Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[Per_Crucem]

Why would we expect a church that is only 500 or so years old to have the same amount of material as a church that is nearly 2000 years old?

2000? I mean in just the last 50 years.

 

[Ridgerunner]

In all fairness, though, we are nowhere near Catholicism in the volume of theological material. You don’t think our eyes would cross reading the Code of Canon Law?

Perhaps they would. But there is a difference. Catholics are not expected to read the Code of Canon Law any more than Americans generally are required to read the dizzying tax code. For the most part, Catholic belief and practice from the point of view of the pews is fairly simple, and all one has to do is accept what one is taught in the various ways one is taught, through literature, homilies, the books one chooses to read, perhaps direct religious instruction. And, apart from the “dissidents” who really are in a church of their own, it’s always the same.

It is my impression of Protestantism, with Lutheranism being somewhat but not entirely exceptional within it, that its ineradicable core concept is that there is a primacy to personal belief and interpretation even when it’s circumscribed by the various theological works and tracts written by its foremost scholars.

So, Lutherans might critique Catholics for “rote” learning of “set” beliefs and mores, while Catholics might critique even Lutherans for not quite having a reliable set of beliefs at all.

Again, other Protestant churches are much more so that way. If one looks up the core beliefs of the Southern Baptist Convention, one finds that it’s less than one page. Every man is his own Pope in nearly everything.

There is an interesting outgrowth of that fact in the looser forms of Protestantism. Their people tend to believe a great deal more than their churches teach them, and those beliefs, while varied somewhat, tend to be the same or similar to those of other Christian groups. Where do those things come from? Well, years ago my son wrote a paper for a college course on that subject. It was well documented, tracing commonly held societal moral beliefs back to theological and moral positions enunciated by the Catholic Church in the past. It was his thesis that there is a “cultural overlay” of theology and morals that survived the Reformation; sometimes with contemporaneous infusions from the Catholic Church, particularly the Popes, that people simply adopt by default.

His professor was a Baptist minister, who gave him an A+ for the paper and told my son it gave him a great deal to think about.

I particularly liked my son’s line (and I’m paraphrasing, I think) “The Catholic Church is like a pole star at sea. Sailors might not be sailing toward it, but they always sail by reference to it.”

 

[Per_Crucem]

Perhaps they would. But there is a difference. Catholics are not expected to read the Code of Canon Law any more than Americans generally are required to read the dizzying tax code. For the most part, Catholic belief and practice from the point of view of the pews is fairly simple, and all one has to do is accept what one is taught in the various ways one is taught, through literature, homilies, the books one chooses to read, perhaps direct religious instruction. And, apart from the “dissidents” who really are in a church of their own, it’s always the same.

It is my impression of Protestantism, with Lutheranism being somewhat but not entirely exceptional within it, that its ineradicable core concept is that there is a primacy to personal belief and interpretation even when it’s circumscribed by the various theological works and tracts written by its foremost scholars.

So, Lutherans might critique Catholics for “rote” learning of “set” beliefs and mores, while Catholics might critique even Lutherans for not quite having a reliable set of beliefs at all.

That wasn’t my experience in my time within Lutheranism. Now, there are Lutherans who are, for all intents and purposes, generic evangelical Americans so there are going to be exceptions, but in general Lutheranism is near identical to Catholicism with respect to how beliefs are learned; catechism, liturgy, sacramental participation. All confessional Lutherans are required to abide by the Small Catechism and Augusburg Confession. If a member of a congregation publicly disagrees or teaches differently, they risk excommunication. There is a reason that along with Catholics, Lutherans have the largest private school system in the US. It was to avoid education by American Protestant (i.e., Puritan/Reformed) religious ethics.

“Private” interpretation within a Lutheran context is not the same thing as what evangelicals mean by it.

 

[lcmslutheran]

As a newly minted Lutheran (LCMS) coming from a Roman Catholic background, I don’t think that “unity” in the sense understood by the Roman Catholic Church (ie, a single human head with theologically binding pronouncements over all believers) is necessary nor good.

In fact, historically speaking, that type of unity was non existent. The fact that Saint Paul wrote letters to the churches in the Middle East, shows that these churches were already operating in a semi autonomous matter. Another example is the Coptic Church -that survives today- created well before the Orthodox schism.

I agree with the commenter that said that in terms of “unity” is better to have common areas of collaboration (such as spreading the gospel in an increasingly secular world, work in prolife issues and defense of traditional marriage) than having a McDonalds type of unity.

The reason I left the Roman Catholic Church is the new pope’s focus on so called “social justice” at the expense of the gospel and traditional Christian morality.

I feel blessed that a denomination like the LCMS existed that I could join to be part of a larger community of Christian believers with shared values.

 

[Selah_KY]

The reason I left the Roman Catholic Church is the new pope’s focus on so called “social justice” at the expense of the gospel and traditional Christian morality.

Interesting. I was dissatisfied with the LCMS’s teachings regarding social justice long before I finally make the choice to become Catholic. We briefly tried the Episcopal church, but found that their social justice was practiced at the expense of the gospel, but I have never felt that way about the Catholic church.

So many ways of thinking about the same thing…

 

[lcmslutheran]

Interesting. I was dissatisfied with the LCMS’s teachings regarding social justice long before I finally make the choice to become Catholic. We briefly tried the Episcopal church, but found that their social justice was practiced at the expense of the gospel, but I have never felt that way about the Catholic church.

So many ways of thinking about the same thing…

I guess that a lot depends on the particular congregation. My LCMS congregation is very, for lack of a better word, “conservative”.

As you know, the LCMS governance model is one of autonomous congregations. If the LCMS were to become more “social justice” oriented, my congregation would probably leave the LCMS.

 

[JonNC]

I guess that a lot depends on the particular congregation. My LCMS congregation is very, for lack of a better word, “conservative”.

As you know, the LCMS governance model is one of autonomous congregations. If the LCMS were to become more “social justice” oriented, my congregation would probably leave the LCMS.

As an LCMS Lutheran, I find the uber-congregationalist approach one of my biggest concerns.
As for “social justice”, it is in the eye of the beholder. What some consider social justice, I consider tyranny.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

I guess that a lot depends on the particular congregation. My LCMS congregation is very, for lack of a better word, “conservative”.

As you know, the LCMS governance model is one of autonomous congregations. If the LCMS were to become more “social justice” oriented, my congregation would probably leave the LCMS.

Do you mean the ENTIRE congregation would leave the LCMS or just you?
Also, welcome to the forums~ Hope you enjoy your time here.

Mary.

 

[Selah_KY]

As you know, the LCMS governance model is one of autonomous congregations. If the LCMS were to become more “social justice” oriented, my congregation would probably leave the LCMS.

I have no doubt. And that’s why I’m not LCMS anymore.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Thanks!

Topper,

Nice post. I appreciate the ecumenical spirit of individual posters LCMS but as you note that sentiment does not seem to be shared by official LCMS documents and writings from those you note such as Daniel Preus.

Daniel Preus does have a book called Why I am a Lutheran-Jesus at the Center that I have read. My LCMS pastor friend loaned it to me and it was quite well written. That said,
I wish it was as simple as Jesus in the Center.

Given Luther said:

The article of justification is said to be the article by which the church stands or falls.
(Somewhere, no link sorry)
it would seem to me that we should start there with the confessional Lutherans , and authority regarding the Pope regarding discussions.

How can we dialogue as a Church Body with Confessional Lutherans who feel the leader of our Church sits in the seat of the Anti Christ. That seems ludicrous to me until that is
“ironed out”

It is nice there are talks about purgatory as Jon pointed out but that to me is not the “key” issue. “pun intended”

The Devil is in the details and Sacramental life as Jesus intended, as well as justification etc. are very important and you can Commune yourself to harm as scriptures so state.

First of all, as you know, we have seen here the idea advanced that all of those ‘condemnatory statements’ would be refuted AFTER we have reached doctrinal agreement. In other words, the pope will be the antichrist UNTIL AFTER the Church has changed its doctrinal positions such that they agree with those of Lutheranism. That is ridiculous.

Why would we take advice as to how to achieve doctrinal unity from a communion which is as doctrinally fractured as Lutheranism?

How about this for an ‘order of things’ – Prove to the Church that you are serious about reunification by FIRST rejecting OFFICIALLY all of that Anti-Catholic dribble in the Formula of Concord?

As for justification being the article by which Protestantism (and especially Lutheranism) either stands or falls by, the noted Reformed Theologian Paul Tillich:

“The Protestant principal took form in Luther’s fight for justification by grace and through faith alone. ‘Justification’ in this sense is the paradox that man, the sinner, is justified; that man the unrighteous is righteous; that man the unholy is holy, namely, in the judgment of God, which is not based on any human achievements but only on the divine, self-surrendering grace. Where this paradox of the divine-human relationship is understood and accepted, all ideologies are destroyed. Man does not have to deceive himself about himself, because he is accepted as he is, in the total perversion of his existence.” Paul Tillich, “The Protestant Era”, pg. 170-1

Luther’s ‘Reformation’ was ‘necessary’, at least to him, because he absolutely HAD to have assurance of his Salvation, even decades before his death. It was necessary because of his personal psychological ‘needs’. His ‘version’ of Salvation was a radical departure from existing Christian teaching and was not to be found in the Fathers, OR in Scripture. And yet, if we look at the statement of the more ‘emphatic’ Lutheran groups, it is US, the Catholics, who are going to have to follow their radical views if there is going to be any kind of doctrinal unity.

How much sense does that make Mary?

God Bless You, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Selah,

Yes, this. I think several Lutherans have said here that they don’t believe that the Pope is the “anti-Christ”, but it’s very much a teaching of the church. Well, not that the Pope is, but that the Papal Seat is the the anti-Christ (I’ve never actually attempted to wrap my brain around that whole concept, since I don’t believe it personally.)

Welcome, and excellent posts.

I think that the reason that people like you and I cannot wrap our brains around the Lutheran teaching on the Pope as the antichrist is because it is SO preposterous. One also has to wonder why the Lutheran ‘Fathers’ went to such extremes in rhetoric.

The fact is that the Formula of Concord stands in the way of ecumenical efforts.

The Church has been the Church for almost 2000 years and in every generation it has been required to battle heresy. The idea of the Pope or the papacy as being the antichrist actually forces those who believe that dribble to explain, specifically and exactly, when that began to be true. Under which Pope did that ‘happen’?

I would bet you could get a dozen different answers in the first 20 from just Lutherans.

God Bless You Selah, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12818808]
First of all, as you know, we have seen here the idea advanced that all of those ‘condemnatory statements’ would be refuted AFTER we have reached doctrinal agreement. In other words, the pope will be the antichrist UNTIL AFTER the Church has changed its doctrinal positions such that they agree with those of Lutheranism. That is ridiculous.

Not only ridiculous, but a falsehood you continually and intentionally maintain.

]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.

How about this for an ‘order of things’ – Prove to the Church that you are serious about reunification by FIRST rejecting OFFICIALLY all of that Anti-Catholic dribble in the Formula of Concord?

Is the Catholic Church willing to state that salvation is not dependent on being in communion with the Bishop of Rome, either directly or indirectly, which is what the positive reformulation amounts to?

And yet, if we look at the statement of the more ‘emphatic’ Lutheran groups, it is US, the Catholics, who are going to have to follow their radical views if there is going to be any kind of doctrinal unity.

As if this isn’t the Catholic position, as well. Plank and speck, perhaps.
More likely, however, is the fact that the leaders of both sides are not influenced by the polemics that come from the extreme traditionalist fringes of either side.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Kjet,

Thanks for your response.

And as a Lutheran priest who can claim some authority to pontificate on this issue, I respectfully have to disagree with Daniel Preus. I am currently working on an article on this very issue which I hope to get published in a peer reviewed journal.

First of all, let me be perfectly clear. I have TREMENDOUS respect for the clergy. I would love to read that article when it is published.

You disagree with Preus and he of course disagrees with you. I think that this points out the need for some kind of overarching ‘body’ within Lutheranism which can unify the whole. The fact that Luther built into the formula the individual as being superior to the church assured that Lutheranism would fracture doctrinally.

If I remember correctly, you do not believe that the Formula of Concord is to be acknowledged as being authoritative. In fact, from what I can see, it appears that far less than half of Lutheranism overall holds to the Formula. Is that correct?

Yes, it is the teaching of some Lutheran churches. But it is not Lutheranism. Most Lutheran churches in Europe have never taught it, and most of them rejected the private opinions of some theologians that the pope and/or the papacy is the anti-Christ. That some of these private opinions (such as the Formula of Concord) have been given confessional status by some churches (such as LCMS or WELS) doesn’t mean that it IS Lutheran teaching. I’m pretty sure that no Roman Catholic would agree that rejection of the papacy is of the essence of Byzantine theology. Some Byzantine churches do hold to that (such as the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate). But some don’t (such as the Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church or the Russian Greek Catholic Church). Lutheranism is not a Church. Lutheranism, as Byzantinism, is a ecclesial tradition.

You refer to the ‘private opinions’ that the pope or papacy is the anti-Christ. Does that mean that you believe that the men who wrote the Forumla of Concord were simply professing their ‘private opinions’? I ask because I have never seen anyone provide an explanation as to WHY, specifically and exactly, they believe that the Formula is authoritative. Given that you and your communion have rejected the Formula, could you explain why, or explain why others hold to it?

God Bless You Kjet, Topper

 

[lcmslutheran]

As an LCMS Lutheran, I find the uber-congregationalist approach one of my biggest concerns.
As for “social justice”, it is in the eye of the beholder. What some consider social justice, I consider tyranny.

Jon

Actually, when I made the decision of leaving the Catholic Church, I found this particular aspect of the LCMS a plus. It is not without its problems -which runaway congregations deviating from the Synod’s official statements. The reality, however, is that you also have runaway clerics (at all levels, from priest to cardinal) who deviate from official Catholic doctrine without much consequences in the Roman Catholic Church. Not to mention politicians, like Pelosi or Joe Biden, who actively work against the Roman Catholic teaching and they are still in good standing with the Catholic Church.

The congregationalist approach keeps things honest. Which takes me to,

Do you mean the ENTIRE congregation would leave the LCMS or just you?
Also, welcome to the forums~ Hope you enjoy your time here.

Mary.

It could be either one. My particular congregation, as I have said, is “conservative” for lack of a better word. We have a prolife ministry and my pastor has called same sex marriage “an abomination” from the pulpit. As long we have our current pastor, things will not change. To change critical bylaws of the congregation, a unanimity vote of voting members is required. So I don’t see my congregation changing much in the upcoming years. If it reaches a point where it adopts a more “social justice” approach, I have the option of leaving for a different one. If the Synod itself were to change its own teaching, I can foresee our congregation leaving the Synod to either become Lutheran independently affiliated or joining other minor denomination.

All this is more honest than the “appearance” of unity by the Roman Catholic church. To take the most obvious example: contraception. The official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is what it is, but 90% of sexually active Catholics ignore it.

With respect to the conversation of the “antichrist”, the word itself has several meanings, but the naming of Francis has been a rude awakening for me. Having grown up with John Paul II, I didn’t see what all the fuzz was about the office of the papacy that bothered non Catholics so much. With Francis, I can clearly see why the office of the papacy cannot possibly be divinely inspired and established. There are other historical examples of real bad popes (check Alexander VI), but until the naming of Francis I saw all those in the distant past that did not affect me.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Why in the world would the Pastors be held to something as the Pope/office being AntiChrist and not the laity? What is the purpose of this?

Mary.

I agree. it would be ridiculous to require the LCMS Pastors to hold to some different set of beliefs than the laity, and in fact, if I remember correctly, people who are being inducted into the LCMS are required to profess that they hold to the teachings of the Formula, which of course means that they have to officially hold to all of that super-offensive anti-Catholic rhetoric, including the statements about the ‘adherents’, meaning people like you and me.

I think the reason that we have a hard time wrapping our minds around this whole ‘antichrist’ issue is because it makes NO sense to us, and neither do any of the tortured ‘explanations’ and ‘justification’ or the attempts to ‘explain away’.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[lcmslutheran]

I think the reason that we have a hard time wrapping our minds around this whole ‘antichrist’ issue is because it makes NO sense to us, and neither do any of the tortured ‘explanations’ and ‘justification’ or the attempts to ‘explain away’.

When I was going through my admission process, my pastor explained this to me, particularly because as a Catholic trying to become LCMS I might find that offensive.

It is all a matter of perspective. When Leo X was threatening Martin Luther with excommunication for his theology, Luther wrote to him a respectful letter explaining his objections as to how the Roman Catholic Church of the time was conducting its business,

bartleby.com/36/6/1.html

While it is true that the Roman Catholic Church corrected most of its abuses (although not all) in upcoming centuries by for instance abolishing the Inquisition and the index of forbidden books, the official LCMS teaching is about being vigilant. The office of the pope has been held by very bad people in the past (I go back to Alexander VI), it might happen in the future.

Now, a divinely instituted office, in theory, should not be capable of having people like this guy holding it. When somebody like Alexander VI holds the papacy, there is potential for great evil, thus the doctrine of the antichrist applying to the office, not to particular individuals.

 

[KjetilK]

If I remember correctly, you do not believe that the Formula of Concord is to be acknowledged as being authoritative.

That is correct. It was published in 1580, 50 years after the publication of Confessio Augustana, and represents a marked shift. Confessio Augustana was presented as a confession within the Catholic and Apostolic tradition. It is part of a long tradition – going all the way back to Chalecon – of seeing itself basically as a ‘commentary’ on the Nicene Creed. It is not defined ‘denominationally’ as a ‘Lutheran’ document. For some points on this, read Oskar Skarsaune, “The Literary Genre of the Augsburg Confession,” in Kirkens bekjennelse i historisk og aktuelt perspektiv: Festskrift til Kjell Olav Sannes, ed., Torleiv Austad, Tormod Engelsviken & Lars Østnor (Trondheim: Tapir Akademisk 2010): 99-109. Unfortunately most of that book is in Norwegian.

In 1580, we see a marked shift with the publication of the Formula of Concord, authored by ‘the second Martin’ (Martin Chemnitz). This is clearly defined as a Lutheran, ‘denominational,’ document. It is demarcated explicitly against Rome and some Protestants, especially Anabaptists.

In fact, from what I can see, it appears that far less than half of Lutheranism overall holds to the Formula. Is that correct?

Pretty much. My Church never saw itself as a Lutheran Church if Lutheranism is seen as a ‘denominational’ thing. The self-understanding of the Church of Norway is that she is the historical Church of the Norwegian realm. It now is part of the Lutheran ecclesial tradition, the same way the Russian Orthodox Church is part of the Byzantine ecclesial tradition.

You refer to the ‘private opinions’ that the pope or papacy is the anti-Christ. Does that mean that you believe that the men who wrote the Forumla of Concord were simply professing their ‘private opinions’?

Yes. That is exactly what I mean. And it shows us the clearly defined ‘denominational’ nature of the document.

I ask because I have never seen anyone provide an explanation as to WHY, specifically and exactly, they believe that the Formula is authoritative. Given that you and your communion have rejected the Formula, could you explain why, or explain why others hold to it?

Well, I guess those who (consciously and intentionally) hold to it do it because they think it is true. I don’t think it is true, and I think it actually contradicts – or at least erroneously interprets Confessio Augustana at least on the Eucharist.

 

[Topper17]

Is it different? The only thing I find different in terms of how to proceed with dialogue is he implies in the last sentence, a necessity of change in teaching within the Catholic Church prior to dialogue. In that way, he holds what appears to be a similar view, from a Lutheran perspective, of course, that you hold from a Catholic perspective. In that sense you would be correct, that I disagree with Pastor Preus, if in fact that is his view.

Ok, so you disagree with Preus as I knew you would. What’s the difference though - right? When Preus wrote that article he was the First VP of the LCMS, which of course means that he was essentially proclaiming the position of YOUR communion. That’s what people in that kind of position do. Furthermore, it is people who CORRECTLY represent the beliefs of their organizations who RISE to that kind of authority. In other words, in part, Preus rose to his position BECAUSE he espoused the ‘correct’ LCMS positions.

Where does he say that this is “the official” LCMS position. In fact, I have had a private conversation with one of the LCMS dialogue team members, and he did not indicate to me that Pr. Preus set the “official” position. Instead, ISTM that Pr. Preus is presenting his own view.

That would be 1st VP Preus to you Bub! He had the second most authority in your 2 million member communion, in which by the way, it is the church which determines doctrine. At the time he was in a decision making role for your whole communion and as such, his ‘position’ is a lot more ‘official’ than yours. In fact, the position that he took is exactly how your communion as acted on the matter.

In my conversation with the dialogue team member, he did not use such language as “mockery”, but he did explain the reasons why the LCMS could not sign on to the JDDJ. I offered him my perspective, which is that I believe we should sign on, with a further explanation of our position, much like the CC did following the signing of the JDDJ.

As for your conversation with a team member – ok so spill it. Who did you talk to specifically?

I can believe that he didn’t use the term ‘mockery’, but First VP Preus DID, in writing.

You might have suggested that the LCMS ‘sign on’ to the JDDL, but as you must admit, they have NOT. Furthermore, the LCMS obviously WILL NOT. So again, it seems like you find yourself in opposition to, if not the official teaching of your Communion, at least to its ACTIONS.

Precisely. And thank you for offering information which supports my view, which is in fact contrary to what the ELCA/LWF typically does. Pr. Preus above is critical of an agreement which, in his view, does not really bring about agreement (my personal view is there is nothing in the JDDJ a Lutheran could complain about, other than its being incomplete).

Again Jon, your personal view is obviously at odds with that of your communion.

But even in this, your response does not respond to my point, which was, for dialogue to have a chance, neither side can go into dialogue with the prior insistence that the other side relinquish its beliefs. The same goes for the old condemnations from both sides; those condemnations, while harsh to our ears today, have behind them the disagreements that in fact have to be resolved. Neither side can be asked to jettison those statements PRIOR to agreement.

For the record, my statements deal with the reality as it exists. Yours is based on what you WISH the facts were. As for the ‘old condemnations’, they are STILL your official teaching, which after 450 years, and with even as super offensive as they are to Catholics, Lutherans will not repeal them.

In your typical way - that of pretending that you get to say what our position is - you completely ignored the major content of my post, that being that the document The Hope of Eternal Life", of which the LCMS participated and, with I believe three caveats, accepted, seems to proceed essentially along the lines I related above.

In my ‘typical way’ Jon?

Should the term ‘typical way’ be employed more often here?

I am NOT ‘pretending’ anything. I am NOT saying what I THINK your LCMS position is. What I am saying is that YOUR 1st VP Preus informs us as to what that position is, and that he has FAR more authority to define that position than you do. All I am trying to do is keep people from being misinformed as to what the LCMS and Lutheranism teaches.

 

[lcmslutheran]

Ok, so you disagree with Preus as I knew you would. What’s the difference though - right? When Preus wrote that article he was the First VP of the LCMS, which of course means that he was essentially proclaiming the position of YOUR communion. That’s what people in that kind of position do. Furthermore, it is people who CORRECTLY represent the beliefs of their organizations who RISE to that kind of authority. In other words, in part, Preus rose to his position BECAUSE he espoused the ‘correct’ LCMS positions.

What you are doing here is the proverbial using a map of New York City to navigate through the streets of London.

The way Protestant denominations - as an aside, Lutherans in the US have a problem with that label but I don’t- understand authority is very different from the way the Roman Catholic Church understands it. Sola Scriptura means precisely that: the Bible is the ultimate authority.

So theologically speaking, you can disagree with those at the top if you have a biblical reason to do so. As to at what point the disagreement is so profound as to be divisive, there is no clear cut answer but these disagreements explain why there are so many Protestant denominations.

So as somebody who grew up in the Catholic Church, I have to say that your understanding of the LCMS is not correct because you are projecting the Roman Catholic teaching on this church’s hierarchy onto it.

 

[MaryT777]

What you are doing here is the proverbial using a map of New York City to navigate through the streets of London.

The way Protestant denominations - as an aside, Lutherans in the US have a problem with that label but I don’t- understand authority is very different from the way the Roman Catholic Church understands it. Sola Scriptura means precisely that: the Bible is the ultimate authority.

So theologically speaking, you can disagree with those at the top if you have a biblical reason to do so. As to at what point the disagreement is so profound as to be divisive, there is no clear cut answer but these disagreements explain why there are so many Protestant denominations.

So as somebody who grew up in the Catholic Church, I have to say that your understanding of the LCMS is not correct because you are projecting the Roman Catholic teaching on this church’s hierarchy onto it.

This is the most bizarre post yet; someone “projecting” RC teaching.

How In the world can Topper’s understanding of the LCMS be incorrect when he is quoting from the Concord Book and leaders like Preus of the LCMS? Do you also disagree with Preus as well? Good grief!

Does that mean Preus is misinterpreting scripture with his personal opinion that differs from you or that of another LCMS member even when a leader of the Synod? I thought you guys voted in the leaders by vote. Is that correct?

Hey, I was great friends with a LCMS preacher and he echoed the Concord Book. HIS belief was all Popes AND the Office was the AntiChrist. He was all for Preus and his writings.

So who is right? How do you even determine who is right when you disagree with your leaders who have spent years in college training for the seminary. My friend had a Master’s in Exegesis. He was the one that told me to read the book by Preus “Why I am a Lutheran” to better understand where he was “coming from.” I assume Preus is well educated as well yet you guys know more about Scriptures or what?

Mary.

Mary.