Not practicing SS in Lutheran churches

[JonNC]

This seems to be pretty clear Jon.

Annie

STATEMENT ON THE ANTICHRIST
Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope 57:

Therefore, even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right, yet since he defends godless services and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him; yea, it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist. The errors of the Pope are manifest and not trifling.

III. The passage (2 Th 2:1-12) promises that God will reveal the “man of lawlessness” and states the tokens, or marks, by means of which God will reveal him to the eyes of faith.

Among these marks are:

1. He “sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Th 2:4). He is a religious power demanding religious allegiance, usurping authority in the Church and tyrannizing Christian consciences. Cf. Smalcald Articles II, IV, 10-14.
2. He is an embodiment of Satanic power. This is manifested:

a. in the fact that he appears as the one who “will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God” (2 Th 2:4). He is God’s Adversary;

b. and in the fact that his opposition to God is an opposition of disguise and deceit. He opposes God by usurping the place and name of God (2 Th 2:4). The Satanic appears, characteristically, in religious form: the “coming” of Antichrist is pitted against the “coming” of Christ, his signs and lying wonders against the miracles of Christ, faith in his lie against faith in the truth of Christ (2 Th 2:10-11).

IV. Therefore on the basis of a renewed study of the pertinent Scriptures we reaffirm the statement of the Lutheran Confessions, that “the Pope is the very Antichrist” (cf. Section II), especially since he anathematizes the doctrine of the justification by faith alone and sets himself up as the infallible head of the Church.

We thereby affirm that we identify this “Antichrist” with the Papacy as it is known to us today, which shall, as 2 Thessalonians 2:8 states, continue to the end of time, whatever form or guise it may take. This neither means nor implies a blanket condemnation of all members of the Roman Catholic Church, for despite all the errors taught in that church the Word of God is still heard there, and that Word is an effectual Word. Isa 55:10, 11; cf. Apology XXIV, 98, cited above under II.

We make this confession in the confidence of faith. The Antichrist cannot deceive us if we remain under the revelation given us in the Apostolic word (2 Th 2:13-17), for in God’s gracious governance of history the Antichrist can deceive only those who “refused to love the truth” (2 Th 2:10-12).

It is clear. There are basic teachings about the power and primacy of the pope that we consider opposed to Christ. It is also a fact that we do not consider any individual pope, personally, as THE Antichrist.
Further, every part of that statement has in it a the recognition that a change in those teachings, indeed a reconciliation regarding them between us, would bring to an end the condemnation, just exactly in the same way that Trent’s anathemas can be lifted if we cease to continue in our “errors”.

Its ugly, and nasty, and I wish the wording were different, considering the dramatic changes that have occurred between our communions since Vat. II. It is historically conditional, and it does not stand in the way of, or even exclude the fact that, the there is a recognition within Lutheranism that the pope has, among all of the bishops, a primacy, granted to him in the early Church, and that he has the authority recognized in bishops within his see.

And again, The Catholic Church leadership in Rome, including popes from John XXIII to Francis, have participated in efforts to improve the relationship between our communions, despite the harsh condemnations of the past, on both sides. I thank God for that, and join in Pope Benedict’s statement, which he expressed in a Lutheran Church in Rome in 2010, that unity can only come from God, and I hope the Spirit continues to work for that unity.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

It is clear. There are basic teachings about the power and primacy of the pope that we consider opposed to Christ. It is also a fact that we do not consider any individual pope, personally, as THE Antichrist.
Further, every part of that statement has in it a the recognition that a change in those teachings, indeed a reconciliation regarding them between us, would bring to an end the condemnation, just exactly in the same way that Trent’s anathemas can be lifted if we cease to continue in our “errors”.

Its ugly, and nasty, and I wish the wording were different, considering the dramatic changes that have occurred between our communions since Vat. II. It is historically conditional, and it does not stand in the way of, or even exclude the fact that, the there is a recognition within Lutheranism that the pope has, among all of the bishops, a primacy, granted to him in the early Church, and that he has the authority recognized in bishops within his see.

And again, The Catholic Church leadership in Rome, including popes from John XXIII to Francis, have participated in efforts to improve the relationship between our communions, despite the harsh condemnations of the past, on both sides. I thank God for that, and join in Pope Benedict’s statement, which he expressed in a Lutheran Church in Rome in 2010, that unity can only come from God, and I hope the Spirit continues to work for that unity.

Jon

This is the picture of Lutheran-Catholic relations

 

[JonNC]

This is the picture of Lutheran-Catholic relations

Yes, that’s from Pope Benedict’s visit to the Lutheran Church in Rome in 2010.

Jon

 

[Annie39]

Jon,

As you know Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant and established a New Covenant in His Blood. But even John did not know if Jesus was the Messiah or not in Luke: 7 we read “Art thou he that art to come; or look we for another? [20] And when the men were come unto him, they said: John the Baptist hath sent us to thee, saying: Art thou he that art to come; or look we for another?
[21] (And in that same hour, he cured many of their diseases, and hurts, and evil spirits: and to many that were blind he gave sight.) [22] And answering, he said to them: Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen: the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are made clean, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, to the poor the gospel is preached: [23] And blessed is he whosoever shall not be scandalized in me”

It wasn’t just everyone who could be the Messiah and there had to be proof that Jesus was He who was to come. He didn’t ask anyone to take his word for it. In fact even the disciples performed miracles in Jesus’ name.

What evidence do you have that Luther could set up a new Church with a different doctrines using the Bible that was canonized by the Catholic Church in order for all the Bishops to be using the same books in the Liturgy? Where are his miracles? Okay so you don’t like what Luther taught for the most part. How about Jakob Andreae or Martin Chemnitz what evidence do you have that they were right about faith alone and their insistence that the Pope is the anti-christ? I seems to me that those charges are so very egregious that they had better be right. Read below the Canons from the Council of Trent do they sound anything like the personal condemnation of the Vicar of Christ that the Confessions do? What evidence do we have that the people who taught/teach “faith alone” had the authority to issue their condemnation?

The Scriptures that Protestants cling to are the property of the Catholic Church and must be interpreted in a Catholic way.

I don’t need to reinvent the wheel the text below is taken from post #9 at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=113973 Thank you Catholic Dude
Trent phrased it much more directly and powerfully at Session 6, some examples:
CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.
There are protestants who believe “God gave us tough commands because He knew we couldnt keep them”…this is false and an abomination in the eyes of the CC.
CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.
In short, by “faith alone” any passage in the Gospels which doesnt mention “faith” isnt required of Christians…this is also an abomination and tosses out 90% of the teachings of Christ.
CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe;as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.
Here is one of my favorites, it hits the nail on the head, in otherwords if you really examine the consequences of “faith alone” your really saying the teachings of Jesus are nothing more than a quickie prayer and that the New Testament wasted paper talking about commandments and such.
CANON XXI.-If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema.
Another one of my favorites, this is for those who think/teach Jesus is simply a cool dude and your buddy but turn a BLIND eye to His clear teachings and stern warnings against disobeying Him. Yes the CC teaches He is our loving Saviour, but He is also our Master to obey.
CANON XXV.-If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just sins venially at least, or-which is more intolerable still-mortally, and consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto damnation; let him be anathema.
This was one of the worst errors started by Luther and other Protestants, the idea that led to the faith alone problem in the first place by mistakenly thinking any and everything we do including good works is seen as “filthy rags” in God’s eyes.

Jon, the Churches teaching will never change. But like Benedict XVI I pray for the Lutherans no matter what variety will come home to Rome

Annie

 

[steido01]

What evidence do you have that Luther could set up a new Church

He didn’t. He was excommunicated by your communion which, from the Lutheran point of view, had fallen into heterodox error.

with a different doctrines

If your bishops started imposing novel teachings, you might find yourself on the ‘different’ side. Our teachings do not conflict with the early church fathers; our Confessions appeal to them constantly.

using the Bible that was canonized by the Catholic Church in order for all the Bishops to be using the same books in the Liturgy?

You’ve said this one a few times now. Let’s get some timelines and terms straight. ‘Canonize’ is what your communion does to commemorate certain Saints Triumphant. A ‘canon’ is a rule or code of books. Your communion didn’t impose an official one-size-for-everybody canon until well into the Council of Trent, after Luther’s death. How can you hold a dead man accountable to a new law? What is this, a Cadaver Synod?

Where are his miracles? Okay so you don’t like what Luther taught for the most part. How about Jakob Andreae or Martin Chemnitz what evidence do you have that they were right about faith alone and their insistence that the Pope is the anti-christ?

To quote the greatest movie ever made, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Look, friend. Jon has kindly explained that when Lutherans use that word, it is not used in the same way the average American millennialist might. From the Lutheran point of view, anyone can display traits that are anti-to-Christ. Anyone. The pope, a Lutheran pastor, you, me.

I seems to me that those charges are so very egregious that they had better be right. Read below the Canons from the Council of Trent do they sound anything like the personal condemnation of the Vicar of Christ that the Confessions do?

Yes. Worse, frankly. I don’t read any condemnation against any person from our Confessions; only a warning against false teaching. Trent, on the other hand, is quite different in its approach. Do you know what ‘anathema’ means?

What evidence do we have that the people who taught/teach “faith alone” had the authority to issue their condemnation?

Where do you see a condemnation? How many times do you count the word ‘anathema’ in our Confessions? Count that against Trent’s total.

The Scriptures that Protestants cling to are the property of the Catholic Church and must be interpreted in a Catholic way.

Scripture is certainly the property of the One Who gave it to us and, yes, it is for the church catholic to interpret. Good thing we Lutherans consider ourselves part of the church.

 

[Annie39]

Hello Don,

“He didn’t. He was excommunicated by your communion which, from the Lutheran point of view, had fallen into heterodox error.”

My reply: When I joined the LCMS I was Latae sententiae (ipso facto) excommunicated. I didn’t start my own Church. Trust me there is no Annieism and never was.

“If your bishops started imposing novel teachings, you might find yourself on the ‘different’ side. Our teachings do not conflict with the early church fathers; our Confessions appeal to them constantly.”

My reply: Oh many bishops now and through the years imposed novel teachings and many folks followed them beginning with Arias. Do you side with Arias if not why not? As for your assertion that your teachings do not conflict with the early church fathers backed up by no evidence I’ll just say “yes they do” If you give an example or two I’ll try to find time to deal with it or them right now this thread is getting a little tiresome.

“You’ve said this one a few times now. Let’s get some timelines and terms straight. ‘Canonize’ is what your communion does to commemorate certain Saints Triumphant. A ‘canon’ is a rule or code of books. Your communion didn’t impose an official one-size-for-everybody canon until well into the Council of Trent, after Luther’s death. How can you hold a dead man accountable to a new law? What is this, a Cadaver Synod?”

My reply: Well actually Don, that isn’t correct. The Council of Carthage, which was held in 397 A.D., mainly through the influence of St Augustine, settled the Canon or Collection of New Testament Scriptures as we Catholics have them now. They were never pronounced de fide until the Council of Trent because they weren’t challenged until the time of Luther there is more to the story but this will have to suffice for now. The Arians claimed (with Scriptural support) that Jesus was not God. The Council of Nicaea in the year 325 cleared that right up for the Church. Are you saying that the Church didn’t believe that Jesus was/is God until 325?

“To quote the greatest movie ever made, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Look, friend. Jon has kindly explained that when Lutherans use that word, it is not used in the same way the average American millennialist might. From the Lutheran point of view, anyone can display traits that are anti-to-Christ. Anyone. The pope, a Lutheran pastor, you, me.”

My reply: Well friend why oh why do you continue to post such blatant anti-historical humbug when you have already been dealt with here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11531615&highlight=anti-christ#post11531615

“Yes. Worse, frankly. I don’t read any condemnation against any person from our Confessions; only a warning against false teaching. Trent, on the other hand, is quite different in its approach. Do you know what ‘anathema’ means?”

My reply: Yes frankly do you? It means that those who hold those heretical views are ex-communicated. Your question leads me to believe that you didn’t know that did you?

“Where do you see a condemnation? How many times do you count the word ‘anathema’ in our Confessions? Count that against Trent’s total.”

My reply: Offhand I’d say that calling the Pope the anti-christ is pretty much a condemnation of monumental proportions.

“Scripture is certainly the property of the One Who gave it to us and, yes, it is for the church catholic to interpret. Good thing we Lutherans consider ourselves part of the church.”

My reply: Well you can consider yourselves catholic until the cows come home you aren’t. I’d ask you to tell me when the Lutheran’s received the Scriptures and whence they came but I don’t want to carry this on with you Don. You have been dealt with and defeated by a better man than me (I’m a woman of course but you get the idea). It is apparent that you need to study up on Church History before you jump in to waters too deep for thee.

Annie

---

 

[steido01]

I’ve been accused of a great many things, usually by people who don’t know me. Being ignorant of history is typically not one.

Before I bow out, I’d like to offer a genuine suggestion: try actively listening to those with whom you dialogue. While we often use similar words, the meanings and connotations may differ. When that happens, it’s usually better to defer to those who have knowledge of the topic than to those who may have strong feelings on/against said topic. Logic and Reason are friends of Truth. And pursuit of that Truth is infinitely more satisfying than making sure others are “dealt with and defeated by better men.”

 

[JonNC]

=Annie39;12166311]Jon,

As you know Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant and established a New Covenant in His Blood.
It wasn’t just everyone who could be the Messiah and there had to be proof that Jesus was He who was to come. He didn’t ask anyone to take his word for it. In fact even the disciples performed miracles in Jesus’ name.

Agreed, and Amen, Annie.

What evidence do you have that Luther could set up a new Church with a different doctrines

Why would you think we believe he set up a new church? We confess the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” every week.

using the Bible that was canonized by the Catholic Church in order for all the Bishops to be using the same books in the Liturgy?

I’m guessing you are referring to the dispute regarding the deuterocanonical books. It is historically a fact that Lutherans have, and still do, use them liturgically. Luther’s translation includes them to this day. And for the record, there has never been a universally agreed upon canon of scripture, even prior to the Reformation.

Where are his miracles?

Okay so you don’t like what Luther taught for the most part. How about Jakob Andreae or Martin Chemnitz what evidence do you have that they were right about faith alone and their insistence that the Pope is the anti-christ? I seems to me that those charges are so very egregious that they had better be right.

Who said I don’t like what Luther taught for the most part. Luther taught some incredibly wonderful things. He also taught thing I, and Lutheranism at large, disagree with.
Perhaps I should post the statement from our synod regarding the charge of anti-Christ:
Emphasis mine

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; 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.

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.** It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) 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.**

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. **

The Scriptures that Protestants cling to are the property of the Catholic Church and must be interpreted in a Catholic way.

The fact that we “cling to” His word should be a source of joy and hope for you, Annie, don’t you think? The Catholic Church thinks so:

"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

No Lutheran, even Luther, denies/denied where we got scripture from:
*“Yes, we ourselves find it difficult to refute it, especially since we concede—as we must—that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them." *
But scripture is God’s word, shared by all who claim His name.

Jon, the Churches teaching will never change. But like Benedict XVI I pray for the Lutherans no matter what variety will come home to Rome

This Lutheran is not asking the CC to change its teachings, but even Rome recognizes its place to develop new understandings of its doctrines and teachings, and adjust practices accordingly. We here have that flexibility on our side of the Elbe as well.
I, too, pray for the day when the Elbe and Tiber, the Bosphorus and the Thames run together again.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

That you do not believe this is fine, really.

Jon – what I don’t believe is your statements that ‘most Lutherans today would not reject primacy of the see of Rome’. I don’ think you have anything substantive to support that statement. What if anything can you offer?
In my last post, in this portion which you sort of addressed, I asked you the following question:

If you want to continue to maintain your position that Lutherans accept the primacy of the see of Rome, then I ask you for some evidence. **If ‘most Lutherans’ accept the primacy of the Pope, how is that reflected in the Lutheran church today? In what way, specifically and exactly, (of course), do Lutheran bishops and clergy acknowledge that primacy of the Bishop of Rome? **

You have made a claim here and I don’t think that it is at all true.

As you know, the 1500’s charge that the papacy is antichrist is historically conditional. That the leadership of both communions has looked beyond the accusations in both directions of the Reformation era over the last 50 years, thanks in large part to Vatican II, is encouraging, and I pray for the day when anathemas and harsh accusations are completely erased from the relationship between our communions.

Jon – you are aware aren’t you that those anathemas of Trent do NOT apply to any living Christian today – right? That being the case, they do not apply to you or any other Protestant. On the other hand, your Confessions STILL refer to the Pope as the antichrist. Those accusations have referred to every Pope since the 16th century, and as a matter of fact, your leadership agrees. If you doubt it, we could quote refer to people like Preus (1st VP of the LCMS), who are willing to stand up for official Lutheran church teaching.

I appreciate that this is your view. I, obviously, do not share it.

In any situation where offense is given by the actions of one party, the offended party is rarely offended. There is the offender and the offendee. If you are a Catholic, take being a Catholic seriously, and do not want to see the term “Catholic” watered down or disrespected and misused, then you will take offense. As I mentioned in my last post, it is the capitol “C” which is so greatly offensive.

In another question from my last post which you did not get around to, I asked the following question on this matter:

Honestly, I would not have near the problem that I have, except that for the fact of the capitol ‘C’. By that capitalization, you are using a proper noun that refers to the Catholic Church, a Church that your Confessions consider to be NOT the Church. If you were to refer to yourselves as “Evangelical catholics”, with the lower case ‘c’, that would not be as objectionable.

You claim that the term ‘Evangelical Catholic’ is an ‘oft-used historical term’ used by Lutherans. I would like to better understand that ‘historical usage by’ Lutherans. Jon, just how long have Lutherans been referring to themselves with this term? In addition, which Lutheran ‘groups’ use that term?

You are correct, in that I feel differently, and we have covered this in other threads. There are lots of things that Luther did, didn’t do, did incorrectly, did correctly, said with charity, said with offensive malice.
Luther did not die on a cross for me. We do not preach Luther and him crucified. We preach Christ crucified.

Jon, that was not the question that I asked. I would like to respectfully repose my question and am again, asking for a specific response to what I actually wrote. My comment was as follows:

“Here it seems that you basically admit that Luther practiced a rather extreme form of Private Interpretation when he originally challenged the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Lutheranism does not permit such a use of Private Interpretation, which means that you believe that Luther’s revolt against the Catholic Church was illegitimate. After all, if one of your Lutheran College Professors attempted to do to Lutheranism what Luther did to the Catholic Church, you would rebuke them to no end, and you would be very clear that that person does not have the authority to challenge your church by the use of their Private Interpretation. With this in mind, how do you defend what Luther did, meaning his use of his Private Interpretation to challenge the doctrinal teachings of HIS Church?”

It seems to me that this is a very important issue. If Lutheranism was founded on the basis of an authority which was illegitimate according even to Lutheranism, then where does that leave Lutheranism as a whole? You can claim that you follow your Confessions, but then that begs the question (again) as to why, specifically and exactly, you believe that your Confessions are superior in any way to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Jon, I realize that these are extremely difficult questions to answer from the Lutheran perspective. They go straight to the validity of the foundations of the Reformation, and especially of Lutheranism. The lack of a compelling response to these questions is to basically an admission that Lutheranism is not based on a firm foundation.

I would also suggest that if Lutheranism (and the rest of Protestantism) actually was built on a ‘firm foundation’ and NOT simply on the Private Interpretations of the ‘Reformers’, my questions could be answered quite easily, and that you would be more than willing to address them.

I look forward to your response and by the way, I think you give Luther far too little ‘credit’ for Lutheranism, but I completely understand why you want to minimize the connection.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Annie39]

Hi Jon,
Where are his miracles?

Did you not read my post #84 in this thread?

Recap sort of. When John the Baptist wanted to know if Jesus was the Messiah He didn’t merely claim it. He sent word back to John about the miracles that He was performing. He didn’t ask anyone to take His word for it.

In the beginning of the Church the Apostles also perform miracles proving their authority to preach the New Covenant.

In the 16th century Luther, Calvin and Zwingli each preached another gospel to the one that was taught since the founding of the Church.

If any of those spreaders of the new gospels did not prove his authority the way that Jesus did, then you have to take Luther’s word for it that he was right. Same goes for Jakob Andreae and Martin Chemnitz as a matter of fact.

Annie

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12169860]
Jon – what I don’t believe is your statements that ‘most Lutherans today would not reject primacy of the see of Rome’. I don’ think you have anything substantive to support that statement. What if anything can you offer?
In my last post, in this portion which you sort of addressed, I asked you the following question:

If you want to continue to maintain your position that Lutherans accept the primacy of the see of Rome, then I ask you for some evidence. **If ‘most Lutherans’ accept the primacy of the Pope, how is that reflected in the Lutheran church today? In what way, specifically and exactly, (of course), do Lutheran bishops and clergy acknowledge that primacy of the Bishop of Rome? **

An interesting dialogue article.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/attitudes-papal-primacy.cfm

Jon – you are aware aren’t you that those anathemas of Trent do NOT apply to any living Christian today – right? That being the case, they do not apply to you or any other Protestant. On the other hand, your Confessions STILL refer to the Pope as the antichrist. Those accusations have referred to every Pope since the 16th century, and as a matter of fact, your leadership agrees. If you doubt it, we could quote refer to people like Preus (1st VP of the LCMS), who are willing to stand up for official Lutheran church teaching.

I have posted the official LCMS position in this thread and others, and they say without a doubt that the charge is against no individual holder of the office, personally. This is off the topic of the thread, but I will be happy to send the link to you again by PM if you wish.

In any situation where offense is given by the actions of one party, the offended party is rarely offended. There is the offender and the offendee. If you are a Catholic, take being a Catholic seriously, and do not want to see the term “Catholic” watered down or disrespected and misused, then you will take offense. As I mentioned in my last post, it is the capitol “C” which is so greatly offensive.

As the term Evangelical Catholic is a title, it can be capitalized, as I and others have done.

If you wish to converse about the term, which is off the topic of the thread, you are welcome to PM me about it, or start a new thread.

“Here it seems that you basically admit that Luther practiced a rather extreme form of Private Interpretation when he originally challenged the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Lutheranism does not permit such a use of Private Interpretation, which means that you believe that Luther’s revolt against the Catholic Church was illegitimate.

I have admitted no such thing.

Jon, I realize that these are extremely difficult questions to answer from the Lutheran perspective.

No. They aren’t.
The topic of the thread that Annie began was a related to her statement that, when Lutheran, she in her parish felt no need to refer to the Confessions. I responded that this was poor catechesis on the part of the parish. If you have a question about that, I will be happy to respond to it.

I look forward to your response and by the way, I think you give Luther far too little ‘credit’ for Lutheranism, but I completely understand why you want to minimize the connection.

I give Luther a lot of credit, but not Luther alone. Further, I feel no need to defend Luther in areas that I disagree with him. To the extent that he did or did not practice personal interpretation is irrelevant to me at this point. This is an important point for you and your apologia, I understand. It isn’t to mine. And the condescending nature of your statement here won’t change my response to it.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Annie39;12171512]Hi Jon,
Where are his miracles?

Did you not read my post #84 in this thread?

Hi Annie,
When did I or any Lutheran claim that Luther performed miracles?

Recap sort of. When John the Baptist wanted to know if Jesus was the Messiah He didn’t merely claim it. He sent word back to John about the miracles that He was performing. He didn’t ask anyone to take His word for it.

In the beginning of the Church the Apostles also perform miracles proving their authority to preach the New Covenant.

True, and Luther wasn’t the Messiah. We don’t view him as a messiah. We don’t preach him as a messiah.

In the 16th century Luther, Calvin and Zwingli each preached another gospel to the one that was taught since the founding of the Church.

I won’t speak for Calvin and Zwingli, as they are of completely different movements, but as a Lutheran I do not see our confession as being a different Gospel, but instead a continuation of the apostolic tradition of the Church. So, the premise of your question is, for me, a non-sequitur.

Jon

 

[Annie39]

Jon writes: When did I or any Lutheran claim that Luther performed miracles?
Me: You didn’t no one did but the point is why didn’t he?

Me: Recap sort of. When John the Baptist wanted to know if Jesus was the Messiah He didn’t merely claim it. He sent word back to John about the miracles that He was performing. He didn’t ask anyone to take His word for it.

In the beginning of the Church the Apostles also perform miracles proving their authority to preach the New Covenant.

John Replying to the above: True, and Luther wasn’t the Messiah. We don’t view him as a messiah. We don’t preach him as a messiah.

Me: If only the Messiah performed miracles you would have a point. The apostles also performed miracles to prove that they had authority to preach the New Covenant.

Jon: I won’t speak for Calvin and Zwingli, as they are of completely different movements, but as a Lutheran I do not see our confession as being a different Gospel, but instead a continuation of the apostolic tradition of the Church. So, the premise of your question is, for me, a non-sequitur.

Me: But they had much in common with Luther they moved away from the Church. I think that Luther did see himself preaching a different gospel. Otherwise why would he have to change the Bible? He also did not like James as you know because it is clear that Luther misinterpreted scripture because James said that we are not saved by faith alone. Moreover in Matthew 7: 21-23 Jesus says Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
Clearly Jon, these were believers.

There is more: Matthew 25:31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.[37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

This post is to long and will be finished in a reply

 

[Annie39]

Jon, he changed the Bible to make it fit with his new gospel. There is soooo much more I could write but this will have to suffice.

Martin Luther translated the New Testament into German and translatedRomans 3:28 as follows:

We hold that the human will be justified without the works of the law but only by faith.

The NIV translation is as follows:
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

The King James version is as follows:
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

The Catholic Church objected to Luther’s translation of this verse prompting Luther to write a letter to defend his translation. The name of the letter:
An Open Letter on Translating, 1530 A.D.

Luther admits to adding the word “only” in the text but insists his reasons for doing so are good ones. Notice he used his doctrine of Sola Fide (faith only) to guide his translation rather than being faithful to the text. His words:

I was not depending upon or following the nature of language when I inserted the word “solum” (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself, and St. Paul’s meaning, urgently necessitated and demanded it. He [Paul, the apostle] is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine in this passage — namely that we arejustified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law.
I also know that in Rom. 3, the word “solum” is not present in either Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that — it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text — if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there.

If your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word “alone” (sola), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an *** [donkey] are the same thing.”

Please do not give these asses [donkeys] any other answer to their useless braying about that word “sola” than simply “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors.”

He also made another change in Romans. Romans 4:15 states,
…because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
Yet in his German translation, Martin Luther added the word ‘only’ before the term ‘wrath’ to Romans 4:15 (O’Hare, p. 201).

Annie

 

[JonNC]

=Annie39;12175187]
Me: If only the Messiah performed miracles you would have a point. The apostles also performed miracles to prove that they had authority to preach the New Covenant.

Jon: I won’t speak for Calvin and Zwingli, as they are of completely different movements, but as a Lutheran I do not see our confession as being a different Gospel, but instead a continuation of the apostolic tradition of the Church. So, the premise of your question is, for me, a non-sequitur.

Me: But they had much in common with Luther they moved away from the Church. I think that Luther did see himself preaching a different gospel. Otherwise why would he have to change the Bible?

Hi Annie,
Whether or not they had much in common, I still can’t speak for their communions. Again Luther seeing himself as teaching a new Gospel is a non-sequitur to me. But more importantly, I don’t see the Gospel I believe as being a new Gospel. There have been lots of threads regarding Luther’s translation of scripture. Suffice it to say that I don’t believe he altered Romans other than what he thought was linguistically necessary for German. As a result, no English Bible has “alone” in Romans 3:28. It were necessary for a “new” Gospel, English Lutheran Bibles would have “alone” in it.

He also did not like James as you know because it is clear that Luther misinterpreted scripture because James said that we are not saved by faith alone.

Luther explains his disagreement with the book of James
matt1618.freeyellow.com/preface.html

Moreover in Matthew 7: 21-23 Jesus says Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
Clearly Jon, these were believers.

Agreed, but I don’t see your point.

There is more: Matthew 25:31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.[37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

This post is to long and will be finished in a reply

Again, agreed, and Amen.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Annie39;12175192]Jon, he changed the Bible to make it fit with his new gospel. There is soooo much more I could write but this will have to suffice.

Martin Luther translated the New Testament into German and translatedRomans 3:28 as follows:

We hold that the human will be justified without the works of the law but only by faith.

The NIV translation is as follows:
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

The King James version is as follows:
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

The Catholic Church objected to Luther’s translation of this verse prompting Luther to write a letter to defend his translation. The name of the letter:
An Open Letter on Translating, 1530 A.D.

Luther admits to adding the word “only” in the text but insists his reasons for doing so are good ones. Notice he used his doctrine of Sola Fide (faith only) to guide his translation rather than being faithful to the text. His words:

I was not depending upon or following the nature of language when I inserted the word “solum” (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself, and St. Paul’s meaning, urgently necessitated and demanded it. He [Paul, the apostle] is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine in this passage — namely that we arejustified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law.
I also know that in Rom. 3, the word “solum” is not present in either Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that — it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text — if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there.

If your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word “alone” (sola), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an *** [donkey] are the same thing.”

Please do not give these asses [donkeys] any other answer to their useless braying about that word “sola” than simply “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors.”

He also made another change in Romans. Romans 4:15 states,
…because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
Yet in his German translation, Martin Luther added the word ‘only’ before the term ‘wrath’ to Romans 4:15 (O’Hare, p. 201).

Annie

But you didn’t provide the entire letter, only his sarcastic remarks. Read on in the letter to find out his real reasons. He’s pretty clear about the German idiom.
Now you can disagree with his reasons, but I encourage you to find out what the real reasons were.

You quoted the KJV and NIV. Are these not “protestant” translations? Would not they have continued to include “alone” were it necessary in the English?

We’re way off the topic of the thread, Annie. I hope I answered your question about why, as Lutherans, it is important to read scripture under the guidance of the Church and the confessions.

Jon

 

[Annie39]

But you didn’t provide the entire letter, only his sarcastic remarks. Read on in the letter to find out his real reasons. He’s pretty clear about the German idiom.
Now you can disagree with his reasons, but I encourage you to find out what the real reasons were.

You quoted the KJV and NIV. Are these not “protestant” translations? Would not they have continued to include “alone” were it necessary in the English?

We’re way off the topic of the thread, Annie. I hope I answered your question about why, as Lutherans, it is important to read scripture under the guidance of the Church and the confessions.

Jon

Yes off topic Jon. Agreed. What you have proven to me is that you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. Luther btw believed in sola Luther’s scriptura. I alread know why he said that he added the word but Jon if he ADDED the word. I can’t imagine any christian being okay with that.

Annie

 

[Novocastrian]

Yes off topic Jon. Agreed. What you have proven to me is that you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. Luther btw believed in sola Luther’s scriptura. I alread know why he said that he added the word but Jon if he ADDED the word. I can’t imagine any christian being okay with that.

Annie

All kinds of word are added in translation. If you translated every single word in the Hebrew or Greek into its precise equivalent (assuming there was one which, for Hebrew at least, there often isn’t) then you’d have paragraphs of nonsense. Languages just don’t work like that.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,
Where are his miracles? Did you not read my post #84 in this thread?

Hi Annie,

When you asked about Luther’s ‘miracles’, you were ‘waived off’ dismissively (in post number 88). Yet, as I gather you already knew, you were quite right to ask about Luther’s ‘miracles’. After all, Luther himself was not exactly bashful about asking his Protestant opponents about THEIR miracles. Hartman Grisar points this out:
**
“The stress Luther lays on miracles as a proof of (correct) doctrine is another trait to add to the picture of his psychology. ** Again and again he repeated anew what he had already, in 1524, said of Munzer and some of the preachers: They must be told to corroborate their mission by signs and wonders, or else be forbidden to preach; for whenever God wills to change the order of things He always works miracles. There is something almost tragic in the courage with which he appealed to miracles in this connection, when we bear in mind his own difficulties, in accounting for their absence in his own case.” Grisar, Vol. VI, pg. 285-6

Luther’s hypocritical call for miracles from his opponents while claiming that he didn’t need to meet his own criteria did not start in 1524.

In 1522 when the Zwickau Prophets invaded ‘Luther’s Wittenberg’, he had to rush home from his hiding place at the Wartburg Castle. Melanchthon didn’t know how to handle the Prophets and actually believed that they might be teaching God’s Truth.

Luther, still in the Wartburg, was not predisposed to allow some strangers come into Wittenberg and, teach different “interpretations” than what He believed. **He wrote to Melanchthon on January 13th, 1522 from the Wartburg: **

“Coming now to the “prophets”, let me first say that I do not approve your irresolution (in renouncing them), especially as you are more richly endowed with the spirit and with learning than I am. (Philip was then 24 years old.) In the first place, those who bear witness of themselves are not to be believed, but the spirits must be proved…For God never sent any one who was not either called by men or attested by miracles, not even his own son… Do not receive them if they assert that they come by mere revelation.”

I think that three points need to be made here.

1. Luther “instructs” Melanchthon that he should not trust those who bear witness to themselves, but by what else did Luther proclaim His “authority” than by his own witness of and to himself? Have we learned enough in the last 500 years to recognize how frail a claim it is for people to insist that they are simply offering up the ‘correct’ interpretation of Scripture?
2. Luther insists that those whom God sends should either be called by man or be proven by their miracles. First of all, PLENTY of heretics have been “called by men”, which leaves the matter of miracles, of which Luther has none. This presumes of course Luther was actually called by anyone at this early point in his ‘reforming career’.
3. Martin again reminds Philip that he should not accept those who merely claim that they come by “revelation”, obviously ignoring the fact that was, in essence, his claim AND that His was, in reality, no more credible than those of the Prophets.

Luther knew for a fact that the Prophets were not teaching the Lord’s Gospel - because they disagreed with him. He also knew that he had to challenge their ‘authority’ in order to retain his own. He challenged them about their lack of miracles.

“The Zwickau prophets received more summary judgment. Luther condescended to speak with a group of them. On April 12 he wrote in exasperation to Spalatin that Satan had shat himself to produce their ‘wisdom’. They talked so fast that he could hardly get a word in. He commanded them to do miracles to prove their claims of direct conversation with God. They refused. He said “My God keeps your god from doing a miracle.” Soon they were gone. Luther was now the pope of Wittenberg, and so he would remain to the end of his days more than two decades later.” Marius, pg. 334-5

As mentioned above, two years later, but still before he had come face to face with the disastrous effects of his teaching on Private Interpretation, Luther found it necessary to rebuke Muntzer’s claims to authority.

**“The Jews had such a command from God, but we not, he said. The Jews, he implied, received authority through miraculous intervention, but Muntzer, he said, has done no miracle at all. It was a breathtaking charge, given that Luther had been mocked on the same ground by Catholics. How could he claim that he brought a new revelation when he did no miracles to prove his authority? His answer was he had the word of God – scripture as he interpreted it. ** But that was Muntzer’s claim, too, pushed to the conclusion drawn from the New Testament that the preachers of Christ’s resurrection continued to do miracles with no suggestion that God might call a halt to them.

With Muntzer Luther was now seriously engaged with the greatest single issue of the Reformation – the reception of his preaching that the word of God was revealed in Scripture alone.” Marius, pg. 401-2

 

[Topper17]

As we all know from the painful experience of the now 500 year old Protestant reformation, Sola Scriptura does not work in the real world, at least not in terms of protecting Christian doctrinal unity. It has resulted in massive doctrinal confusion and tens of thousands of competing and conflicting sects, with of course most of them thinking that THEY are the ones who ‘do Scripture’ the best. THAT is the arrogance that Luther built into the theologies that have been the result of his teachings.

Luther considered his ‘recovery’ (or discovery) of the True Gospel to be enough of a miracle and that it has been, that is, if you consider the resulting doctrinal dissension and confusion to be a miracle.

**“Hence he is willing to allow the absence of “palpable miracles” in support of his Evangel, in default of which however, he instances the miracle of his great success. And yet according to his own showing, such an attestation by palpable miracles would have been eminently desirable. Germany, he says, from the early days of her conversion down to his own time, had never been in possession of Christianity, because the real Gospel, i.e. the doctrine of Justification, had remained unknown. Only now for the first time had the Gospel been revealed in all its purity, thanks to his study of Scripture. ** At the Council of Nicsea he declares, “there was not one who had even tasted of the Divine Spirit”; even the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem was not above suspicion, seeing that it had seen fit to discuss works and traditions rather than faith.

Thus he requires that his unheard-of claims, albeit not attested by any display of miracles, should be accepted simply on his own assurance that his teaching was based on Holy Scripture. " There is no need for us to work wonders, for our teaching is already confirmed [by Holy Scripture] and is no new thing." Grisar, Volume III, pg. 253

The claim that ‘our teaching is already confirmed by Scripture’ is not exactly a new thing in Christian history. It has been made by dozens of men whose followers have adopted their names as the formal names of their communions.

As for Melanchthon, who is considered by some to be an excellent Theologian – he was quite mesmerized by the Prophets when they arrived in Wittenberg. It could just be that he was rather easily taken in by charismatic people making wild claims about their personal authority.

“But Melanchthon saw the logic of their theology (the Zwickau Prophets), and he seems to have been impressed by Storch. He thought they might be God’s messengers. He wrote to Luther asking for advice.” Marius, pg. 324

In regards to Luther’s response, which we have read in the Grisar Volume VI quote:

**“In a curious paradox, this letter revealed some of Luther’s weaknesses against the storm of Catholic attack rising against him. He himself would be regularly accused of claiming private revelation against the tradition of the church for centuries. Once upon a time, he said, anyone who claimed private revelation, had it certified by someone else. **When the child Samuel heard the voice of God calling him, Eli the priest testified that it was so. Luther placed himself in this line so that the truly Godly men of his own time would affirm his divine call. But as Catholic were to point out time and again, this attitude begged the question. These ancient prophets of the Hebrew Bible also had their prophetic mission validated by ‘signs’, (signa). ‘Signs’ are used in the biblical text, especially in the fourth Gospel, denotes miracles, and Luther could claim no miracles to confirm his divine mission. Even Erasmus would throw this barb at him. Perhaps the constancy of these attacks moved Luther to the opinion that the word of God came to the church through its appointed ministers, those able to interpret with their own voices the Word for their time. As Heiko Oberman has observed, Luther never grounded his own authority either in special revelation or in deep mystical experience. He claimed only to be an expositor of Scripture. Yet his reading of Scripture at this time involved tortured and allegorical interpretations, and his reasoning had a circular quality that foes were quick to point out and ridicule.” Marius, pg. 324

The ‘circular quality’ that Oberman mentions is one of the most prominent legacies of Martin Luther. In addition, if the word of God comes to the Church through its appointed ministers, then aren’t those ministers disqualified as teachers of the Word once they have actually been excommunicated by the Church?

If as Marius suggests, Luther’s only justification for his ‘authority’ was as a Scriptural Exegete, then we have to factor in those issues on which Luther’s demonstrated a completely anti-Christian interpretation of Scripture (Jews, Anabaptists, Peasants, ‘reluctant wives’, theft of Church property, etc, etc.) These issues reveal Luther as being a rather poor Scriptural Exegete. In fact, Luther made claims about his own ‘authority’ which went FAR beyond anything which could be described as being only that of a ‘confident exegete’.

In summary Annie, your question about Luther’s miracles was an excellent one, but not one for which Luther’s supporters have a reasoned response. For the record, it has been said that no Lutheran ever claimed that Luther didn’t perform miracles. That is not true.

God Bless You Annie, Topper