Not practicing SS in Lutheran churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter Annie39
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Annie39 said:
Most of our friends are Lutherans a long time friend and her family are Calvary Chapel types. One of my favorite people was a Lutheran minister (now diseased).
Click to expand...
You sound blessed to be a good friend and have good friends. I too thank Catholics for being steadfast in defending life.

Personally, I come to CAF to be a better Lutherans and to encourage Catholics to be better Catholics - of douse we get into sparing matches where iron sharpens iron (Proverbs 27:17) - and I encourage you to look upon us Lutherans here at CAF as wayward friends in Christ.

Feel free to convince us of the errors of our ways. But if you’re going to be truly convincing you have to (at some point) understand where we view ourselves.

If you’re going to sway us wayward Lutherans, at some point you have to understand how we interpret them in order to pry us from them.
 
benjohnson said:
You sound blessed to be a good friend and have good friends. I too thank Catholics for being steadfast in defending life.

Personally, I come to CAF to be a better Lutherans and to encourage Catholics to be better Catholics - of douse we get into sparing matches where iron sharpens iron (Proverbs 27:17) - and I encourage you to look upon us Lutherans here at CAF as wayward friends in Christ.

Feel free to convince us of the errors of our ways. But if you’re going to be truly convincing you have to (at some point) understand where we view ourselves.

If you’re going to sway us wayward Lutherans, at some point you have to understand how we interpret them in order to pry us from them.
Click to expand...
Do you mean that I must accept that you believe in Scripture Alone even though it is clear that you do not?

One time I asked my Lutheran pastor at the time a question (I don’t remember what the question was) about the faith. We were in his office at the time and to attempt to answer my question he took one of the books from the shelf. I asked him who the author was and is he infallible. He didn’t ask what I mean he just returned the book to the shelf and we discussed the subject between us. It is my view and I think that it is crystal clear that you believe in scripture and tradition and your tradition includes those who had broken communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

As an aside, that pastor was the one that I referred to as one of my favorite people.

Annie
 
Annie39 said:
I still cannot find “the differences between Catholics and Lutherans regarding these dogmas do not of themselves exclude all Eucharistic sharing…”

Would you find the page for me and post it?
Click to expand...
Do you take responsibility for your statements? I cite direct quotes frequency; maybe read previous comments or take a look at my statistics. If that sounds uncharitable, forgive me but your entire thread is misleading and inconsistent with the Catholic Church.
 
Annie39 said:
Do you mean that I must accept that you believe in Scripture Alone even though it is clear that you do not?
Click to expand...
We don’t believe in ‘scripture alone’ as per the modern definition of ‘me and my bible’- we have creeds, hymns, liturgy, church fathers and the other authorities. The ‘true’ definition of Sola Scriptura is that scripture norms the other norms as a practice of the church.

Frankly, we’re just about as baffled with the ‘me and my bible’ idea as Catholics are.
 
benjohnson said:
We don’t believe in ‘scripture alone’ as per the modern definition of ‘me and my bible’- we have creeds, hymns, liturgy, church fathers and the other authorities. The ‘true’ definition of Sola Scriptura is that scripture norms the other norms as a practice of the church.

Frankly, we’re just about as baffled with the ‘me and my bible’ idea as Catholics are.
Click to expand...
This is the Anglican position also.
 
benjohnson said:
We don’t believe in ‘scripture alone’ as per the modern definition of ‘me and my bible’- we have creeds, hymns, liturgy, church fathers and the other authorities. The ‘true’ definition of Sola Scriptura is that scripture norms the other norms as a practice of the church.

Frankly, we’re just about as baffled with the ‘me and my bible’ idea as Catholics are.
Click to expand...
That is Scripture and Tradition Ben.

Annie
 
Topper17 said:
I agree that it is a very serious ecumenical problem. Personally, I don’t see how supposedly most Lutherans can believe in the ‘primacy’ of the Bishop of Rome while still claiming that he is the antichrist, or as you state, even worse, that his office is the antichrist. To me it’s a distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you think the distinction even is, given what you say below. I’m still not sure what you think the Confessions are talking about if they aren’t talking about an office.
No matter how you spin it, it’s extremely offensive and amazingly, Lutherans SEEM not to understand that, or maybe they just can’t admit it.
Click to expand...
So is a lot of stuff in the Catholic tradition. When Protestants get upset about Unam Sanctam or the anathemas of Trent, Catholics explain these things and expect Protestants of good will to take the explanations seriously. When Protestants insist that they know what these documents “really” mean and the Catholics are just engaging in spin, Catholics rightly cry foul.

So why doesn’t it work the other way round?
I disagree that the Confessions are only talking about the ‘office’.
Click to expand...
Then what on earth do you think they are talking about? If the Smalcaldic Articles are talking about Paul III personally, then that’s not really such a big deal, right? It obviously wouldn’t apply to Pope Francis.

I’m baffled both by why you think they aren’t talking about the office of the Papacy and why you think, if they aren’t, that it’s still relevant to Lutheran attitudes to Catholicism today. In fact, I really don’t know what you think they are saying.

“Pope” is the name of an office, isn’t it? Why would they have to say “the office of the Papacy”?
It seems that many of the Lutherans here claim to adhere to their Confessional documents, but when push comes to shove, they really don’t.
Click to expand...
They don’t adhere to your interpretation, and they have no obligation to do so, any more than you have any obligation to adhere to some anti-Catholic’s interpretation of Unam Sanctam or the documents of Trent.
Do you think it is even possible that Lutherans could ever retract or rewrite those offensive statements in their Confessions?
Click to expand...
I think it’s possible. The PCA did it with the WCF. I think the LCMS hasn’t done it for a couple of reasons:
  1. They are more committed to confessionalism than the PCA is (this may be a general Lutheran vs. Reformed thing, or it may not).
  2. They have a clearer understanding of why the language is there: because of what, in their view, “Rome” teaches about the Gospel. While the Reformed tradition has the same basic understanding, they also have a much stronger legacy of political opposition to Catholicism and a broader range of complaints, and the PCA in particular is relatively closer to American evangelicalism as a whole with its cultural/eschatological anti-Catholicism. So I can see why the PCA would get rid of the language while the LCMS would keep it. Mainline Lutherans and Reformed don’t bother to get rid of it because they take the confessions more weakly in the first place, I think.
This issue is a good example of why I find your methods so misguided. You persistently focus on relatively peripheral issues with “shock value.” You seem to think that Protestants are only Protestants because they haven’t figured out some of the less pleasant aspects of their heritage, and if you just hold their noses to it long enough they will see the light. I think that belief makes no sense at all. It is, as you once applauded me for saying about Luther, “seriously delusional”:p.

In this case, the “Antichrist” language is dependent on the basic Lutheran conviction that they understand the Gospel rightly and Rome gets it wrong. That’s the issue that has to be dealt with. What would it accomplish if they took the language out of the Confessions while retaining the belief that Rome is in serious error on the nature of the Gospel? (Of course, mainline Lutherans who adhere to the Joint Declaration no longer believe this.)

Edwin
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Do you take responsibility for your statements? I cite direct quotes frequency; maybe read previous comments or take a look at my statistics. If that sounds uncharitable, forgive me but your entire thread is misleading and inconsistent with the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I would just like to see which document that quote is from and read it in context. Did you mean that you cite direct quotes frequently? Can you please supply the name of the document from which it came and the url to the page so I don’t have to read through a long document. I put the quote into two search engines and cannot find it.

Annie
 
Annie39 said:
Do you mean that I must accept that you believe in Scripture Alone even though it is clear that you do not?
Click to expand...
No, you must accept that when they say they believe in “sola scriptura” that means what they say it means. You don’t have to call it “Scripture alone” if you don’t want to. It doesn’t really matter what you call it. What matters is that you stop telling them you know what they really believe. That’s unbelievably rude and offensive.

Edwin
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Do you take responsibility for your statements? I cite direct quotes frequency; maybe read previous comments or take a look at my statistics. If that sounds uncharitable, forgive me but your entire thread is misleading and inconsistent with the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
No, this thread is not misleading or inconsistent with Church teaching. Perhaps some of us Catholics have gotten a thing or two wrong, but only out of ignorance. There has been no intention of deceit or to mislead.
 
Annie39 said:
Do you mean that I must accept that you believe in Scripture Alone even though it is clear that you do not?
Click to expand...
No, you must accept that when they say they believe in “sola scriptura” that means what they say it means. You don’t have to call it “Scripture alone” if you don’t want to. It doesn’t really matter what you call it. What matters is that you pay attention to what they say they believe and try to understand it on their own terms instead of arrogantly telling them that you know what they really believe.

Edwin
 
Annie39 said:
That is Scripture and Tradition Ben.

Annie
Click to expand...
And other authorities - for example, the Bishop of Rome would be considered an authority by us Lutherans. Those authorities are normed by the church with the Word.
 
Contarini said:
I’m not sure what you think the distinction even is, given what you say below. I’m still not sure what you think the Confessions are talking about if they aren’t talking about an office.

So is a lot of stuff in the Catholic tradition. When Protestants get upset about Unam Sanctam or the anathemas of Trent, Catholics explain these things and expect Protestants of good will to take the explanations seriously. When Protestants insist that they know what these documents “really” mean and the Catholics are just engaging in spin, Catholics rightly cry foul.

So why doesn’t it work the other way round?

I don’t understand how post #182 can be misinterpreted.

Then what on earth do you think they are talking about? If the Smalcaldic Articles are talking about Paul III personally, then that’s not really such a big deal, right? It obviously wouldn’t apply to Pope Francis.

I’m baffled both by why you think they aren’t talking about the office of the Papacy and why you think, if they aren’t, that it’s still relevant to Lutheran attitudes to Catholicism today. In fact, I really don’t know what you think they are saying.

“Pope” is the name of an office, isn’t it? Why would they have to say “the office of the Papacy”?

They don’t adhere to your interpretation, and they have no obligation to do so, any more than you have any obligation to adhere to some anti-Catholic’s interpretation of Unam Sanctam or the documents of Trent.

I think it’s possible. The PCA did it with the WCF. I think the LCMS hasn’t done it for a couple of reasons:
  1. They are more committed to confessionalism than the PCA is (this may be a general Lutheran vs. Reformed thing, or it may not).
  2. They have a clearer understanding of why the language is there: because of what, in their view, “Rome” teaches about the Gospel. While the Reformed tradition has the same basic understanding, they also have a much stronger legacy of political opposition to Catholicism and a broader range of complaints, and the PCA in particular is relatively closer to American evangelicalism as a whole with its cultural/eschatological anti-Catholicism. So I can see why the PCA would get rid of the language while the LCMS would keep it. Mainline Lutherans and Reformed don’t bother to get rid of it because they take the confessions more weakly in the first place, I think.
This issue is a good example of why I find your methods so misguided. You persistently focus on relatively peripheral issues with “shock value.” You seem to think that Protestants are only Protestants because they haven’t figured out some of the less pleasant aspects of their heritage, and if you just hold their noses to it long enough they will see the light. I think that belief makes no sense at all. It is, as you once applauded me for saying about Luther, “seriously delusional”:p.

In this case, the “Antichrist” language is dependent on the basic Lutheran conviction that they understand the Gospel rightly and Rome gets it wrong. That’s the issue that has to be dealt with. What would it accomplish if they took the language out of the Confessions while retaining the belief that Rome is in serious error on the nature of the Gospel? (Of course, mainline Lutherans who adhere to the Joint Declaration no longer believe this.)

Edwin
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how post #182 can be misinterpreted.
 
Contarini said:
No, you must accept that when they say they believe in “sola scriptura” that means what they say it means. You don’t have to call it “Scripture alone” if you don’t want to. It doesn’t really matter what you call it. What matters is that you pay attention to what they say they believe and try to understand it on their own terms instead of arrogantly telling them that you know what they really believe.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Nope I don’t
 
benjohnson said:
And other authorities - for example, the Bishop of Rome would be considered an authority by us Lutherans. Those authorities are normed by the church with the Word.
Click to expand...
Ben
I would like to take this oportunity to invite you home to Rome. We aren’t perfect people that’s apparent. Edwin thinks I’m rude. So be it. 🙂
 
Novocastrian said:
This is genuinely astounding.

On the other hand, I’m choosing to believe (as is apparently my right) that you really mean “Yes I do”, so I feel a bit better now.
Click to expand...
Sola Scriptura means Scripture Alone. Does “nope” me “yes”? What the Lutherans here believe in is Scripture and Tradition and part of their tradition is written by people who have separated themselves from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. As you know, for himself Luther believed in Sola Scriptura (as interpreted by Luther) he was pretty vexed when the peasants wanted to do the same. This is history.

Annie
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top