Not practicing SS in Lutheran churches

[Novocastrian]

I believe I think I responded to you and not to whom I wanted to, sorry about that and you are correct to say what you said in your post. I apologize for my mistake.

I don’t know exactly which post you’re referring to, but I guess that shows that we’re both struggling to follow a complicated thread! So don’t worry about it.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

It has nothing to do with interpretation. I just read it as it stated and can find nor see that it says that Luther was saying that burning heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit. The Bull is saying about the Hussites and Wyclifites and Jerome of Prague and continues with"…some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document." It is not about Luther saying it was against the will of the Hol6y Spirit to burn heretic’s, but saying that the CC says that it is against the will of the Holy Spirit and it is plain as day to me as to what the bull is saying. If there is any misinterpretation it is you I am sorry to say, so I think you might give some thought to what it actually says.

If that’s what the pope thought and what the Roman Catholic denomination taught, why did it continue to burn people at the stake?

No, it’s clear that the pope thought that burning people WAS the will of the Holy Spirit, hence the supposed error.

 

[joe371]

If that’s what the pope thought and what the Roman Catholic denomination taught, why did it continue to burn people at the stake?

No, it’s clear that the pope thought that burning people WAS the will of the Holy Spirit, hence the supposed error.

Which pope believed that burning people was the will of the Holy Spirit? If a pope said this and did this then he will no doubt have his own fire to contend with…

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Which pope believed that burning people was the will of the Holy Spirit? If a pope said this and did this then he will no doubt have his own fire to contend with…

Martin V and Alexander VI come to mind.

Also many great Catholic saints like Thomas Aquinas supported the torture and execution of dissenters.

Thankfully my hero Martin Luther showed up and taught that such acts were NOT the will of the Holy Spirit. And to the RC denomination’s credit, it doesn’t support its former position.

 

[joe371]

If that’s what the pope thought and what the Roman Catholic denomination taught, why did it continue to burn people at the stake?

No, it’s clear that the pope thought that burning people WAS the will of the Holy Spirit, hence the supposed error.

Your opinion on the following:

"Clearly, Christ entrusted the role of Apostle to weak, even at times wicked men, But does that fact somehow disqualify them from fulfilling the purpose for which He called them? Of course not. God’s grace is more powerful than man’s sin, and the same is true when it comes to the papacy.

Yes, there have been some wicked popes. Corruption, immorality, even murder, were sins committed by some bishops of Rome. But what does that prove, except that they, like the Apostles, were not always faithful to the graces God gave them? This is true of all of us, to one extent or another. The fact that there have been bad popes – and that’s a fact no Catholic disputes – does not disprove the doctrine of the papacy.

. . . The fact is, most of the popes have been good – even heroically good – men. They have been, on the whole, good examples of Christian virtue and perseverance in the apostolate. That fact is very easily forgotten by critics of the papacy."

Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Your opinion on the following:

"Clearly, Christ entrusted the role of Apostle to weak, even at times wicked men, But does that fact somehow disqualify them from fulfilling the purpose for which He called them? Of course not. God’s grace is more powerful than man’s sin, and the same is true when it comes to the papacy.

Yes, there have been some wicked popes. Corruption, immorality, even murder, were sins committed by some bishops of Rome. But what does that prove, except that they, like the Apostles, were not always faithful to the graces God gave them? This is true of all of us, to one extent or another. The fact that there have been bad popes – and that’s a fact no Catholic disputes – does not disprove the doctrine of the papacy.

. . . The fact is, most of the popes have been good – even heroically good – men. They have been, on the whole, good examples of Christian virtue and perseverance in the apostolate. That fact is very easily forgotten by critics of the papacy."

I grant that most popes have been good.

But it’s not that they committed murder.

If they were teaching that murder and torture is wrong, but did it anyway there were be no problem.

It’s that they taught that committing torture and murder was the godly course of action, and they were doing the will of the Holy Spirit in perusing such actions.. That’s why my hero Luther has to teach against it, and why Exsurge Domini is seriously wrong.

 

[joe371]

Martin V and Alexander VI come to mind.

Also many great Catholic saints like Thomas Aquinas supported the torture and execution of dissenters.

Thankfully my hero Martin Luther showed up and taught that such acts were NOT the will of the Holy Spirit. And to the RC denomination’s credit, it doesn’t support its former position.

Your hero was no saint, just as certain popes were not; far from it. He promoted the murder of Jews based on false statements. In a book entitled On Jews and Their Lies, Luther wrote:

“My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire…Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted…Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country…Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it…The rulers must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs."

 

[joe371]

I grant that most popes have been good.

But it’s not that they committed murder.

If they were teaching that murder and torture is wrong, but did it anyway there were be no problem.

It’s that they taught that committing torture and murder was the godly course of action, and they were doing the will of the Holy Spirit in perusing such actions.. That’s why my hero Luther has to teach against it, and why Exsurge Domini is seriously wrong.

The kind of animosity and hate (speaking as a former Lutheran) found in Martin Luther’s writings about the Jews is so shocking,visceral and most importantly, contrary to the teachings of Jesus, so why doesn’t that bother you?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Your hero was no saint, just as certain popes were not; far from it. He promoted the murder of Jews based on false statements. In a book entitled On Jews and Their Lies, Luther wrote:

“My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire…Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted…Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country…Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it…The rulers must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs."

Yep. He was not a peach. But I don’t consider him to be the sole infallible leader or the church and the vicar of Christ himself, “Sweet Christ on Earth”, and the bishop to which all other church leaders must submit or else. We Lutherans reject much of what he wrote. He is not the Lutheran pope.

The difference is that your popes instead of just writing actually did pursue campaigns of torture and murder, along with teaching that these campaigns were the will of the Holy Spirit. That’s why that teaching had to be countered, and why Exsurge Domini is seriously wrong.

 

[Novocastrian]

The kind of animosity and hate (speaking as a former Lutheran) found in Martin Luther’s writings about the Jews is so shocking,visceral and most importantly, contrary to the teachings of Jesus, so why doesn’t that bother you?

Just curious, do you hold Catholic saints to the same standard? I assume you do, but just wanted to check we’re all on the same page here.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

The kind of animosity and hate (speaking as a former Lutheran) found in Martin Luther’s writings about the Jews is so shocking,visceral and most importantly, contrary to the teachings of Jesus, so why doesn’t that bother you?

It bothers me and I reject those writings.

 

[joe371]

Yep. He was not a peach. But I don’t consider him to be the sole infallible leader or the church and the vicar of Christ himself, “Sweet Christ on Earth”, and the bishop to which all other church leaders must submit or else. We Lutherans reject much of what he wrote. He is not the Lutheran pope.

The difference is that your popes instead of just writing actually did pursue campaigns of torture and murder, along with teaching that these campaigns were the will of the Holy Spirit. That’s why that teaching had to be countered, and why Exsurge Domini is seriously wrong.

Bad popes are not my heroes. Bad popes cannot destroy Jesus’ church; bad popes cannot alter the teachings of Jesus. if they could then Jesus failed! Not one Pope was ever infallible; no one is infallible. The apostles were not infallible, and yet they taught and wrote infallibly!!!

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Bad popes are not my heroes. Bad popes cannot destroy Jesus’ church; bad popes cannot alter the teachings of Jesus. if they could then Jesus failed! Not one Pope was ever infallible; no one is infallible. The apostles were not infallible, and yet they taught and wrote infallibly!!!

I totally agree with you.

 

[joe371]

It bothers me and I reject those writings.

My only point is: the sinful acts of church leaders, even popes, cannot undo Jesus’ work, or alter the doctrinal truths of Jesus. Speaking of Jesus’ teaching, ML said:

“I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.” (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)

 

[joe371]

I totally agree with you.

Have a good night; must catch some shut-eye…

 

[joe371]

Just curious, do you hold Catholic saints to the same standard? I assume you do, but just wanted to check we’re all on the same page here.

Bad CC leaders - you bet. Saints in heaven - no! If they are saints in heaven, well you do the math…There are a lot of great non-Catholic leaders as well. It’s a mixed bag, regardless of the denomination…

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think that’s true at all. In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s not what any of the Lutherans here have claimed. They’ve simply said that a reading of the Confessions gives a picture of Lutheranism different to the one the OP suggests. She may still have rejected it. Indeed, she might have had stronger grounds for rejecting it.

Novo, you are correct. There was never any attempt on my part in imply, much less state, that Annie would have remained Lutheran had she been properly catechized. I think my record of not discouraging conversion to the CC, but instead asking God’s blessing on those that do, is evident in the history of my postings.

The origins of this thread are from another, when Annie made this comment:

Jon,** I simply cannot imagine why I would need to read the Lutheran Confessions as a Lutheran I believed in Sola Scriptura. We had bible studies and bible discussion groups. Why on earth would I need anything else?** If I did find studying and discussing the bible empty with no power to lead me to object truth I would begin seeking objective truth. And of all things that’s what I did. I discovered much to my amazement that the Catholic Church is the true Christian Church. If it is ever proven to my satisfaction that the Catholic Church does not hold God’s revealed truth, I will leave it but I will never join an heretical sect I’ll just leave and live it up objective truth would be unknowable “eat, drink and be merry”.

My response in this thread to this comment was:

As I mentioned in another post, Lutheran catechesis involves to a great extent a number of Lutheran symbols, particularly the Small Catechism, and the Augsburg Confession, but also other parts of the Book of Concord.
When you described sola scriptura in terms such as “Why on earth would I need anything else?”, that indicates to me a misunderstanding of sola scriptura, at least the way Lutherans define it, and the role of the confessions in the life of the Lutheran Church. As Lutherans we recognize the confessions as a right reflection of scripture, so study of scripture in a Lutheran setting is through the lens, if you will, of the confessions.

For Lutherans, sola scriptura is a practice of the Church, not the individual. It is the Church that is responsible for doctrine, and for teaching.

In closing, Annie, I will echo what I said in the other post:** I am sorry that the catechesis you received in these Lutheran parishes was poor, but I am happy you have found a home in the Catholic Church. May you be blessed there in word and sacrament.**

To the charge that I was implying that had she received good catechesis, she would have remained Lutheran, I offer the last sentence, bolded here.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Well these are two different things. On the one hand you’re complaining about the use of ‘Evangelical Catholic’ as a proper noun, on the other you’re complaining about the ‘misappropriation’ of Catholicity. I responded, as I thought I made clear, to the latter point, and not to the former.

I’m unaware of its first use as a proper noun. Given the German churches’ tendency to describe themselves primarily in geographic terms (cuius regio, etc.), I’d guess that that could be quite late. The concept, however, beyond the implicit claims of the creed etc., I can point to in the seventeenth century, at least.

Johann Gerhard’s (1630s) Confessio catholica, in qua doctrina catholica et evangelica, quam ecclesiae Augustanae confessioni addictae profilentur, ex Romano-catholicorum scriptorum suffragiis confirmatur would seem to fit the bill. It identifies the Church of the Augsburg Confession as catholic and evangelical in doctrine.

Capital letters - to which you keep referring - are, of course, of varying significance in different languages. Lots in German, some in English, relatively few in Latin. I’m not enough of a seventeenth-century Latinist to tell you if the capitalisations, or lack thereof, in the above title are of linguistic or theological significance.

Hi Novo.
Again you are correct. The idea of evangelical catholicity goes back essentially to the era of Lutheran orthodoxy.
The irony of the “controversy” about capitalization is that some time back, it was a Catholic poster who challenged the fact that the term was not capitalized in my profile, effectively saying that being Lutheran, I wouldn’t capitalize the term. While I do not recall the entire conversation, that was the gist. So, I capitalized it.
Even using the term came out of a discussion of why some non-Catholic posters are so vague in their profile, using terms like “protestant”, instead of being communion specific. As I recall (and this was some time back), the discussion evolved into varying Lutheran synods, etc.
In short, my profile began as simply Lutheran and has evolved from there, reflecting conversations in the past about profile names.

Two things are certain:

1. The use of the term Evangelical Catholic, whether capitalized or not, has a distinctive meaning in Lutheranism, and it is not some snarky way of insulting Catholics who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Far from it.
2. With that in mind, I can’t see why someone from another communion would be insulted by it. Nor am I moved to change because someone states they are insulted by it. I do not try to dictate what others call themselves, even avoiding the term “Roman Catholic” specifically because I know some are put off by that name, and do not wish to be identified that way.

The following Wiki article seems well-referenced.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Catholic

Jon

 

[spina1953]

I don’t know exactly which post you’re referring to, but I guess that shows that we’re both struggling to follow a complicated thread! So don’t worry about it.

Hi Novocastrian: At this point I do not remember who or what post I was wanting to reply to. so I will have to let that one go. Thanks for your understanding.

 

[spina1953]

If that’s what the pope thought and what the Roman Catholic denomination taught, why did it continue to burn people at the stake?

No, it’s clear that the pope thought that burning people WAS the will of the Holy Spirit, hence the supposed error.

From all the history that I have read it appears that the Church released heretic’s to civil authorities who then in turn burned them at the stake. It is also a historical fact that many protestants also burned people at the stakes, There was also the Salem witch hunt where people were burned at the stake, they must have thought that they were guided by the Holy Spirit to do that?