A
Annie39
Guest
I don’t think so. Here is the Church’s response to the decloration. vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.htmlThe Pope blushes.
Annie
- Status
Annie
C
Contarini
Guest
There is no going back to the original anyone. Luther did indeed, at least at some moments, make pretty radical appeals to Scripture alone (though to my knowledge he never used the term “sola scriptura”) and certainly expressed himself rather disrespectfully with regard to the Church Fathers (much more so, in fact, than the supposedly more radical Reformed did). But as Jon says, Lutheranism isn’t founded on the “original Luther.” Founding any community on the “original anyone” would be utterly silly. You’re attacking a straw man.
And I note that you have now dropped your attempt to appeal to the supposed “true” meaning of the term “sola scriptura.” Would that be because you acknowledge the point that a term such as this must be interpreted in context as it is actually used?
The term is, as far as I know, an invention of confessional Protestantism. So surely they have the best right to interpret it.
What people? The early Reformers? No, they’re not the Magisterium. The confessions are, under Scripture, the authority for Lutherans.
Of course, they believe that the Confessions are in line with the Church founded by Jesus Christ. They reject a purely juridical interpretation of that Church, and so far I think they’re clearly right. I do not, however, find their alternative convincing.
If you want to argue against what Lutherans actually believe, you will probably find me on your side. But you have no business telling them that you know better than they do what they really believe. That’s out of line when non-Catholics (even ex-Catholics) do it to Catholics, and it’s no less out of line here.
Edwin
A
Annie39
Guest
Edwin
“And I note that you have now dropped your attempt to appeal to the supposed “true” meaning of the term “sola scriptura.” Would that be because you acknowledge the point that a term such as this must be interpreted in context as it is actually used?”
Actually no.
“….you have no business telling them that you know better than they do what they really believe.”
I don’t take kindly to rudeness.
If “The confessions are, under Scripture, the authority for Lutherans” then they acknowledge that they have set up a Church against the Catholic Church and have co-opted the name catholic. The thing is “Scripture” is only true if interpreted correctly. It is a Catholic books or books if you will. It was canonized by Catholics so that after the persecutions they could be on the same page as it were in what was allowed to be read in the Liturgy. The confessions are correct only in so far as they agree with the Catholic Church.
Annie
“And I note that you have now dropped your attempt to appeal to the supposed “true” meaning of the term “sola scriptura.” Would that be because you acknowledge the point that a term such as this must be interpreted in context as it is actually used?”
Actually no.
“….you have no business telling them that you know better than they do what they really believe.”
I don’t take kindly to rudeness.
If “The confessions are, under Scripture, the authority for Lutherans” then they acknowledge that they have set up a Church against the Catholic Church and have co-opted the name catholic. The thing is “Scripture” is only true if interpreted correctly. It is a Catholic books or books if you will. It was canonized by Catholics so that after the persecutions they could be on the same page as it were in what was allowed to be read in the Liturgy. The confessions are correct only in so far as they agree with the Catholic Church.
Annie
N
Novocastrian
Guest
The bolded statement is true if we assume that Trent articulates the faith of the Catholic Church better than the Lutheran confessions. Then the Lutherans would have fallen and Rome preserved the truth. If this isn’t the case, however, then the Lutherans have a much more defensible claim to authentic Catholicism.
B
benjohnson
Guest
That may be the Catholic viewpoint of us Lutherans, but based on our predicate that we’re a continuation of the western church, you won’t find it convinces many Lutherans.
There has been rather famous Catholic cardinal that was mulling that over.
jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1203403?uid=3739960&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103967171031
…
If I may, Annie, while our communions have their differences, frankly Catholics and Lutherans (while remaining steadfast to their faith) embrase each other as we are able for two reasons: Christ prays for it (John 17:21) , and to help proclaim the Gospel to the world in these increasingly secular times.
A
Annie39
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
Then it’s going to be very hard to have anything like a substantive conversation with you, and you are very ill-equipped to witness to the Catholic Faith, since you refuse to acknowledge basic principles of communication.
All terms have to be understood in context. Otherwise you are just making stuff up and talking to yourself.
Then you should not be taking kindly to your own posts, which are appallingly rude. It’s hard to get any ruder than telling people that you know what they believe better than they do.
If it’s rude for me to point out honestly what you are doing, think how rude it is for you to be doing it
No, they believe that they are continuing the Catholic Church.
They are wrong. But that is what they believe. You have to start with what they believe instead of telling them that they really believe something else.
Edwin
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
Right. This proposition is true, in my opinion (that Trent articulates the Catholic Faith better than the Confessions do–Trent is wholly orthodox and the Confessions are in places defective) but it needs to be the end of Lutheran-Catholic discussion, not the starting point. Annie is trying to make it the starting point, which short-circuits the need for discussion in the first place.
It doesn’t have to be quite that drastic. Perhaps (this is my own view) the Lutherans simply got focused on one aspect of the truth and thus came to deny others, while Trent (for all its faults) maintained the orthodox faith in its integrity. That doesn’t mean that they “fell” away from the faith entirely. Their intentions were good, and Lutheranism has much to teach the rest of the Christian world, including Catholics.
Right. I find the arguments for this proposition to be entirely unconvincing–indeed, it’s hard sometimes for me to see how anyone can believe this, given how novel the whole “sola fide” concept was and how radically Lutherans redefined the very concept of “the Gospel.” But the point needs to be argued, not just assumed.
Edwin
A
Annie39
Guest
Once again here is the Catholic Church’s official response to the joint declaration. Please read.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html
Annie
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
N
Novocastrian
Guest
While we disagree on specific details, I get the impression that we’re at least having the same conversation. For this I’m glad!
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Jon,
I have a few comments about the following:
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 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?
In my first ‘contribution’ to this thread, I said:
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?
**Personally, I think that this is an extremely important question. After all, if Lutheranism does not have a logical answer to this question, then it must admit that it’s foundation, Luther’s revolt against the Church, was conducted without legitimate authority. You may feel differently. I look forward to our dialogue as we explore the matter. **
God Bless You Jon, Topper
I have a few comments about the following:
Jon, I don’t believe this for a second, and the reason that I don’t is that I have never seen ANY evidence of it – whatsoever. The official position of Lutheranism, as found in the Lutheran Confessions, is that the Pope is the antichrist. I might begin to believe your statement seriously only after Lutheranism has erased that ultra-offensive ‘antichrist’ language from your confessions, along with a few other equally offensive items. We both know that Lutheranism cannot do that and never will.
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? **
Jon, as you know, I consider Protestants defining themselves as ‘Evangelical Catholic’ to as an misleading and also as an offensive misappropriation. 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?
In my first ‘contribution’ to this thread, I said:
Your response was as follows:
Actually Jon, I would have hoped that you viewed my comments as being important enough to warrant an actual response, but I am perfectly happy to thank Annie for her help in getting an answer to my post.
As you know, I prefer not to just blow past Luther and ‘magically arrive’ at the Lutheran Confessions. In all honesty, Luther’s beliefs are the foundations for Lutheranism.
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?
**Personally, I think that this is an extremely important question. After all, if Lutheranism does not have a logical answer to this question, then it must admit that it’s foundation, Luther’s revolt against the Church, was conducted without legitimate authority. You may feel differently. I look forward to our dialogue as we explore the matter. **
The more important question is why, specifically and exactly, you have ‘confidence’ in your communion, and it’s ‘ability’ to ‘get doctrine right’. Just **exactly **what is it that you think made those late 16th century Lutheran Theologians (and politicians) better Exegetes than the Catholics of their time AND of the prior 1500 years?
God Bless You Jon, Topper
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
In all due respect, your points are antiquated and do not represent the position of the Roman Catholic Church toward Lutherans and Lutherans toward Catholics. I suppose you can ignore the reality of the conclusions in the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue but why?
A
Annie39
Guest
Oh wow. Now I see why the Lutheran Churches that I attended didn’t insist that we read the Confessions.
Annie
A
Annie39
Guest
You continue to ignore the Church’s official position on the document that you cling to. I’d like to take this opportunity to invite you to come home to the True Church.
Annie
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
And I invite you to cite any document representing the last 50 years of Lutheran-Catholic dialogue that suggests that the True Church is solely Roman Catholic.
Even the citation you linked to strongly affirms the goal of full communion between Lutherans and Catholics.
What are your objections to the Pontifical Council’s Commission on Unity between Lutherans and Catholics?
Hi Tim
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.
Luther did not die on a cross for me. We do not preach Luther and him crucified. We preach Christ crucified.
Jon
That you do not believe this is fine, really.
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.
I appreciate that this is your view. I, obviously, do not share it.
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
Hi Annie,
Or maybe its the very reason they should have, instead of leaving you to hear about them from someone who completely disagrees with them. Certainly, one would not go to a Baptist forum to discover the Catholic Church’s interpretation of its catechism…
Jon
A
Annie39
Guest
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:
- 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.
- He is an embodiment of Satanic power. This is manifested:
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).
- Status