Not practicing SS in Lutheran churches

[guanophore]

What do you think we should call ourselves?

I kinda like Catholic of the Augsburg Confession myself, but Evangelical Catholic also works. I think the term “Lutheran” over identifies with his theology and especially many of his writings and attitudes that bear much less sanctity.

Howsoever you decide to refer to yourself, however, you will still be my sibling in Christ, and we still have an obligation to work toward unity.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I kinda like Catholic of the Augsburg Confession myself, but Evangelical Catholic also works. I think the term “Lutheran” over identifies with his theology and especially many of his writings and attitudes that bear much less sanctity.

Howsoever you decide to refer to yourself, however, you will still be my sibling in Christ, and we still have an obligation to work toward unity.

Alleluia!

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I was out of town.

If you read the opening post, and my response to it, you will see that your response here is in no way related to it. But alas…

Jon - “But alas”? As has since been pointed out to you, according to the author of the OP, my comments are very much related to the OP.

Have you read the Epitome of the Formula of Concord? It explains what we do. If you then read the OP, and my response, you will see how they relate. But you, like Annie, have stated an unwillingness to actually read the confessions, so it not making sense is not surprising.

Jon, I have read a LOT of your Formula – enough to know how anti-Catholic they are. Again, you might wish to portray me as being unwilling to read your Formulas, but that is, again, untrue. If you have a specific point to make about them, then please do so.

Jon, in my last post, I asked you the following:

1. Lutherans can claim that SS and doctrines are the responsibility of the church, but what ‘church’ does this refer to? Which Lutheran church is the one which has the authority to establish doctrine, interpret Scripture, and ‘practice’ SS? This question is in light of the fact that we have competing and conflicting Lutheran communions which are not even in unity with each other, with those conflicts being over, among other things, the interpretation of Scripture.

To which you provided the following answer:

Seek out the one that maintains orthodoxy, and adherence to the confessions.

With all due respect Jon, this ‘answer’ does not address my question specifically and exactly. You suggest that in looking for which Lutheran communion has the ‘authority’ to teach, I am supposed to figure out which one ‘maintains orthodoxy, and adherence to the confessions.’ Why not a direct response Jon? You know that ALL Lutheran communions CLAIM to be ‘orthodox’ and CLAIM adherence to the confessions, and yet various Lutheran communions are not even in communion with each other. All of those competing and conflicting claims to ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘adherence’ are very much in the eye of the beholder. Your response was so vague as to have no actual meaning.

Obviously, neither did Rome’s means, or we would not be having this conversation. There was division in the Church long before Luther, or Zwingli, or Hus. There was Cardinal Humbertus, and Pope Leo IX, and Patriarch Cerularius. We certainly have no corner on the divisions front.

This is simply not true Jon. Within the Roman Catholic Church there is only one official teaching on each issue. Of course there are Catholics who refute that teaching on various issues but that fact does not mean that what the Church teaches is untrue. Heretics and schismatics will always use their Private Interpretation to challenge the teachings of The Church and break away, but the amount of Truth they take with them will be evident by the degree to which they themselves fracture into competing factions.

With Lutheranism we have competing and conflicting factions within Lutheranism, ALL of which claim that their teachings are ‘orthodox’. The fact is that none have any kind of a compelling argument as to why we should believe that your particular Lutheran communion is the one which ‘does it better’.

My choice is to actually listen to the leaders of the CC, who have a decidedly different approach to providing that information than yours. But we’ve been through this before, that your polemics do not serve the purpose you allege to have here, and it is off the topic of the thread.

The Catholic Church has made dogmatic pronouncements with regards to the ‘orthodoxy’ of Lutheran beliefs. You and others are very fond of the idea that just because we have made some progress in dialogue, we should ignore our differences. In this you are completely out of sync with the LCMS as evidenced by the article written by your 1st VP Daniel Preus, so please don’t think that you are in position to claim that I don’t ‘listen’ to my leaders. When the Church makes a dogmatic pronouncement as a result of the Dialogue, I will follow suit. Until then, I am the one who is following the teachings of my church.

Then you have nothing to fear from it. Perhaps, then, your time would be better spent telling us Lutherans about the Catholic Church, since any day now the Lutheran Church will become so progressive, many of us in the LCMS will need a landing place.

Why would you think I ‘fear’ Lutheranism? What I ‘fear’ is that people will be misled by statements which are not ‘accurate’ in regards to the actual history of the Reformation, in regards to Martin Luther Himself, and in regards to the ‘status’ of the Dialogue. Kittelson’s quote about Evangelical Catholic comes to mind.

As an example of what I consider to be potentially misleading is the idea that the charge that the Pope is the antichrist is ‘historically conditional’. That is not true.

You claimed that the term “Evangelical Catholic” was ‘historic’, but as we have seen, it is not. You use this term to refer to yourself personally. The term ‘Evangelical Catholic’ is not to be found on the sign in front of your LCMS church, and it is nowhere found in your weekly church bulletin. It is a term that appeals to you personally and so you have adopted it personally.

 

[Topper17]

Jon, many times you have suggested you are actually considering becoming a ‘swimmer’ and that you have only one real issue remaining. In this admission, it appears to me that you are already not a Lutheran who adheres to all of the points in the Lutheran Confessions, as is required. In this you appear to me to be doing exactly what Luther did, which was to use your Private Interpretation to decide doctrinal issues. If disagree with my analysis, please correct me specifically and exactly, but it would seem to me that if you no longer have a ‘problem’ with the Catholic understanding of Salvation, then you are no longer a true Lutheran.

This is not to say that I think you are wrong to be ‘moving’ in the direction that you are (possibly), but you would have to admit that Lutheranism does not allow for ‘movement’ in ANY direction.

Jon, you posted a quote from the Augsburg Confession in order to clarify how Lutherans define ‘the church’:

“From the Augsburg Confession:

Article VII: Of the Church.

1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.”

With all due respect, this text does not AT ALL help us to identify a means by which we can determine which specific ‘church’ is teaching the Gospel correctly. Furthermore, the Lutheran church continues to claim that the Catholic Church is teaching the Gospel incorrectly, so by this very definition, either one or the other, Catholic or Lutheran, are teaching the Gospel ‘rightly’, but certainly both ARE NOT. The Catholic Church agrees of course.

While the Augsburg Confession definition of ‘the church’ is certainly ONE of the aspects of the Church, in and of itself, this definition is incomplete and in its incompleteness, is relatively meaningless with respect to helping to identify what is and what is not ‘the Church’ which is correctly teaching the Gospel.

I await the day when you provide a positive view of the Catholic Church, and will respond to you then.

Jon, you have made it perfectly clear in a number of different ways that you don’t appreciate that I challenge Lutheran beliefs or the ‘Legend’ of Martin Luther. I realize that you would prefer that I NEVER speak of Martin Luther and NEVER point out the anti-Catholic nature and text of the Lutheran Confessions. But, those things are the truth and they must be dealt with if we are ever to achieve any kind of real unity.

Jon, I do appreciate your response to my point number 4, even if it didn’t really answer my point. However, I did say that they would be difficult to deal with from a Protestant perspective.

For the record, the other 6 points were as follows:

With all due respect, I don’t think that this idea of the Lutheran Church setting doctrine, and that ‘SS is a practice of the Church’, makes any sense. It seems to me that there are huge holes in the logic associated with this concept. Specifically and exactly (of course), the problems are as follows.

1. Martin Luther is the founder of Lutheranism and he didn’t follow this rule. He used his Private Interpretation to challenge and deny the teachings of His Church. For him SS was not a practice of the Church at all, it was his private practice. As you know, he taught Private Interpretation for individuals, only pulling back from that disastrous teaching after it had become obvious, even to him, that it resulted in doctrinal dissension.
2. All of those Theologians who followed Luther initially in rejecting the teachings of their Church didn’t follow this ‘rule’ of SS being a practice of the Church. If they had actually followed that rule, there never would have been a Lutheran church.
3. Similarly, all of those Theologians who drew up the Lutheran Confessions, supposedly forming the Lutheran doctrinal positions were not following this rule either. They drew up those Confessions in defiance of their Church. By what right did they do so?
4. Given that the Lutheran church set a precedent of challenging the teachings of the church of the time, it is hardly in a position now, and it never has been, to challenge those who wish to break the ‘SS is a role of the church’ rule.
5. As an example, it was not from within the Church that Luther pronounced the pope to be the antichrist. It was because of this ‘teaching’ and many, many others that Luther was excommunicated, although in reality, it was through those teachings that he excommunicated himself. Once he was excommunicated by the Church though, he didn’t have the authority granted him by the Church to teach, or administer the Sacraments (what few he retained).

6.          What is meant by ‘church’ in your statement?  Does this refer to the LCMS, or the LWF, or the ELCA. Or could this Lutheran ‘rule’ also apply to the RCC, and the EOC, and the various Baptist denominations?  In all honesty, it cannot be them all.  The idea of the authority to teach cannot be so relativistic that it includes all of them because the Holy Spirit does not validate competing and conflicting teachings.  The only way that your statement could make sense is if your communion, the LCMS, is the ‘one’ being referred to, and that ALL of the others which teach differently, are NOT really ‘the church’.

IF you had compelling answers to my points, I would suggest that you be eager to post them. But suggesting that you could answer them but won’t because you don’t like my ‘style’ (or whatever), is simply not very ‘convincing’.

Sometimes I get the idea that the people who believe the pope to be the antichrist really don’t appreciate what I post.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[steido01]

Jon, I have read a LOT of your Formula – enough to know how anti-Catholic they are.

Translation: “I’ve made up my mind; don’t confuse me with the facts.”

Again, you might wish to portray me as being unwilling to read your Formulas, but that is, again, untrue. If you have a specific point to make about them, then please do so.

Ok. I’d like that very much. Let’s give this a go:

Jon, you posted a quote from the Augsburg Confession in order to clarify how Lutherans define ‘the church’:

“From the Augsburg Confession:

Article VII: Of the Church.
1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.”

With all due respect, this text does not AT ALL help us to identify a means by which we can determine which specific ‘church’ is teaching the Gospel correctly. Furthermore, the Lutheran church continues to claim that the Catholic Church is teaching the Gospel incorrectly, so by this very definition, either one or the other, Catholic or Lutheran, are teaching the Gospel ‘rightly’, but certainly both ARE NOT. The Catholic Church agrees of course

While the Augsburg Confession definition of ‘the church’ is certainly ONE of the aspects of the Church, in and of itself, this definition is incomplete and in its incompleteness, is relatively meaningless with respect to helping to identify what is and what is not ‘the Church’ which is correctly teaching the Gospel.
​

​

The bolded in your response demonstrates either a severely lacking understanding of the Confessions or a regrettable intention to mislead. Whichever the case, your reading of the Augsburg Confession is not congruent with the meaning intended by the writers, nor the meaning accepted by all Confessional Lutherans. It is not an ‘either or;’ the church exists in both Lutheran and Roman Catholic communions, no matter how flawed or obscured we Lutherans may find your proclaiming of the pure Gospel to be. How do I know this? Aside from actually being Lutheran, having learned a thing or three in Lutheran Confirmation, and accepting the authoritative teachings of my communion – I have the Apology to the Augsburg Confession to turn to (something you omitted in your re-imagining of what the text actually says). Let’s read, shall we?
bookofconcord.org/defense_6_church.php#article7

Within the Roman Catholic Church there is only one official teaching on each issue. Of course there are Catholics who refute that teaching on various issues but that fact does not mean that what the Church teaches is untrue. Heretics and schismatics will always use their Private Interpretation to challenge the teachings of The Church and break away, but the amount of Truth they take with them will be evident by the degree to which they themselves fracture into competing factions.

Oh? Are you sure you want to go down that road? What might this sort of thinking ultimately suggest about the Western Patriarch? Might be difficult to defend, eh?

The Catholic Church has made dogmatic pronouncements with regards to the ‘orthodoxy’ of Lutheran beliefs. You and others are very fond of the idea that just because we have made some progress in dialogue, we should ignore our differences.

This is outright slander. Jon and the other Confessional Lutherans have been nothing but forthright about the differences that keep our communions from corporate unity. You have been reported.

In this you are completely out of sync with the LCMS as evidenced by the article written by your 1st VP Daniel Preus

Jon has said nothing in opposition to LCMS teaching. Seeing as you are not the LCMS Ministerium, nor Jon’s bishop, nor his pastor, nor even an LCMS member – you have no place to interpret his or his synod’s views.

As an example of what I consider to be potentially misleading is the idea that the charge that the Pope is the antichrist is ‘historically conditional’. That is not true.

Wrong! We have always taught, and continue to teach, that the charges are conditional – indeed, at least one of our three objections no longer applies! If you fail to understand this, against the explanations of all the Lutheran posters here and against the authoritative synodical documents that have been presented, then it might be that whatever ‘source’ you are pulling your knowledge of Lutheranism from may actually be the misleading one. Now do share - where is your source? Are you interpreting our Confessions for yourself?

Jon, many times you have suggested you are actually considering becoming a ‘swimmer’ and that you have only one real issue remaining. In this admission, it appears to me that you are already not a Lutheran who adheres to all of the points in the Lutheran Confessions, as is required. In this you appear to me to be doing exactly what Luther did, which was to use your Private Interpretation to decide doctrinal issues. If disagree with my analysis, please correct me specifically and exactly

You are not the arbiter of who is and who his not Lutheran. Jon adheres to the teachings of his communion, which are decidedly Lutheran. He has not once imposed his personal interpretation on any church teaching, excepting those which are adiaphora anyway. You, on the other hand, seem keen to define Lutheranism using your own personal interpretations.

 

[steido01]

This is not to say that I think you are wrong to be ‘moving’ in the direction that you are (possibly), but you would have to admit that Lutheranism does not allow for ‘movement’ in ANY direction.

Well, which is it Topper? Is Lutheranism constantly moving and headed toward the cliff, or is it immovable?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Sometimes I get the idea that the people who believe the pope to be the antichrist really don’t appreciate what I post.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

To be quite honest, I get the idea that the people who read your posts don’t appreciate your dishonesty.

Why do you continue to avoid the documents of what I assume is “your” Church since you proclaim to be Catholic? Nearly all that you post is contrary to the Roman Catholic Church. That is why I suggest that you, in fact, fear your own Church.

 

[JonNC]

Wrong! We have always taught, and continue to teach, that the charges are conditional – indeed, at least one of our three objections no longer applies! If you fail to understand this, against the explanations of all the Lutheran posters here and against the authoritative synodical documents that have been presented, then it might be that whatever ‘source’ you are pulling your knowledge of Lutheranism from may actually be the misleading one. Now do share - where is your source? Are you interpreting our Confessions for yourself?

Hi Don,
The repeated efforts have become redundant. Here, for the last time for this particular poster, is an official statement from the LCMS. The highlighting is mine, the blue states that we do not claim any person that is pope to be “The Antichrist”, the read stating that the charge is conditional.

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 Thess. 2; 1 John 2:18, 4:3; Rev. 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.

lcms.org/faqs/lcmsviews#pope

Don, I’ve seen a number of protestant posters come through CAF over the years I have been a member, who have claimed that Catholics worship the Blessed Virgin and the saints because they “pray” to them. For some of them, it doesn’t matter how many times our Catholic siblings tell them that prayer to the saints for intercession is not the same as prayer to God, they simply refuse to listen.
At some point, one simply stops :banghead:

Jon

 

[guanophore]

The repeated efforts have become redundant. Here, for the last time for this particular poster, is an official statement from the LCMS. The highlighting is mine, the blue states that we do not claim any person that is pope to be “The Antichrist”, the read stating that the charge is conditional.

Well, I hope that you persist in patience. This is the first time I have read these statements, and I find them encouraging.

I think most of our separations are misunderstandings, and it is our duty to work to resolve them.

ps, you are already more Catholic than most cradle Catholics, espousing the Traditional doctrines of the Church that many reject.

 

[JonNC]

Well, I hope that you persist in patience. This is the first time I have read these statements, and I find them encouraging.

I think most of our separations are misunderstandings, and it is our duty to work to resolve them.

ps, you are already more Catholic than most cradle Catholics, espousing the Traditional doctrines of the Church that many reject.

Thanks, guano. You are very kind.

Jon

 

[Denise1957]

To be quite honest, I get the idea that the people who read your posts don’t appreciate your dishonesty.

Why do you continue to avoid the documents of what I assume is “your” Church since you proclaim to be Catholic? Nearly all that you post is contrary to the Roman Catholic Church. That is why I suggest that you, in fact, fear your own Church.

You mention above that nearly everything that Topper posts is contrary to the Catholic Church, but I’m not seeing that at all. Could you please point out all of these things?

 

[spina1953]

You mention above that nearly everything that Topper posts is contrary to the Catholic Church, but I’m not seeing that at all. Could you please point out all of these things?

Hi Denise 1957: I agree and would also like these things pointed out that seems to appear that Toppers comments in his posts are contrary to the Catholic Church, as I am not seeing that at all either.

 

[Topper17]

Well, which is it Topper? Is Lutheranism constantly moving and headed toward the cliff, or is it immovable?

As you were informed only a few days ago, you and I will NEVER again be dialogue partners and you know why.

 

[Topper17]

To be quite honest, I get the idea that the people who read your posts don’t appreciate your dishonesty.

EC – I wrote post number 478 in response to a similar charge and to document Luther’s habit of accusing people of lying when they disagreed with him. This wasn’t one of Luther’s more appealing ‘attributes’ and certainly, the people who had been falsely accused were not impressed. Personally, I think that it was Luther’s fear of being wrong which demanded that everybody be ‘evil’ if they disagreed with him. We see that rather offensive habit live on to this day.

“he would not likely be offered a professorship (at the University of Wittenberg, now a part of the University of Halle), nor would it be any different in Heidelberg or Marburg……He would be an indisputably successful teacher, but as a colleague he would be irksome and unwilling to bow to majorities…….He would be driven by singular notions about the Devil and the Last Judgment…………

He would be biting and sometimes overly rough toward colleagues with whom he disagreed. Where generalized judgments were concerned, he would outdo anyone, working himself up to furious tirades. He would rant against papists, Jews, lawyers, and high officials………………

A psychiatric analysis would rob Luther of whatever chances he had left of teaching at a present-day university. The diagnosis would be persuasive – Paranoia reformatorica – but the grounds for it must remain irritatingly uncertain, ranging from neurosis to psychosis, from Oedipus complex to mother fixation. Fear of the Lord and abhorrence of the Devil are indicators of disturbed childhood development. And disturbing is what they really are…………….

Nevertheless, there is something to be learned from trying to imagine Luther as our contemporary because it is his personality and character that are at issue. Our anachronistic test is so illuminating because questions regarding his commitment cannot simply be shunted aside in an analysis of his person. The man and his cause are both intimately linked that any separation of the two will be at the expense of both. Even this speaks against offering Luther a professorship in our time, which prefers objective scholarship to a personal commitment and vision.” Oberman, pg. 313-314

Oberman speaks of Luther’s ‘generalized judgments’, meaning that his charges against his opponents, as serious as they were, were NOT SPECIFIC.

Why do you continue to avoid the documents of what I assume is “your” Church since you proclaim to be Catholic?

EC, that is a false statement and you know it. As you well know, over my Christmas break, at your recommendation, I read ALL of a Dialogue document that you suggested. I came away from that experience with the knowledge that you completely misunderstand those Dialogue documents and force upon them a meaning that they do not have. This though is perfectly in keeping with Lutheran Professor Kittelson’s comments about ‘evangelical catholics’.

Nearly all that you post is contrary to the Roman Catholic Church. That is why I suggest that you, in fact, fear your own Church.

Bizarre EC, absolutely bizarre. But thanks for the chuckle.

 

[Topper17]

QUOTE=JonNC;12218132] Hi Don,
The repeated efforts have become redundant. Here, for the last time for this particular poster, is an official statement from the LCMS. The highlighting is mine, the blue states that we do not claim any person that is pope to be “The Antichrist”, the read stating that the charge is conditional.

Here’s the thing that I find frustrating Jon. When I make a point about Luther or criticize him, I am directed to the Lutheran Confessions, which of course does not address my point or question. When I make a point or ask a question about the Lutheran Confessions, I am directed to something from the LCMS. When I make a point or ask a question about the LCMS I am directed to what you personally believe. It seems that I just can’t get a response to what I actually write or to the specific questions I ask.

In this case, I make a point about what the Confessions state and you direct me to the LCMS. However, the LCMS does not speak for the Lutheran Confessions because the LCMS represents less than 2% of those who hold to those Confessions. The fact is that the official statements of the LCMS means virtually nothing to the other 98% of Lutheranism. In fact, the text of the Confessions are plain enough. In addition, the LCMS is only roughly 1/3 as old as Lutheranism itself, which means that it cannot claim even to be providing anything other than a relatively ‘modern’ understanding of the Confessions. In truth, nobody in the world has the authority to change or strike parts of your Confessions.

You continue to hold that the LCMS does not hold the pope to personally be the antichrist, that it is ONLY the ‘office’ of the papacy which is, AS IF that is supposed to be reassuring to Catholics who look to the office of the papacy with great respect.

Again, I ask – Why in the world was it ‘necessary’ for the Confessions to go to the ridiculous, ultra offensive outrageous extreme of calling either the pope OR ‘merely’ the office the antichrist? Why couldn’t the Confessions state that ‘we really, really, really, really, really disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church and it’s leader, the pope?

Personally, I think that the nature of Luther AND the nature of Lutheranism shows through in this accusation, but I am perfectly willing to hear why you think the Confessions ‘had’ to make such an over the top accusation.

Your statement that the charge of ‘antichrist’ is ‘conditional’ is WAY less than the whole story, and in fact, is at the very least, intellectually disingenuous. Please allow me to explain.

Lutheranism, including the LCMS, claims that one of the three ‘proofs’ of the pope as the antichrist is that the Church incorrectly teaches the Gospel. This applies directly and most importantly (to Lutherans), to the Catholic teaching on Salvation. As we have seen over and over again, Lutheranism (and the LCMS) state that this charge could change IF the Catholic Church begins to teach the Gospel ‘correctly’. In other words, IF the Church capitulates and begins to teach Lutheran teachings THEN the charge of ‘antichrist’ will not apply on that issue.

From your own quote from the LCMS:

“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……… 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.”

Jon, that is NEVER going to happen. The Catholic Church is NEVER going to cave in and teach what it knows to be error on Salvation. That means that the whole thing about the charge of ‘antichrist’ as being ‘conditional’ or ‘historically conditional’ is simply SPIN, meant to confuse people and make the Lutheran position look more reasonable. The pope will NEVER be considered by Confessional Lutherans to be anything other than the antichrist UNTIL Lutherans change their confessions. As you would agree, that cannot happen either- **so here we are. **

**That accusation is permanent. ** To suggest otherwise is to ignore the facts.

Lutherans are ‘stuck’ with their Confessions. To change one word of them would be to begin down the slippery slope towards the conclusion that they are not authoritative. The net result is that the best educated of Lutherans, who have spent some time thinking about these things, are far more likely to be swimmers than are lay Lutherans.

I have asked directly if the Confessions could be altered, and all I have gotten is evasion. Can they be, yes or no?

Either the individual Lutheran communions abandon their Confessions and enter the Church without them, OR, and far more likely, Lutherans will be compelled by the Holy Spirit, and by the recognition of the Truth, to enter the Catholic Church, one soul at a time.

At some point, one simply stops :banghead:

If one truly cares about the Truth Jon, then one does not stop fighting for it.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[steido01]

As you were informed only a few days ago, you and I will NEVER again be dialogue partners and you know why.

Actually, I truly do not know why you refuse to listen to us or engage in honest dialogue. Please feel free to PM me if you aren’t comfortable posting your reason publicly.

Once again, I’m sorry to hear you don’t want to converse charitably with those who disagree with you. I’m also sorry that you won’t listen to us/believe us when we explain what we believe. I’m sorry you’ve taken it upon yourself to interpret our doctrine.

 

[Topper17]

You mention above that nearly everything that Topper posts is contrary to the Catholic Church, but I’m not seeing that at all. Could you please point out all of these things?

Hi Denise 1957: I agree and would also like these things pointed out that seems to appear that Toppers comments in his posts are contrary to the Catholic Church, as I am not seeing that at all either.

Hi Denise and Spina. Thanks for your comments.

Clearly some people have a different understanding of what it means to be a ‘Catholic’ (big ‘C’) than we do. Of course, what do we know? All we do is attend a Church which says “Catholic” on the sign out front, rather than one which does not.

As I’m sure you agree, it is in the specifics and the exacts of an argument that it is revealed for what it truly is. When generalized accusations are made and they can’t be detailed or supported, they become obvious for what they are.

As for me, when I make a point, I am always ready to provide something more substantial than my personal opinion. When I see something I know to be untrue, I ask for something substantial that supports that opinion. Some people think this is rude.

God Bless You Both, Topper

 

[EvangelCatholic]

EC – I wrote post number 478 in response to a similar charge and to document Luther’s habit of accusing people of lying when they disagreed with him. This wasn’t one of Luther’s more appealing ‘attributes’ and certainly, the people who had been falsely accused were not impressed. Personally, I think that it was Luther’s fear of being wrong which demanded that everybody be ‘evil’ if they disagreed with him. We see that rather offensive habit live on to this day.

“he would not likely be offered a professorship (at the University of Wittenberg, now a part of the University of Halle), nor would it be any different in Heidelberg or Marburg……He would be an indisputably successful teacher, but as a colleague he would be irksome and unwilling to bow to majorities…….He would be driven by singular notions about the Devil and the Last Judgment…………

He would be biting and sometimes overly rough toward colleagues with whom he disagreed. Where generalized judgments were concerned, he would outdo anyone, working himself up to furious tirades. He would rant against papists, Jews, lawyers, and high officials………………

A psychiatric analysis would rob Luther of whatever chances he had left of teaching at a present-day university. The diagnosis would be persuasive – Paranoia reformatorica – but the grounds for it must remain irritatingly uncertain, ranging from neurosis to psychosis, from Oedipus complex to mother fixation. Fear of the Lord and abhorrence of the Devil are indicators of disturbed childhood development. And disturbing is what they really are…………….

Nevertheless, there is something to be learned from trying to imagine Luther as our contemporary because it is his personality and character that are at issue. Our anachronistic test is so illuminating because questions regarding his commitment cannot simply be shunted aside in an analysis of his person. The man and his cause are both intimately linked that any separation of the two will be at the expense of both. Even this speaks against offering Luther a professorship in our time, which prefers objective scholarship to a personal commitment and vision.” Oberman, pg. 313-314

Oberman speaks of Luther’s ‘generalized judgments’, meaning that his charges against his opponents, as serious as they were, were NOT SPECIFIC.

EC, that is a false statement and you know it. As you well know, over my Christmas break, at your recommendation, I read ALL of a Dialogue document that you suggested. I came away from that experience with the knowledge that you completely misunderstand those Dialogue documents and force upon them a meaning that they do not have. This though is perfectly in keeping with Lutheran Professor Kittelson’s comments about ‘evangelical catholics’.

Bizarre EC, absolutely bizarre. But thanks for the chuckle.

I think one of the reasons you alienate others is that you disregard responses from evidently the very people you seek dialogue with; a rather self-defeating posture.

And if you truly read all the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogues/ Declaration on JDDJ you could not post what you do unless, of-course you either ignore the truth or choice to deceive yourself into diminishing the credibility of the Roman Catholic Church.

I understand the adrenaline of debate but without honesty interacting with you becomes pointless unless you actually seek to isolate yourself from others. “Yellow journalism” always comes to mind when I read your posts.

 

[andrewstx]

Thanks, guano. You are very kind.

Jon

Please, not Guano! If you ever get the chance to visit Carlsbad Caverns, you will know why.

That word means bat droppings used as fertilizer! Call him something else. That’s an insult. IMMA New Mexico native.

 

[Topper17]

I think one of the reasons you alienate others is that you disregard responses from evidently the very people you seek dialogue with; a rather self-defeating posture.

And if you truly read all the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogues/ Declaration on JDDJ you could not post what you do unless, of-course you either ignore the truth or choice to deceive yourself into diminishing the credibility of the Roman Catholic Church.

I understand the adrenaline of debate but without honesty interacting with you becomes pointless unless you actually seek to isolate yourself from others. “Yellow journalism” always comes to mind when I read your posts.

Honestly, EC, I had no expectation whatsoever that you would respond to what I actually wrote. You did not disappoint. Calling me dishonest though, that was exactly what Luther would do.

Quite frankly, I would be very much interested in an honest open dialogue in which people would actually respond to points made and questions asked. But I am not at all interested in having those things continuously avoided. That is NOT dialogue.