of members, particularly new members and children, is the teaching of the Gospel. I want them to understand the role of word and sacrament in the life of a Christian. The historical and even current view of the pope, or that of other Christian communions as portrayed in the confessions is then not the primary focus of catechesis. After all, we see even today the changing nature of our relationship with the Catholic Church, and as those relationships improve, the condemnations in both directions will be lifted. The Gospel will never be lifted.
I am not Catholic and I have never attended Catholic catechetical settings, but I suspect they do not spend much time talking about Lutherans, either.

Anecdotally I would have to say that most American Christians today don’t dig deeply enough to even begin to understand the differences in their own church’s teachings versus another’s. And then of course, there’s the tendency of people in our culture to not want to offend. Many times I’ve heard a friend or acquaintance say a blanket statement like “we all believe the same thing,” even if it’s a Catholic talking to a Lutheran.

I can’t argue with this.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon…I do not think it is a matter of “superior belief”…but one of the right or apostolic belief.

On submission, one way or another, there has to be an acknowledgement of authority…when one accepts this authority…how would you describe it aside from it being a form of “submission”?

I agree. And the issue at hand is reconciliation will occur when we come to agreement on what that right teaching is. Then, agreeing on the authority and its level of jurisdiction, we can receive together His sacrament of the altar.

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I agree. And the issue at hand is reconciliation will occur when we come to agreement on what that right teaching is. Then, agreeing on the authority and its level of jurisdiction, we can receive together His sacrament of the altar.

Jon

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.

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.

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?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

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.

And this is the root of the problem!

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?

Fair and interesting question.

 

[Goya]

I wouldn’t expect you to say anything less.