Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[protestantinca]

Dogmas … only 3 declared…draw on the faith of the people that has always been there…people always having faith of Mary being sinless…and this assumption that since she did not sin, she did not die the same way as we, as the wages of sin is death. So we can only assume - Mary was taken gloriously into heaven…either through falling asleep or death…we do not know. We can only assume.

Which provides further evidence that the whole notion of papal infallibility introduced in the First Vatican Council is a false doctrine.

These “3 dogmas” are non controversial issues within Roman Catholicism. If popes had started to make up doctrine that contradict scripture, then the Roman Catholic Church would have been already split several times.

The doctrine of papal inability was, as many things the Roman Catholic Church has done since Luther, a reactionary move given the success of the churches the started with the Protestant Reformation. Similarly, the reforms introduced in Vatican II were also reactionary moves.

 

[Denise1957]

How do you reconcile this with,

religionnews.com/2014/08/04/liberation-theology-miguel-descoto-pope-francis/

For those of us who don’t accept the papacy as a legitimate office, this is further proof that it cannot be a divine office, only a human office instituted by those who see themselves as part of the Roman Catholic Church version of discipleship.

My position is that liberation theology is a Marxist distortion of the Christian message. What the different popes choose to do with its practitioners has no bearing on what I think about it.

The elderly priest wrote to Pope Francis to ask if the suspension could be revoked so that the priest could celebrate Mass before he died. Is that really such a terrible thing? Maybe Pope Francis knows more about the situation than any of us do (I’m no fan of liberation theology, which is partly based on Marxism, but that was a long time ago now).

The suspension was originally due to the priest holding a government position, which they aren’t supposed to do. It seems like a relatively minor reason for believing that the Papacy isn’t legitimate. Does your reasoning also have to do with what Martin Luther said about the Church and the Papacy?

 

[commenter]

On that we agree. But there is a significant difference between primacy and supremacy. The former denotes eminence and, perhaps, a kind of right of ‘veto.’ The latter, on the other hand, denotes, in this case, the immediate and direct governance of all churches and, most importantly, the right to appoint (or deny the appointment of) bishops. It is kind of like the Investiture Controversy, but here between churches, not the Church and the state.

Why should the bishop of Rome appoint, or refuse to appoint, a bishop in, say, Oslo (Norway) or London?

I don’t know Norway. From everything I know about the Anglican bishops of England, there are very good reasons for having someone outside England, who is not subordinate to the English government and secular media culture, appoint the right English priest for bishop of London. The same holds true for the USA. In our country, certain clergy of any denomination who obey the secular culture are promoted by the media as brilliant, compassionate, in touch with their flocks, and, best of all, “pastoral”.
(Fr. J must be good, I’ve heard a lot about him). Certain other clergy who disobey the media trends are either ignored, or else labelled as rigid, dogmatic, out of touch with their flocks, and hard-liners.

I don’t mean the right men always get chosen for RC bishops; but there’s a corrective mechanism in place, the value of which is much more apparent now. Back in 1950 the media were much less powerful, and anyway did not try to influence the churches much. It’s a different world now.

 

[KjetilK]

I don’t know Norway. From everything I know about the Anglican bishops of England, there are very good reasons for having someone outside England, who is not subordinate to the English government and secular media culture, appoint the right English priest for bishop of London.

But that is a separate issue (establishment and disestablishment, that is). Let’s ignore the Church of England and the Church of Norway for a second. Let’s instead take a look at Westminster. The Archbishop of Westminster is de facto the Roman Catholic primate of England. The Roman Catholic Church of England is not established (as a state church), and is so not ‘subordinate’ to the English government. Why, then, should the bishop of Rome appoint, or refuse to appoint, any given candidate as the Archbishop of Westminster? The Roman Catholic Church of England is not ‘subordinate’ to the English government. Are you suggesting that the British are more ‘subordinate’ to secular media culture than Italians?

The argument you place here seem to boil down to this: the bishop of Rome is not ‘subordinate’ to culture, but all others are. I just don’t see it. So the question boils down to this: Does the bishop of Rome have the supreme right of immediate and direct governance of all churches and, most importantly, the right to appoint (or deny the appointment of) bishops? That is a principled question which cannot be answered by ‘those British are too liberal to take care or themselves and must be ruled by the ever so virtuous Italians.’ Of course I’m being sarcastic here, but this seem to be the logical core of the examples given.

So instead of making (bad) practical arguments, provide principal arguments.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It goes right to the heart of what Lutheranism is. It is not a Church.

That is understandable since Jesus only promised to build one Church and Lutheranism is not it. So, what exactly IS Lutheranism?

It was not ‘founded by Luther’ and it does not treat Luther as a man with any formal authority.

That certainly seems consistent since one of the key pillars of Protestantism is PRIVATE JUDGEMENT. You certainly can’t hold Luther’s ideas up as authoritative when one of HIS core ideas was that you should be coming up with your own interpretations. Seems contradictory or self-refuting.

Most movements which are called after their founders (the Dominicans, the Franciscans, the Marxists, etc) do so to honor their founders.So, what IS the reason for honoring the man by retaining his name as your own?

My Church, the Church of Norway, was founded in the middle ages, and the ones with formal authority are her bishops and priests.

My Church, the Catholic Church, was founded in the first century by God, and the ones with formal authority are His bishops and priests.

Out of curiosity, what are the theological points of disagreement that prevent you from seeking full, formal communion with the Catholic Church which is led by the direct successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome?

 

[Randy_Carson]

You see, the LCMS sees itself as being what Roman Catholicism out to be .

I think that the papacy is precisely part of the problem. The fact that the Jesuit order has been able to preach liberal Christianity for at least 100 years now with the agreement of different popes sent the signal that it is OK to preach deviant forms of Christianity as long as it is done while acknowledging the pope as nominal “Supreme Leader”.

The LCMS has been a staunch defender of true Christianity while the popes were cozy with Notre Dame or Jesuit types. Take the Notre Dame invite of pro abortion, pro gay marriage president Barack Obama. The attitude of the Vatican, was one agreement. And the new pope is even more cozy with American liberalism than previous popes. No way Obama will ever deliver a commencement speech at any of the colleges of the Concordia system.

So, I think we should thank God for the LCMS, and other protestant traditions, that still teach true Christianity.

I share some of your concerns and so do the Eastern Orthodox.

Do you think THEY view you Lutherans as the teachers of “true Christianity”?

 

[Randy_Carson]

How do you reconcile this with,

religionnews.com/2014/08/04/liberation-theology-miguel-descoto-pope-francis/

For those of us who don’t accept the papacy as a legitimate office, this is further proof that it cannot be a divine office, only a human office instituted by those who see themselves as part of the Roman Catholic Church version of discipleship.

My position is that liberation theology is a Marxist distortion of the Christian message. What the different popes choose to do with its practitioners has no bearing on what I think about it.

Pope Francis has shown mercy to an elderly priest by allowing him to say mass again after 29 years.

How do I reconcile this? By contemplating the Gospel.

John 8
2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

On that we agree. But there is a significant difference between primacy and supremacy. The former denotes eminence and, perhaps, a kind of right of ‘veto.’ The latter, on the other hand, denotes, in this case, the immediate and direct governance of all churches and, most importantly, the right to appoint (or deny the appointment of) bishops. It is kind of like the Investiture Controversy, but here between churches, not the Church and the state.

Why should the bishop of Rome appoint, or refuse to appoint, a bishop in, say, Oslo (Norway) or London?

Because that is how apostolic succession works.

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

Like Paul, who addressed two epistles to the church of Corinth, Clement wrote his own letter to the Corinthians around 80 AD. In that letter, he stated:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Approved men? Approved by whom?

 

[Tomyris]

Because that is how apostolic succession works.

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

Like Paul, who addressed two epistles to the church of Corinth, Clement wrote his own letter to the Corinthians around 80 AD. In that letter, he stated:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Approved men? Approved by whom?

There is no proof that Clement wrote that letter from the internal evidence. Rather it was the presbytery, with no bishop in sight.

And there is a HUGE gap between these citations and the assertion of the Roman bishop that he has immediate authority over every Christian. That assertion has been strenuously objected to by many, and was a chief cause of the separation of the Orthodox from the Catholics.

 

[commenter]

Why, then, should the bishop of Rome appoint, or refuse to appoint, any given candidate as the Archbishop of Westminster? The Roman Catholic Church of England is not ‘subordinate’ to the English government. Are you suggesting that the British are more ‘subordinate’ to secular media culture than Italians?

The argument you place here seem to boil down to this: the bishop of Rome is not ‘subordinate’ to culture, but all others are. I just don’t see it. So the question boils down to this: Does the bishop of Rome have the supreme right of immediate and direct governance of all churches and, most importantly, the right to appoint (or deny the appointment of) bishops? That is a principled question which cannot be answered by ‘those British are too liberal to take care or themselves and must be ruled by the ever so virtuous Italians.’

• Some would interpret Christ’s charge to Peter - a charge not given to the 12, or to the 120 - as relevant here, to Peter’s successors.
• Many non-Catholics understand the prudence of a bishop to appoint a pastor to a rural parish that neither the bishop, nor the new pastor, has ever lived in, rather than letting the people in that town choose their own pastor. The reason is that sometimes an outsider can make an objective assessment of their spiritual needs. Sometimes there’s a clique running the parish that needs a nudge towards a fresh start. Maybe some groups are feeling excluded by the clique. A new broom. Conversion. The same principle holds for dioceses.
• Many Anglicans in the US are refusing the TEC bishops that the secular media has graciously consecrated for them, and sought out episcopal oversight from bishops on other continents. It doesn’t mean that Africa is exempt from secularism, but they have different trends, different biases, different blind spots. They are less under the thumb of the particular media in the home town of those American Anglicans.
• I think most people, liberal or conservative, would agree that while the Catholic Church is affected by secular trends, it has - for better or worse - been less affected on its moral positions than more decentralized churches. This logic would seem to hold true for the wisdom of bishop appointments.

 

[JonNC]

I share some of your concerns and so do the Eastern Orthodox.

Do you think THEY view you Lutherans as the teachers of “true Christianity”?

Goodness no, Randy. They think we’re too much like you.
Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Sel,

Thanks for your response.

This isn’t true. Even though there is a “secondary” category, it is considered that based on the writers not being Apostles. They are taught with the same authority as the rest of the NT and I was an adult before I ever even knew there were “categories”.
Since I spent the first (almost) 50 years of my life as a Lutheran, I don’t find my obsession with Luther bizarre at all.

My understanding is that there IS a ‘secondary category’, the ‘antilegomena’, and that furthermore, that that these four books of the NT are NOT to be used in establishing doctrine. In addition, unlike the Catholic Church, Lutheranism has NOT established a list of the inspired books of the NT. In fact, the NT is only ‘relatively closed.’

I realize that this is not exactly one of the ‘best known’ of Lutheran beliefs, and it is not that surprising that one can be a Lutherans for decades without learning it, but it is true. As documentation, I offer a couple of posts I posted over a year ago. If you want to read the whole thread, the positions of both sides, and make up your own mind. The thread was “Protestant Canon” and it was from about a years ago. My old post on the topic:

In 1974 LCMS Pastor Elmer J. Moeller wrote an amazingly honest assessment of the practical problems associated with the Lutheran position on the New Testament canon. While not (of course) pinning the responsibility for these problems directly on Luther, he certainly did name Luther as being the genesis of Lutheranism’s concept of the antilegomena.

Excerpts from Moeller’s “Missouri’s Critical Issue” (taken from The Christian News, Oct. 14, 1974) are in black. My comments intersperced within Moeller’s text will be in blue.

“In the doctrinal conflict within The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, beneath the charges and counter-charges, beneath the cash of two admittedly district theologies, is there any single issue which can be Isolated as the crucial one? The writer, a clergyman of The Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod, believes there is, and will attempt to demonstrate it. Furthermore, he believes that the same issue exists for every evangelical, conservative Christian individual, congregation, and church body.

In formalized statements of faith the historical Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the modern Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, have never articulated a complete doctrine of Scripture as set forth in Scripture. This lack has permitted, as will be demonstrated, an incomplete statement with a frequently-occurring erroneous, extra-Scriptural and therefore anti-Scriptural, doctrinal addition. Consequently the Missouri Synod now experiences the tragic division in its midst. “

As I have been stating, I find it very hard to believe that Lutherans have not actually set a canon. According to Moeller, this has led to a ‘tragic division in its (the LCMS) midst’.

“In the New Testament church of the third and fourth centuries certain books were not accepted in some geographical areas as being God’s New Testament Word because here was not unanimous evidence from previous generations that the book had been written by an apostle.

Hebrews was accepted in the Eastern churches as the product of Paul; it was not considered Paul’s epistle in the West and was not accepted there. John’s Apocalypse was accepted in the West as from the hand of John the Apostle; in the East the author was not so identified and the book was not accepted. The apostolic authorship of James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude was similarly doubted.

Meanwhile, the Mediterranean world in the fourth century, under the blessing of a Roman government that sponsored Christianity, proved to be a fertile field for the growth of a unified church. The councils and church leaders agreed on canonical” books, in the practice accepting the evidence “for” as outweighing the objections “against” authorship by apostles. The subsequent lists of New Testament books carried Hebrews by Paul, James by James the Less, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and the Apocalypse by John the Apostle and Evangelist, and Jude by the Apostle Jude.
The “disputed” character of these books surfaced at the time of the Reformation. Luther, for instance, placed Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse at the end of his New Testament, as books from which one did not draw doctrine. He felt that certain of their teachings could not have come from apostles, since some teachings disagreed, he thought, with what e.g. Paul had written in his undisputed letters. (The apocryphal books of the Old Testament, the surplus of the Alexandrian canon as compared to the Palestinian canon, were likewise not to be considered canonical. In general, when Lutheran teachings were later delineated, the antilegomena books were not used to establish doctrine in the church. In the Missouri Synod up through the 20’s this same attitude and approach prevailed.”

To be continued -

 

[Topper17]

Moeller mentions 7 books that were doubted by some in the ancient Church. Yet Luther, (and now subsequently Lutheranism) include only four books in the antilegomena, “books from which one did not draw doctrine.”

Why were the other three doubted (2 Peter, 2 & 3 John) not incorporated into the antilegomena by either Luther or the Lutherans?

Furthermore, Moeller indicates that in the 1920’s the LCMS changed its approach to the antilegomena. From what to what? Is the LCMS done changing it approach to what is and what it not Scripture yet? Or are there more changes to come? One would think that after 1900 years, Christianity would sort of ‘settled down’ and quit changing the canon of Scripture and how we are to deem the canonicity of the 27 books that most Christians consider to be the NT. But then, to Lutherans, the NT is only ‘relatively closed’.

“It is interesting to note that the German Bible available to homes in the Missouri Synod in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the Altenburger Bibel (Concordia Publishing House), contained Luther’s introductions to the New Testament books, giving his views about Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. The laymen therefore were acquainted with the view of Scriptures which associated inspired New Testament authority with authorship by apostles.”

This floored me. From my reading, I was under the impression that Luther’s disrespectful comments about whole books of the Bible had been eliminated from the Bible shortly after his death (by Christians who revere Scripture). It is astonishing that those comments were printed in American Bibles as late as the last century. What in the world were those LCMS leaders thinking? Moeller will explain in part two.

Moeller continues:

“One notes what had happened. From areas of scholarship both outside confessing Christianity and within it, conclusion of critical scholarship were making themselves felt and were being taken for granted. “A majority of scholars” concluded that Paul did not write Ephesians or the Pastorals, that Matthew did not write the canonical Greek Matthew, etc. But how can one be really a “scientific” Bible scholar and still uphold the authority of Scripture within the confessional context of membership in a conservative Lutheran church body’? Answer: by simply holding to an inspired, inerrant Bible, which in the New Testament is inspired regardless of who wrote the individual books.”
So, it is by holding to an ‘inspired, inerrant Bible’ that one can uphold the authority of Scripture.

“Meanwhile the Missouri Synod scholar and clergyman who has arrived at this same point in his “scholarly” Biblical views is still bound by his oath of office and by the confessional paragraph of his church’s constitution to the Inspired characters and complete authority of the Scriptures. How to solve the problem now? Answer: an inspired erring Scripture, which is however authoritative and “inerrant” in achieving its purpose; namely, to make wise unto salvation. The Holy Spirit supposedly leads one to believe the “Gospel,” and one uses historical-critical scholarship to pick out of the Scripture that which the Holy Spirit intends one to believe as content of the Gospel. It comes as no surprise, then, that it becomes difficult and finally sometimes impossible for such a Missouri Synod Lutheran to uphold the distinctive Scriptural doctrines of Lutheranism; for obviously “the Holy Spirit” has supposedly led all sorts of scholars to all sorts of other conclusions as to what is the Gospel and as to what Scripture clearly states.”
Moeller points out that the ‘solution’ to the problem of the Lutheran concept of the canon is a Scripture that is ‘an inspired erring Scripture’, which is however authoritative and ‘inerrant’. Maybe you have to be a Lutheran to understand how something can be ‘erring’ while at the same time being ‘authoritative and inerrant’. (I think we need to remember that Luther called reason the ‘Devil’s whore’.)

What is shocking is to read a statement of an LCMS Pastor who actually admits that it is sometimes impossible to uphold the distinctive Scriptural doctrines of Lutheranism, mentioning that scholars have supposedly been led (by the Holy Spirit) to non-Lutheran conclusions. Is Moeller suggesting that while Lutheran Scholars are led by the Holy Spirit to correctly identify what Scripture teaches, but that the ‘other’s Scholars are NOT led by the Spirit, and as such, don’t get it ‘right’? If anyone has any doubts about Moeller’s position, his final section should make it very clear.

 

[Topper17]

Moeller continues:

“One final thing. While it is in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod that the battle is being fought, no Christian is free from its implications. Either the reader must place himself completely under the authority of a New Testament that was written or commended by apostles, and of an Old Testament that was approved by the testimony of such a New Testament, both Old and New Testaments being the inspired and utterly trustworthy Word of God. or, he must begin to choose on the basis of his own scholarship or that of others such truths as he thinks the Holy Spirit (is there really a Holy Spirit, or is He the creation of the second century Christian community?) is leading him to believe. There is no middle ground of “substantial trustworthiness of Scripture” with an admixture of untrustworthy elements. Who decides where the trustworthiness ends? Who can tell for sure what is the Christian Gospel, if the Scriptures are actually made up of these kind of untrustworthy books? Does the “Gospel” really come to us from God, or from man?

A theology which thus leaves seekers after God and His Truth hanging in mid-air does not have what it takes to give modern man something solid to live and die by. What the Christian church had in the first place is the only resource available to fallen man to answer the human need with truth and hope.”

By arbitrarily and subjectively ‘demoting’ 4 books of the NT to a ‘class’ which is “not used to establish doctrine in the church”, the Lutheran Church set itself up for the problems which Moeller so astutely states. Of course I have been saying much the same thing, but then what do us Catholics know about Lutheranism? Better it be heard from an LCMS Pastor.

My guess is that, in response to this post and Moeller’s comments, there will be a lot of personal opinions stated AS IF they are plain facts, and that I will draw a fair amount of criticism for my comments than Moeller will for his.

If anyone is interested in reading the whole article, it can be found at the following web address and is the last article in the chain of several articles on the same subject.
scribd.com/doc/106130276/…ethod-Bartling

• File from WELSNET (Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Synod) BBS: (414)475-7514

 

[Topper17]

Moeller mentions 7 books that were doubted by some in the ancient Church. Yet Luther, (and now subsequently Lutheranism) include only four books in the antilegomena, “books from which one did not draw doctrine.”

Why were the other three doubted (2 Peter, 2 & 3 John) not incorporated into the antilegomena by either Luther or the Lutherans?

Furthermore, Moeller indicates that in the 1920’s the LCMS changed its approach to the antilegomena. From what to what? Is the LCMS done changing it approach to what is and what it not Scripture yet? Or are there more changes to come? One would think that after 1900 years, Christianity would sort of ‘settled down’ and quit changing the canon of Scripture and how we are to deem the canonicity of the 27 books that most Christians consider to be the NT. But then, to Lutherans, the NT is only ‘relatively closed’.

“It is interesting to note that the German Bible available to homes in the Missouri Synod in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the Altenburger Bibel (Concordia Publishing House), contained Luther’s introductions to the New Testament books, giving his views about Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. The laymen therefore were acquainted with the view of Scriptures which associated inspired New Testament authority with authorship by apostles.”

This floored me. From my reading, I was under the impression that Luther’s disrespectful comments about whole books of the Bible had been eliminated from the Bible shortly after his death (by Christians who revere Scripture). It is astonishing that those comments were printed in American Bibles as late as the last century. What in the world were those LCMS leaders thinking? Moeller will explain in part two.

Moeller continues:

“One notes what had happened. From areas of scholarship both outside confessing Christianity and within it, conclusion of critical scholarship were making themselves felt and were being taken for granted. “A majority of scholars” concluded that Paul did not write Ephesians or the Pastorals, that Matthew did not write the canonical Greek Matthew, etc. But how can one be really a “scientific” Bible scholar and still uphold the authority of Scripture within the confessional context of membership in a conservative Lutheran church body’? Answer: by simply holding to an inspired, inerrant Bible, which in the New Testament is inspired regardless of who wrote the individual books.”

So, it is by holding to an ‘inspired, inerrant Bible’ that one can uphold the authority of Scripture.

“Meanwhile the Missouri Synod scholar and clergyman who has arrived at this same point in his “scholarly” Biblical views is still bound by his oath of office and by the confessional paragraph of his church’s constitution to the Inspired characters and complete authority of the Scriptures. How to solve the problem now? Answer: an inspired erring Scripture, which is however authoritative and “inerrant” in achieving its purpose; namely, to make wise unto salvation. The Holy Spirit supposedly leads one to believe the “Gospel,” and one uses historical-critical scholarship to pick out of the Scripture that which the Holy Spirit intends one to believe as content of the Gospel. It comes as no surprise, then, that it becomes difficult and finally sometimes impossible for such a Missouri Synod Lutheran to uphold the distinctive Scriptural doctrines of Lutheranism; for obviously “the Holy Spirit” has supposedly led all sorts of scholars to all sorts of other conclusions as to what is the Gospel and as to what Scripture clearly states.”

Moeller points out that the ‘solution’ to the problem of the Lutheran concept of the canon is a Scripture that is ‘an inspired erring Scripture’, which is however authoritative and ‘inerrant’. Maybe you have to be a Lutheran to understand how something can be ‘erring’ while at the same time being ‘authoritative and inerrant’. (I think we need to remember that Luther called reason the ‘Devil’s whore’.)

What is shocking is to read a statement of an LCMS Pastor who actually admits that it is sometimes impossible to uphold the distinctive Scriptural doctrines of Lutheranism, mentioning that scholars have supposedly been led (by the Holy Spirit) to non-Lutheran conclusions. Is Moeller suggesting that while Lutheran Scholars are led by the Holy Spirit to correctly identify what Scripture teaches, but that the ‘other’s Scholars are NOT led by the Spirit, and as such, don’t get it ‘right’? If anyone has any doubts about Moeller’s position, his final section should make it very clear.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Tomi,

Thanks for your response.

I’ll play along…

How about this? Catholics are always going on about 30,000 Protestant denominations. So the Catholic Church will get 2 delegates and each Protestant denomination gets 2. Majority wins: 60,000 Protestants and Orthodox, 2 Catholics. Sounds good to you?

The FIRST issue will be to deny any sense of supremacy to the Pope.

Will the Catholic Church accept this?

Actually, I thought that my proposal was much more ‘fair’ and for that matter - less ridiculous. It seems like you could have just said that you can’t think of a better more equitable method of apportioning out votes and delegates than what I suggested.

I would again suggest that my proposal is the most fair there could be. If you don’t think it works ‘well enough’ for Protestantism, then I think you are admitting that Protestantism would NEVER come to an Ecumenical Council UNLESS they could be assured of getting their way before the fact.

As a way of testing out my ‘solution’, I would like to suggest that Lutheranism as a whole come up with some sort of way to have their own intra-Lutheran Council and that they ALL commit ,going in, to abide by the doctrinal decisions of the Council and form ONE ecclesiastical body.

That would be an excellent start I think, but also one which will NEVER happen, because they are all SO SURE that THEY are the ones who are correct. That in fact is the nature of Protestantism and it is the fatal flaw that Luther built into the system.

God Bless You Tomi, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Do you have evidence that the dialogue partners have NOT talked about these issues, or if they haven’t why that is the case? Since they consult neither you nor me, perhaps they have reasons for going about their business as they do.

I think it a bit presumptuous for us to pass judgement on the dialogue partners. And again, how do you know what has been discussed behind the scenes?

As I have stated here several times Jon, I have read a statement from the Dialogue which states very clearly that they have NOT yet addressed the issue of Papal Infallibility. IF you think they actually HAVE then produce some evidence that they actually have.

As for the whole ‘antichrist thing’, it seems to me that the Lutheran position is that the charge will simply disappear, or evaporate, or will disprove itself, once the Catholic Church has stopped refuting Lutheran teaching, (which is of course God’s Absolute Truth). In other words, the offensive ‘antichrist language’ and the “stuff” about the 'adherents" will NEVER need to be withdrawn, but will simply no longer apply once the Catholic Church stops teaching against Christ. To put it a different way, that offensive language about the ‘antichrist’ and the adherents, and all the rest of it, will no longer be offensive to Catholics once they realize that the Church HAS been teaching against Christ and has fully deserved to be called out as such. THAT is how doctrinal unity will be achieved.

That way, the Formula does not EVER need to be ‘adjusted’, which of course it cannot be without admitting that it was never authoritative to begin with.

True, though individual members of our leadership also hold personal opinions that may or may not reflect the teaching of the synod. And this is perfectly permissible outside doctrine.

My concern here Jon is quite simple. It seems to me that the positions taken by your LCMS leaders are consistently MUCH more ‘anticatholic’ than the positions that you take here. While I appreciate that you seem to be more ‘ecumenical’, I don’t want people here to be inadvertently misled into thinking that your positions are representative of those of the LCMS leadership.

 

[KjetilK]

That is understandable since Jesus only promised to build one Church and Lutheranism is not it. So, what exactly IS Lutheranism?

An ecclesial tradition the same way Byzantinism is an ecclesial tradition, and not a Church. Is it really that hard to understand? Am I speaking to a brick wall?

That certainly seems consistent since one of the key pillars of Protestantism is PRIVATE JUDGEMENT. You certainly can’t hold Luther’s ideas up as authoritative when one of HIS core ideas was that you should be coming up with your own interpretations. Seems contradictory or self-refuting.

Most movements which are called after their founders (the Dominicans, the Franciscans, the Marxists, etc) do so to honor their founders.So, what IS the reason for honoring the man by retaining his name as your own?

Well, for starters, we didn’t give ourselves that name. It stuck, perhaps as a slap in the face of those who made it up.

My Church, the Catholic Church, was founded in the first century by God, and the ones with formal authority are His bishops and priests.

Your Church is the particular diocese or archdiocese in which you live.

Out of curiosity, what are the theological points of disagreement that prevent you from seeking full, formal communion with the Catholic Church which is led by the direct successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome?

Well, for many reasons. (1) I don’t agree that the Pope has supremacy. (2) I don’t see the reason. I am Norwegian, so naturally I remain in the Church which actually has authority in the Norwegian realm.

Because that is how apostolic succession works.

Eh, no. Are you suggesting that, contrary to the express teaching of your own Church, that the Eastern Orthodox churches do not retain apostolic succession?

Approved men? Approved by whom?

Ignoring the fact that this letter may not on fact be written by Clement of Rome, note the word ‘they.’ Not ‘he.’ The text state that “they appointed those who have already been mentioned,” not “he * appointed those who have already been mentioned.” The particular churches, with their bishops and archbishops, are perfectly capable of appointing their own bishops.

Some would interpret Christ’s charge to Peter - a charge not given to the 12, or to the 120 - as relevant here, to Peter’s successors.

Maybe, but then ‘they’ should provide the arguments for that case. Principled arguments, that is.

Many non-Catholics understand the prudence of a bishop to appoint a pastor to a rural parish that neither the bishop, nor the new pastor, has ever lived in, rather than letting the people in that town

choose their own pastor. Where did I mention anything about ‘the people’ choosing?

I think most people, liberal or conservative, would agree that while the Catholic Church is affected by secular trends, it has - for better or worse - been less affected on its moral positions than more decentralized churches. This logic would seem to hold true for the wisdom of bishop appointments.

So the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster is not Catholic, then?

My understanding is that there IS a ‘secondary category’, the ‘antilegomena’, and that furthermore, that that these four books of the NT are NOT to be used in establishing doctrine. In addition, unlike the Catholic Church, Lutheranism has NOT established a list of the inspired books of the NT. In fact, the NT is only ‘relatively closed.’

Again, you need to STOP! Lutheranism IS NOT A CHURCH, and your ‘facts’ are in fact not so! I don’t know a single Lutheran in Norway who doesn’t believe that the New Testament canon contains 27 book of equal doctrinal value, and I don’t know a single one who claims that the canon is ‘open.’ I know that certain Lutheran theologians are of that opinion, but the important part is what a particular Church teaches. The Church of Norway does not teach a distinction, in the New Testament canon, between ‘antilegomena’ and ‘prolegomena.’ And the canon is closed!

I realize that this is not exactly one of the ‘best known’ of Lutheran beliefs, and it is not that surprising that one can be a Lutherans for decades without learning it, but it is true.

Does that mean that is is true that the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t really teach transubstantiation, but rather teaches Transignification or Transfinalization? After all, it must be Catholic teaching when there is a Catholic theologian who teaches it.*

 

[Picky_Picky]

I don’t know Norway. From everything I know about the Anglican bishops of England, there are very good reasons for having someone outside England, who is not subordinate to the English government and secular media culture, appoint the right English priest for bishop of London. The same holds true for the USA. In our country, certain clergy of any denomination who obey the secular culture are promoted by the media as brilliant, compassionate, in touch with their flocks, and, best of all, “pastoral”.
(Fr. J must be good, I’ve heard a lot about him). Certain other clergy who disobey the media trends are either ignored, or else labelled as rigid, dogmatic, out of touch with their flocks, and hard-liners.

I don’t mean the right men always get chosen for RC bishops; but there’s a corrective mechanism in place, the value of which is much more apparent now. Back in 1950 the media were much less powerful, and anyway did not try to influence the churches much. It’s a different world now.

I am not sure what you mean by “subordinate to the English government” but it seems to me a very misleading description of the position of the Church of England.

 

[commenter]

I am not sure what you mean by “subordinate to the English government” but it seems to me a very misleading description of the position of the Church of England.

In context, I meant that the Church of England mostly follows the trends of the power structure of secular society, (media, academia, etc) which in recent years tends to be hostile to Christianity. I don’t mean the government is a dictatorship, I mean it is part of the power structure, and that the C of E no longer tries to stand up against the secular tide. Some isolated, individual bishops and priests still do, but my understanding is that they have less and less influence on the C of E.