Not practicing SS in Lutheran churches

[EvangelCatholic]

Hi Annie39: Thanks for the reply. I was not aware of posts by Don, but I do agree with you as to what you are saying. So, you are saying that adhering to the confessions is tradition? I thought that it was a formula of a confession of faith, a declaration of what one believes or is to believe, not a tradition since it was by Luther who started his own church, so are you saying that Luther created his own tradition or am I missing something?

I do understand the quote you gave as to what it is to be Lutheran. This sure sets one apart between Lutheran’s and Catholic’s, even though some have said that the writings are archaic and** really do not reflect what modern Lutheran’s believe**. it that correct in your view? Thanks Annie

What is “modern” Lutheran belief, if I may ask you, spina? Is there such a thing as “modern” Catholic belief? Please elaborate if you would.

And perhaps this quote my help you understand the Catholicity of Lutheranism:

What follows is an anthology of direct quotations from the writings of the Fathers, arranged topically, that appear in the official Lutheran Confessions of the sixteenth century. These Fathers – Latin and Greek, Ancient and Medieval – are in a very real sense pre-Reformation contributors to the Reformation theology of the Book of Concord. The presence of these patristic excerpts in the Book of Concord validates the Confessional claim that there is nothing in orthodox Lutheran teaching “that departs from the Scriptures or the catholic church or the church of Rome, insofar as the ancient church is known to us from its writers,” and that Lutherans “dissent from the church catholic in no article of faith but only omit some few abuses which are new.” (Augsburg Confession, epilogue to XXI,1, p. 47; prologue to XXII,1, p. 48)
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lut…catholic.html

 

[marywarfield]

You made this statement:

I thought you might be interested in what the Catholic Church points out regarding sacred tradition and Lutheranism.

Your comments seem to not reflect the Catholic Church in the 21st century and focus on irrelevancy and divisiveness so at odds with the Vatican.

But this thread is about the Lutheran Church; check out the title.

Ah but check out my post in response to guanaphore
in which he claimed there were Protestants before
Luther and many of them upheld sacred tradition.
So I simply asked him which Protestants existed before
Luther and what traditions did they uphold?

And you jumped in with links to the Lutheran Catholic
concords. And Annie jumped in with this being about
Lutherans.

So my suggestion is: you and Annie decide if Lutherans
are or are not Protestants or are or are not Catholics.
You can’t have both as you merely confuse yourselves
and everyone else. And when you respond to my posts
try to figure out who I myself am responding to.
That’s very simple. Look at the quote box- it usually gives
the name.
Thank you.

 

[marywarfield]

What is “modern” Lutheran belief, if I may ask you, spina? Is there such a thing as “modern” Catholic belief? Please elaborate if you would.

And perhaps this quote my help you understand the Catholicity of Lutheranism:

Sorry this sounds like double speak to me.
If you want Spina to understand the universality
of the Lutheran church that’s fine.
But if you want him to understand Catholicity
of the Lutheran Church that’s not possible.
There is the Catholic Church capitalized properly
as it is a proper noun a name.
Catholicity is not a name but pure and purposeful
deception.

 

[marywarfield]

Mary after reading the exchange below I’d like to comment.
EvangelCatholic is correct. I started this thread in order to have a discussion with Jon about the fact that I say that Lutherans do not believe in sola scriptura. The topic was meant to be Lutheran specific. I believe that this has been established here.

Annie

“My question was: a few examples of Protestants
upholding Sacred Tradition. You have told me and
others have told me not to lump Lutherans with
other Protestants. That you are not in fact Protestants.
And now you answer my question about Protestants
with a link to Lutheran Catholic dialogues.”

“Which is it then? Are you or are you not Protestant?
Do you consider yourself a Protestant?
Why should I NOT lump all Protestants together with
Lutherans if you yourself consider Lutherans to be
Protestants?”

Annie- I’m sorry but your premise is simply inaccurate
historically and theologically.
While it may be in everyday practice Lutherans do not
live according to Sola Scriptura, Lutheranism itself
MUST be sola scriptura as sola was Luther’s main first
tenet of any of the five Solas
and Protestants everywhere across the board including
Lutherans adopted it theologically. The two Protestant
groups that did not were Methodists who are Prima
Scriptura and Wesleyans with an even looser form
of Prima.

 

[marywarfield]

Jan Hus was, in effect, a Protestant, and was burned at the stake in 1415, nearly 70 years before Martin Luther was born.

John Wycliffe, widely regarded among modern Protestants as one of the forerunners of the Reformation, lived earlier still (d. 1384). He was exhumed and his remains burned as a condemnation of his ‘heresy’.

William Tyndale (1494–1536) was an English scholar who became a leading figure in Protestant reform in the years leading up to his execution. He is well known for his translation of the Bible into English.

Catharism (from the Greek: καθαροί, katharoi, “the pure [ones]”)was a Christian dualist movement that thrived in some areas of Southern Europ}e, particularly northern Italy and southern France, between the 12th and 14th centuries

I was primarily referencing the fact that Bibles, prior to the creation of the Guttenberg press, were simply not available to the laity. Bibles were extremely expenisve to produce, since they were copied from manuscripts by hand, usually in monasteries, by candlelight or lamplight. They took months and years to produce and the average person, especially in midevil europe, not only could not read, but could never afford one.

Contrary to the propoganda given out by many anti-catholics, they were chained to the lectern in the Church for safety reasons, not to keep them away from the laity.

Do you think that would change my perception of the timeline of historical events?

oh pleeeease. Jan Hus the Hussite? John Wycliffe?
How are they Protestants? They never heard of Protestants lol.
You are really making unrealistic stretches here.

You might as well call the Manacheans and Gnostics
Protestant. It would be an interesting world of rose
colored glass if all heretics could be simply considered
Protestant or church reformers. Unfortunately, heresy
by any name Protestant or not is maliciously
deadly so it is grave matter not a frivolity.

Because St Teresa of Avila reformed in a true sense
her entire religious order would you consider her Protestant?
Lol.
One cannot be the following simultaneously:
a reformer of the Catholic Church, a heretic,
and a Protestant.

 

[Annie39]

Annie- I’m sorry but your premise is simply inaccurate
historically and theologically.
While it may be in everyday practice Lutherans do not
live according to Sola Scriptura, Lutheranism itself
MUST be sola scriptura as sola was Luther’s main first
tenet of any of the five Solas
and Protestants everywhere across the board including
Lutherans adopted it theologically. The two Protestant
groups that did not were Methodists who are Prima
Scriptura and Wesleyans with an even looser form
of Prima.

Mary I’m sorry too but somewhere on this forum I am on record as saying that Luther believed in Sola Scriptura (as interpreted by himself). Somewhere along the line some Protestant or other decided to redefine “sola scriptura” to mean what Lutherans, Reformed Baptist and maybe a whole host of other folks say it means but they therefore do not believe in sola scriptura. They can shout until the cows come home and you can join in the chorus and sing the same tune, but they don’t believe in sola scriptura (words mean things). Also, this thread was indeed started to discuss whether or not Lutherans believe in SS. I think that the thread has amply proven this. I believe that I read on one of your posts that you had a problem with how many SS threads there were. I just explained that this thread was started with a particular theme in mind. And I don’t do rude.

I’m just curious if that agape bible study gets into 1 Corinthians 13 at all?

Annie (ex-Lutheran LCMS on a mission)

 

[spina1953]

What is “modern” Lutheran belief, if I may ask you, spina? Is there such a thing as “modern” Catholic belief? Please elaborate if you would.

And perhaps this quote my help you understand the Catholicity of Lutheranism:

Hi Evangel catholic: My point was the difference between how people thought during that time and how people think in our day and age. It seems to me that some Lutheran’s said or posted that some of the language or thinking in the confessions were a bit archaic, which led me to think that maybe some Lutheran’s do not think in the same way or manor that Lutheran’s may have thought during the time of Luther.

 

[Annie39]

Hi Evangel catholic: My point was the difference between how people thought during that time and how people think in our day and age. It seems to me that some Lutheran’s said or posted that some of the language or thinking in the confessions were a bit archaic, which led me to think that maybe some Lutheran’s do not think in the same way or manor that Lutheran’s may have thought during the time of Luther.

This is true. As an ex-Lutheran I can tell you that none of the Lutheran Churches that I attended over 10 years even referred to the Confessions. I don’t know if they were embarrassed or if they just jettisoned the Confessions from their personal belief system. I’ll never know. One of the pastors is now deceased another one is most probably a Catholic Priest now and I have lost contact with the others.

Annie

 

[spina1953]

Sorry this sounds like double speak to me.
If you want Spina to understand the universality
of the Lutheran church that’s fine.
But if you want him to understand Catholicity
of the Lutheran Church that’s not possible.
There is the Catholic Church capitalized properly
as it is a proper noun a name.
Catholicity is not a name but pure and purposeful
deception.

Hi marywarfield: Thanks for the defense! I am not that I really understand this double speak as what I was referring to I thought was how people thought during the time of Martin Luther and how some Lutheran’s think in our day and age since it has been posted by some Lutheran’s that some of the language was somewhat archaic if not all in the confessions. I agree with you that Catholic is a proper noun, at least that was taught to me in the 3rd grade and should be capitalized. Also Catholicity is a word I have not heard or seen before so not even sure if it is an accepted word as a part of speech. thanks again.

 

[spina1953]

This is true. As an ex-Lutheran I can tell you that none of the Lutheran Churches that I attended over 10 years even referred to the Confessions. I don’t know if they were embarrassed or if they just jettisoned the Confessions from their personal belief system. I’ll never know. One of the pastors is now deceased another one is most probably a Catholic Priest now and I have lost contact with the others.

Annie

Hi Annie39: I wonder if maybe some Lutheran’s were not taught the confessions? and so do not know what they contain? The reason I ask is that as a Catholic all of my life, I do know that there Catholics in name only because they have not been taught the Catholic faith, so wondered if there are Lutheran’s in name only who do not know their Churches teachings?

 

[marywarfield]

Mary I’m sorry too but somewhere on this forum I am on record as saying that Luther believed in Sola Scriptura (as interpreted by himself). Somewhere along the line some Protestant or other decided to redefine “sola scriptura” to mean what Lutherans, Reformed Baptist and maybe a whole host of other folks say it means but they therefore do not believe in sola scriptura. They can shout until the cows come home and you can join in the chorus and sing the same tune, but they don’t believe in sola scriptura (words mean things). Also, this thread was indeed started to discuss whether or not Lutherans believe in SS. I think that the thread has amply proven this. I believe that I read on one of your posts that you had a problem with how many SS threads there were. I just explained that this thread was started with a particular theme in mind. And I don’t do rude.

I’m just curious if that agape bible study gets into 1 Corinthians 13 at all?

Annie (ex-Lutheran LCMS on a mission)

So Annie it is true that there seems to be multiple
meanings of Sola whether accurate or not.

So we could begin with Luther’s meaning and then define
what Luther’s Sola is NOT and go from there.

I would put forth to begin with that Luther was not
pro free for all self interpretation. That he intended the
Bible to be interpreted pretty closely to what HE had
been taught rather than an Everyman for
his own view type of thing.

 

[guanophore]

Please reference your statement that the laity were discouraged from reading owning etc a Bible?

The Catholic Church has, since the Scriptures were penned, struggled with heretics using them to defend false ideas. This can be seen in the writings of the Early Fathers. The Church has always taught that the Scriptures are to be read with the “mind” of the Church (through the lens of Sacred Tradition). After the invention of the printing press, it was possible to produce large numbers of Bibles and get them into the hands of anyone and everyone, including those who had no idea how to read with the mind of the Church. The concern of he Magesterium was confirmed by the Reformation, after which time a great splintering occurred as a result of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. When one reads Scripture outside of the mind of the Church, one becomes one’s own authority, and interprets the passages in the light of their own experience and education (or lack of it) resulting in many conflicting doctrines. The Church was protective of her Holy Writings in an effort to prevent them from being misused. It did not work, and they were misused anyway.

Have you attended a Catholic Mass? Where in a Catholic Mass does the priest tell us what to believe in the Bible?

I can’t recall a priest telling anyone “what to believe in the Bible”. I believe the position of the Catholic Church is that the Bible is inspired and inerrant, so would it not stand to reason that we are to believe all of what is in it, if it is the Word of God?

He reads the Gospel passage like most Protestant ministers.

I don’t think so, really. The Catholic Gospel reading for the Mass is coordinated with a reading from the OT, and also relates to the Psalm and Epistle reading. These readings are placed in a liturgical calendar, and pertain to the celebration of the day. Members of non-denoms are not liturgical, and the Pastor chooses passages that support what he wants to preach about on any given Sunday. In fact, research has shown that there is much more scripture contained in the Catholic Mass than there is in non-denom services, whree the preacher tends to expound on his idea, rather than the scriptures.

He then gives a homily on how that passage relates to what we are doing in the world today.

In the best/ideal Mass, yes.

Or if it is a saint day he then talks about the saint and how he/she lived that Gospel. Not sure where in any of that the priest is telling us what we must believe.

I have heard some very courage priests to defend the teachings of the Church, so that it is very clear that those who do not espouse them have lost their Catholicity.

So give me some reference please to back your assertion?

To what assertion are you referring here?

You state many Protestants believe in sacred tradition.

Please reference a few- what sacred traditions and how did they learn of them?

All Protestants came out of the Roman Catholic Church. Whether they admit it or not, they espouse Catholic Sacred Tradition in many areas. The most common, of course, is the New Testament, the books of which are not listed anywhere in the Bible. The collection of documents that belong in the NT comes from Sacred Tradition. Another is the Trinity, a word not found anywhere in Scripture but considered an essential element of being identified as a Christian. The hypstatic union would be another. Most protestants would accept the Apostolic Creed, another product of Sacred Tradition. Then there is the Sunday observance. There is nothing in Scripture that tells us to celebrate the Lord’s Day on Sunday, but plenty of biblical precedent for observing a Sabbath on Saturday.

Some Protestants labored very hard to “cleanse” the faith of all things Catholic, but not all. Lutherans retain a liturgy and some sacramental observance, and claim to believe in the Real Presence (at least some of them do). Anglican Catholics (especially High Church) are so close to Roman Catholic that some Catholics do not realize they are in a Protestant Church for Mass!

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Hi Evangel catholic: My point was the difference between how people thought during that time and how people think in our day and age. It seems to me that some Lutheran’s said or posted that some of the language or thinking in the confessions were a bit archaic, which led me to think that maybe some Lutheran’s do not think in the same way or manor that Lutheran’s may have thought during the time of Luther.

I don’t know who would have told you that the Lutheran Confessions / Confessio Augustana was “archaic” since it is the foundation of the Reformation and utilized extensively in dialogue with Roman Catholics, per the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity.

But just like the magisterium and sacred tradition, one rarely hears a pastor refer to the Lutheran Confessions in a homily. The readings at Mass are from the Bible [Old Testament, New Testament and the Gospels]. More in-depth discussions such as catechism class may allude to the Confessions but Luther’s Small Catechism is the focus on the parish level. Of-course the seminaries rely heavily on the Confessions and all Lutheran pastors vow obedience to the Confessions at ordination.

Here’s the ordination vow:

P. The Church in which you are to be ordained confesses that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and are the norm of its faith and life. We accept, teach, and confess the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds. We also acknowledge the Lutheran Confessions as true witnesses and faithful expositions of the Holy Scriptures. Will you therefore preach and teach in accordance with the Holy Scriptures and these creeds and confessions?

R. I will, and I ask God to help me.
liturgybytlw.com/OccPrs/Ordin.html

 

[guanophore]

I don’t know who would have told you that the Lutheran Confessions / Confessio Augustana was “archaic” since it is the foundation of the Reformation and utilized extensively in dialogue with Roman Catholics, per the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity.

But just like the magisterium and sacred tradition, one rarely hears a pastor refer to the Lutheran Confessions in a homily. The readings at Mass are from the Bible [Old Testament, New Testament and the Gospels]. More in-depth discussions such as catechism class may allude to the Confessions but Luther’s Small Catechism is the focus on the parish level. Of-course the seminaries rely heavily on the Confessions and all Lutheran pastors vow obedience to the Confessions at ordination.

The popes of the last century have all been very holy people, so it is difficult to pin the anti-christ label on them. This is a great contradiction to the popes of Luther’s age, and before, many of whom were corrupt and exuded antichristian attitudes and behaviors.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The popes of the last century have all been very holy people, so it is difficult to pin the anti-christ label on them. This is a great contradiction to the popes of Luther’s age, and before, many of whom were corrupt and exuded antichristian attitudes and behaviors.

Agree and that distinction has received considerable attention in the Dialogues. Since Vatican 2, Lutherans have accepted much about the papacy to the point of desiring pastoral supervision by the Pope. Here are a few random quotes taken from the Commission on Unity:

In terms of the Petrine function we believe that both Lutherans and Roman Catholics may no longer avoid the question: Could not the pope in our time become in some real way pastor and teacher of all the faithful, even those who cannot accept all the claims connected with his office? In the light of our experience in this dialogue we believe that the Roman Catholic church should take definite steps to face this question.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-tea…al-primacy.cfm

This theoretical possibility of seeing papal teaching authority in a more favorable light is now being actualized. Roman Catholics are rethinking their position, and this suggests that Lutherans may well ask themselves whether the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility, even if not something which they would be able to affirm for themselves, need continue to be regarded by them as anti-Christian and therefore as a barrier to the unity of the churches. Catholics, on the other hand, must ask themselves whether their view of the papal teaching office and its infallibility can be so understood and presented as to meet the legitimate concerns of those Christians who have traditionally opposed the doctrine.ts.mu.edu/readers/content…0.1/40.1.5.pdf

Yet Lutherans need not exclude the possibility that papal primacy and teaching authority might be acceptable developments, at least in certain respects.10 The Lutheran Reformers accepted the legitimacy of developments in the Church except where these denied or subverted the teaching of Scripture. Thus, they retained the liturgy of the Latin rite, making revisions where they judged its formulations to be contrary to the gospel; and they tried to preserve the episcopal structure of the Church and the traditional ecclesiastical discipline.

 

[spina1953]

I don’t know who would have told you that the Lutheran Confessions / Confessio Augustana was “archaic” since it is the foundation of the Reformation and utilized extensively in dialogue with Roman Catholics, per the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity.

But just like the magisterium and sacred tradition, one rarely hears a pastor refer to the Lutheran Confessions in a homily. The readings at Mass are from the Bible [Old Testament, New Testament and the Gospels]. More in-depth discussions such as catechism class may allude to the Confessions but Luther’s Small Catechism is the focus on the parish level. Of-course the seminaries rely heavily on the Confessions and all Lutheran pastors vow obedience to the Confessions at ordination.

Here’s the ordination vow:

Hi Evangel catholic: It was from posters I think on this thread who said that some of the language of the confessions are a bit archaic, otherwise I would not have said it as I did not know if it was or not.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Hi Evangel catholic: It was from posters I think on this thread who said that some of the language of the confessions are a bit archaic, otherwise I would not have said it as I did not know if it was or not.

There are translations that may use more contemporary language but everything in the Augustana Confession is viewed as God-inspired. Some Lutherans do not hold some of the other Lutheran Confessions as equal to Augustana. I believe the Church of Norway only requires adherence to the Augsburg Confession, for example.

Help me out Father KjetilK if I am misrepresenting the Church of Norway!

 

[marywarfield]

The Catholic Church has, since the Scriptures were penned, struggled with heretics using them to defend false ideas. This can be seen in the writings of the Early Fathers. The Church has always taught that the Scriptures are to be read with the “mind” of the Church (through the lens of Sacred Tradition). After the invention of the printing press, it was possible to produce large numbers of Bibles and get them into the hands of anyone and everyone, including those who had no idea how to read with the mind of the Church. The concern of he Magesterium was confirmed by the Reformation, after which time a great splintering occurred as a result of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. When one reads Scripture outside of the mind of the Church, one becomes one’s own authority, and interprets the passages in the light of their own experience and education (or lack of it) resulting in many conflicting doctrines. The Church was protective of her Holy Writings in an effort to prevent them from being misused. It did not work, and they were misused anyway.

I can’t recall a priest telling anyone “what to believe in the Bible”. I believe the position of the Catholic Church is that the Bible is inspired and inerrant, so would it not stand to reason that we are to believe all of what is in it, if it is the Word of God?

I don’t think so, really. The Catholic Gospel reading for the Mass is coordinated with a reading from the OT, and also relates to the Psalm and Epistle reading. These readings are placed in a liturgical calendar, and pertain to the celebration of the day. Members of non-denoms are not liturgical, and the Pastor chooses passages that support what he wants to preach about on any given Sunday. In fact, research has shown that there is much more scripture contained in the Catholic Mass than there is in non-denom services, whree the preacher tends to expound on his idea, rather than the scriptures.

In the best/ideal Mass, yes.

I have heard some very courage priests to defend the teachings of the Church, so that it is very clear that those who do not espouse them have lost their Catholicity.

To what assertion are you referring here?

All Protestants came out of the Roman Catholic Church. Whether they admit it or not, they espouse Catholic Sacred Tradition in many areas. The most common, of course, is the New Testament, the books of which are not listed anywhere in the Bible. The collection of documents that belong in the NT comes from Sacred Tradition. Another is the Trinity, a word not found anywhere in Scripture but considered an essential element of being identified as a Christian. The hypstatic union would be another. Most protestants would accept the Apostolic Creed, another product of Sacred Tradition. Then there is the Sunday observance. There is nothing in Scripture that tells us to celebrate the Lord’s Day on Sunday, but plenty of biblical precedent for observing a Sabbath on Saturday.

Some Protestants labored very hard to “cleanse” the faith of all things Catholic, but not all. Lutherans retain a liturgy and some sacramental observance, and claim to believe in the Real Presence (at least some of them do). Anglican Catholics (especially High Church) are so close to Roman Catholic that some Catholics do not realize they are in a Protestant Church for Mass!

I don’t need the same history lessons ever and over again
concerning printing presses and the advent of literacy- stuff
every Catholic knows. I also don’t need catechism on
the liturgy.
What I need you to do is to provide some
honest actual reference backing your claim that
the Church tried to prevent the laity from reading
the Bible.
Give me a policy statement from the Vatican, a reference
to canon law, rubrics, theological statement,
Papal address ANYTHING.

Your ad hominem revisions and opinions of history
are not evidence.
When you accuse the Church of something I believe
you should have evidence.

 

[steido01]

The popes of the last century have all been very holy people, so it is difficult to pin the anti-christ label on them. This is a great contradiction to the popes of Luther’s age, and before, many of whom were corrupt and exuded antichristian attitudes and behaviors.

:yup: Indeed. And this is a good thing. We Lutherans are particularly fond of Benedict.

There is, rightfully, much discussion in the Lutheran world about how much of the term still applies, and whether --given the modern day connotations of the “a-word”-- heterodox might be a more accurate alternative. Frankly, if the papal claims to supremacy and infallibility were ever dropped (just pretending it were possible), I don’t see much reason for Lutherans to continue their protest, at least in regard to the Treatise. We’d still need to iron out the fine print of Justification, but that might not remain church-dividing.

 

[steido01]

There are translations that may use more contemporary language but everything in the Augustana Confession is viewed as God-inspired. Some Lutherans do not hold some of the other Lutheran Confessions as equal to Augustana. I believe the Church of Norway only requires adherence to the Augsburg Confession, for example.

Help me out Father KjetilK if I am misrepresenting the Church of Norway!

NO. Only Holy Scripture can rightly be called the inspired Word of God. Confessio Augustana is merely a reflection of Scripture.