Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[SalusaSecondus]

The fact that the LCMS survives it’s own leadership is proof of the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

Certainly pastor Harrison is a good president and working towards undoing the errors of his predecessor.

 

[Topper17]

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

Jon, you recently introduced the following phrase into our discussion:

“In your typical way……”

With that in mind Jon, when you combine the terms ‘falsehood’, ‘continually, and ‘intentionally’ in the same sentence, the charge becomes that of repeated LYING, which by the way is an extremely serious charge in a Christian setting. You could not possibly believe that this is a good ‘ecumenical approach’ and you could not possibly believe that I am going to be ‘less anything’ by being confronted with a baseless accusation.

As I have been forced to point out time and again, when Luther was challenged, and when people did not back down and allow him to have his way, he accused them of being liars and MUCH worse.

The biggest thing that gets in the way of the reunification between Lutheranism and the Church, Jon, is Martin Luther Himself.

This insistence that people who have different views and STICK to their position are liars or are ‘intentionally maintaining a falsehood’ is VERY ‘Martin Lutheran’. He wanted his ‘audience’ to be VERY clear on the ‘fact’ that the people who REFUSED to buy into his opinions as facts, absolutely HAD to be vilified and called liars. After all, at least in his ‘world’ (internally), Scripture was SO clear that you HAD to agree with him and if you claimed not to, then you were obviously lying.

**“Luther levelled at his opponents his oft-repeated accusation that they actually acknowledged the correctness of his teachings and knew that their own doctrine could not be substantiated from Scriptures. ** In spite of this they insisted upon having their own way. Therefore they had no right to plead ignorance, but were acting contrary to Scripture and contrary to their own better knowledge and judgment.” (Then Lutheran) Jaroslav Pelikan, “Obedient Rebels”, pg. 57

Apparently, just as much now as then, there simply is NO ROOM for honest disagreement. Luther simply COULD NOT DEAL with people who disagreed with him and who refused to be cowed by his abuse and his ridiculously outlandish and baseless accusations.

Luther himself acknowledged that he was abusive, but admitted basically that his abuse was motivated by his desire to force his opponents to be silent.
**
“I cannot deny that I have been more vehement than is seemly. But since they knew this, they ought not to have stirred up the dog.” ** Martin Luther as recorded by Arthur Cushman McGiffert, “Martin Luther”, pg. 153-4

In other words, Luther believed that his opponents should have decided to NOT oppose him BECAUSE he WAS abusive. To me that displays among other things, not only a lack of character, but a tremendous arrogance.

Lutheran Scholar Mark U. Edwards makes exactly this same point, mentioning that the:

“parallels Luther saw between himself and Paul were reassuring to him…and that those “parallels between himself and Paul, and between his opponents and Paul’s, confirmed his doctrine as the true doctrine. His sense of certainty and righteousness was undoubtedly bolstered by these parallels.

**Once Luther saw himself in the role Paul had occupied, he had an explicit model for his behavior toward opponents. **He could explain and justify his polemics and his stubbornness on points of doctrine by pointing to the example set by Paul. When critics charged, as they frequently did, that Luther violated the requirements of charity and modesty in his polemics, there was no need to be disturbed, for he had a cogent rationalization for his behavior.

Finally, by equating his evangelical opponents with biblical false prophets and apostles and by linking them all to Satan, he justified his characterizations of them as vain, lying hypocrites who were wantonly violating their own consciences. Apparent differences between them were a deception, for the devil rode them all. Because they shared a common devilish spirit, the misdeeds of one were potentially the misdeeds of all.” “Luther and the False Brethren”, pg. 125-6

Here we learn, again, that Luther was SO certain that he was right, and that the facts were SO CLEAR, that the only way people could claim to disagree with him would be if they were falsely representing their own opinions. Given that the facts were that clear, they MUST agree with him and could only be lying when they claimed not to.

He actually believed that he could use the model of an actual Apostle in determining how to treat his opponents. How arrogant is that?

 

[Topper17]

Edwards also comments:

“The targets of Luther’s ire become under his pen the vilest of hypocrites, totally wicked and insincere, willing minions of the devil, deserving the most horrible fate.” “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 7

Jon, do you think that Lutheran Professor Mark U. Edwards is being uncharitable? Do you think that this Lutheran Professor should make more of an effort to ‘stay positive’?

Edwards is currently at the Harvard Divinity School, and was formerly the President of St. Olaf College (Lutheran). If you would like to contact him and discuss any of his opinions, his contact information is as follows:

medwards@hds.harvard.edu
p: 617.495.4514

Jon, I certainly seem to draw a lot of fire for revealing facts about Luther. Why not criticize Edwards also?

In regards to your opening sentence about intentional falsehood Jon, thanks for the chuckle Jon. If it suits your purposes to question my sincerity and honestly, then do so IF you think that somehow you can do so within the rules. We all know that when people challenged Luther, he cursed them, called them liars, condemned them to hell, and claimed that they were knowingly agents of Satan. Isn’t that a ‘fine tradition’?

In regards to your comments about how Luther treated those who disagreed, Lutheran Professor Timothy F. Lull comments:

“Certain polemical writings were objectionable even to Luther’s friends in Luther’s lifetime. In 1519, a sympathetic observer said that Luther’s fault was that he was ‘sometimes too violent and cutting in his reprimands, in fact more than is proper for one seeking to find new trails in theology and certainly also for a devine……” Lull, “Companion”, pg. 56

We often hear that Luther’s time was a ‘rough and tumble’ one where opponents were more abusive towards each other than we are today. Here we see clearly that even Luther’s friends objected to his uncharitable manner and his polemical style.

“Luther never denied having an overly sharp tongue: his tendency to use such heavy ammunition genuinely damaged his reputation in cultured circles.

The good humor Mosellan mentions is particularly noteworthy. It prevails despite all the cares that mark Luther’s face**. Luther was an emotional man; his temperament was like a volcano, liable to erupt in any situation, especially when he felt exuberant. His opponents sensed this and rejected it as being unfitted for a monk**.” Oberman, pg. 326

If his temperament was unbefitting for a monk, how much more unbefitting for someone ‘seeking to find new trails in theology’.

Given that Luther actually WAS ‘seeking new trails in theology’, we are forced to hold him to a higher standard in terms of the WHOLE of his teaching, and also his character. We hear constantly about how Catholics over the years have done ‘this or that’. However NONE of these Catholics started their own version of Christianity on the basis of their personal interpretations and their personal authority to do so. As such, Luther demands more scrutiny than anybody who remained faithful to the Church.

Personally Jon, I believe that the ONLY way that Lutheranism and Catholicism could EVER be reunited would be if Lutheranism were to completely SHED the ‘personality’ and character of Martin Luther.

Do you think that could be done?

 

[MaryT777]

Certainly pastor Harrison is a good president and working towards undoing the errors of his predecessor.

What type of errors is he correcting?

Mary.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

What type of errors is he correcting?

Mary.

The previous president had a much more ecumenical focus, was more in support of the empty headed church growth movement, and distinctly non confessional causing a rift in an already deeply divided church.

 

[KathleenGee]

About Martin Luther, I really have not thought about him much. And of course many of us have forgiven Luther.

What must be done? Well…I think many Lutherans do not have the inclinations of Luther as he himself regretted. And people are not at war against each other as it was hundreds of years ago. There is alot of interacting when possible of parishes with Lutheran churches by sharing common goals in coming together for prayer services and serving the community.

I keep hearing references to the pope. I think Protestants project their personal interpretation mode onto the papacy…and I see the pope on the same level of every Catholic. He is rather the symbol of common faith and unity, and the more I grow in the spiritual and mystical experiences of my faith, the more I personally ‘know’ the Holy Father without ever seeing him…as one of us in communion.

The first work of a Catholic is to enter into communion of the Holy Trinity. So our main focus should be God centered. It is in Christ that we find common ground.

About the 50 theses of Luther…well, all of them compile the invalidation of the apostolic Church.

And another thought came to me. I moved to another diocese…and ended up in the side of town where there were several parishes that were dissenting from parts of Catholic doctrine and practice. When new pastors were assigned, and began work to restore the fullness of Catholic faith, they were terribly abused. I was hired to type out a questionnaire and the parish members would be calling in from time to time to see the results…as if their personal opinions would change the church. The pastor told me they were actually congregationalists rather than Catholic and I don’t know how many of them later left…but they were so mean to him. He told me he had a hard time focusing on doing his daily work because of the abuse. He later left the priesthood and got married.

I would not as a practicing Catholic uphold any of Luther’s theses as they do not show the vastness and depth of our faith. I have attended a Lutheran church in the past for almost a year and remember all fondly. I just saw the congregation missing out in about 80% of what their faith can become if they were Catholic.

The Church is both visible and invisible, it is also of faith and its essence is in the mystery of God. But the Catholic Church provides all the means to enter into communion of the Holy Trinity, and this communion of the Holy Trinity with other Christians cannot be fully realized when they break apart components of our faith.

The marks, or our four square Church, are one…this communion of oneness most prominent, holy drawn from the very life of Christ and His Blood, its universality, and its apostolic mission.

I cannot divorce parts of my Catholic faith for my own personal interpretation…because all are connected together…and then I would have parts missing as well…a compromised Church and belief.

 

[MaryT777]

The previous president had a much more ecumenical focus, was more in support of the empty headed church growth movement, and distinctly non confessional causing a rift in an already deeply divided church.

Thanks for the info
Mary.

 

[Selah_KY]

The fact that the LCMS survives it’s own leadership is proof of the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

Laughing, but VERY true!

Certainly pastor Harrison is a good president and working towards undoing the errors of his predecessor.

Thanks for helping prove my point!

The previous president had a much more ecumenical focus, was more in support of the empty headed church growth movement, and distinctly non confessional causing a rift in an already deeply divided church.

And equally, the previous administration felt that the current “worships” liturgy and tradition, and was too Catholic. It’s all semantics.

I was hired to type out a questionnaire and the parish members would be calling in from time to time to see the results…as if their personal opinions would change the church.

This happened to us, too. The survey results said that half the church felt that our biggest problem was that we were too “Lutheran” and the other half felt were weren’t “Lutheran” enough. It was very sad.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Kjet,

Thanks for your response.

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.

Unfortunately, my Norwegian is pretty rusty. Astonishingly rusty actually.

Please correct me if I inadvertently misrepresent your position. It seems that you believe that it was actually the Formula of Concord which departed from the True Lutheranism. Given that more than half of all Lutherans do not hold to the Formula as being authoritative, then your position is ‘normative’ within Lutheranism. Correct?

It also seems that the Formula is much more anti-Catholic than the Augsburg Confession, which of course results in those who hold to the Formula today as being more anti-Catholic than those who do not. Would you see this as a valid generalization?

Furthermore, since one can actually be a True Lutheran WITHOUT holding to the Formula of Concord, and given the anti-Catholic nature of the Formula, it is logical that those who DO hold to it COULD reject it and still maintain their ‘Lutheranism’. Correct? That would be a HUGE step towards unity with the Catholic Church? Right?

Please understand Kjet, I am not trying to put words in your mouth. Please correct me on the above as necessary.

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.

This is the part I do not understand. In another post you said that your tradition is something like 1000 years old. How is that possible given the complete transformation (doctrinally) that took place in Scandinavia in the 16th century? So when did the Church of Norway become part of the Lutheran ecclesial tradition if not in the 16th century?

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

OK, so is it then your position that the portion of Lutheranism which holds to the Forumla of Concord is actually some kind of a schism or offshoot from True Lutheranism?

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.

I am not such a big fan of the Formula of Concord either. It seems to me that whenever I ask a ‘Formula Lutheran’ why, specifically and exactly they hold that it is Authoritative, about the most definite thing I get back is ‘because we believe it’, or some other circular type statement. I can never seem to get a real answer as to why.

God Bless You Kjet, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Topper, quit being “so typical” I personally am not into psychoanalyzing posting styles. Everyone has their own style and most are typical in some way. A poster may use any style they would like in keeping with forum rules of course.

Now back to the thread…

The thing is Mary that some posters here are not going to be happy until their opponents use the ‘style’ that they personally approve of. It is a very Martin Lutheran approach you know.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[spedteacherita]

I am not such a big fan of the Formula of Concord either. It seems to me that whenever I ask a ‘Formula Lutheran’ why, specifically and exactly they hold that it is Authoritative, about the most definite thing I get back is ‘because we believe it’, or some other circular type statement. I can never seem to get a real answer as to why.

God Bless You Kjet, Topper

I think that is the strategy that is used by most, if not all, of the debaters in here, don’t you Topper?

Blessings!!

Rita

 

[KathleenGee]

I read some where…that when we follow God’s will, our way is level and smooth…and it always leads us to God.

The devil moves concentrically…in circles.

So to get out of this…people need to pray to the Holy Spirit to seek what is motivating them to disagree.

I am a cradle Catholic. I have attended Protestant services. First thing I notice is the spirit of the congregation, and of course, the movements are different. so right there…I cannot worship with just that intense sense of difference.

Secondly…our unity is at its height in the Eucharist. The 50 theses of Luther eradicated God as the means for sacred unity. Nobody can just make Eucharist.

Our pastor spoke to us one time at daily Mass about a Lutheran minister friend of his attending one of our Sunday Masses. What impressed him the most was the amount of diversity in our parish…all different economic, cultural and racial differences…yet we are one. He did not have such diversity with his congregation. Likewise my pastor added, there were as many personal opinions in the parish as every person in there.

So our unity is not among ourselves or our beliefs per se but our living communion with the Lord that unites us to all those in the past, including the Jews in the Old Testament, to the saints and believers of the past to all who believe in the Living Lord today. The Mass unites us with the martyrs in heaven and the communion of saints. There is this profound sense of transcendence…the Church both physical and spiritual with such an immense and long history.

The Vatican Library has opened documents…and if put into miles…the documents could go out to space at a certain point…that much.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12821709]
With that in mind Jon, when you combine the terms ‘falsehood’, ‘continually, and ‘intentionally’ in the same sentence, the charge becomes that of repeated LYING, which by the way is an extremely serious charge in a Christian setting.

ABSOLUTELY NOT!! A Lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive. I do not doubt that you sincerely and honestly believe what you write on these forums. Clearly, you are not lying about this.
OTOH, what I have failed to realize (slow on the uptake am I) is that any attempts on my part to change your mind about anything relating to Luther and Lutheranism topic are fruitless. And much to my chagrin, I have found myself becoming less and less charitable in the attempt. Hence, I will no longer try. Better to disengage than to flirt with violating the 8th Commandment.

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

Please correct me if I inadvertently misrepresent your position. It seems that you believe that it was actually the Formula of Concord which departed from the True Lutheranism.

To some extent, yes. I believe, for instance, that it excessively narrows the interpretive range of Confessio Augustana, especially on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. As I’ve argued before, I think that Confessio Augustana, which understands itself in light of Apostolic and Catholic Tradition, is open to, if not actually teaching, transubstantiation. That theological idea, which has a long precedence, is outright rejected in the Formula of Concord in favour of the idea of ‘sacramental union.’

Don’t get me wrong, the wording in , art. XConfessio Augustana, is open to that idea. But it is also open to transubstantiation, or other ideas.

Furthermore, where Confessio Augustana sees itself as a confession of Apostolic and Catholic Tradition, the Formula of Concord is clearly a denominational document. To explain the difference, I can say that the Church of Norway, while being part of the Lutheran ecclesial tradition (like the Russian Orthodox Church is part of the Byzantine ecclesial tradition), does not call herself the Lutheran Church of Norway, while many free churches do call themselves ‘the Lutheran Church of X.’ See more below, on the papacy.

Given that more than half of all Lutherans do not hold to the Formula as being authoritative, then your position is ‘normative’ within Lutheranism. Correct?

Well, it is normative within those Lutheran churches which rejects the Formula as being authoritative. The problem is that your question seem to imply, again, that ‘Lutheranism’ is a Church, not an ecclesial tradition. Within the Byzantine ecclesial tradition, for instance, we can say that the rejection of the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff is normative for those churches which teach that (such as the Russian Orthodox Church), while not for those churches which rejects that (such as the Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church or the Russian Greek Catholic Church).

It also seems that the Formula is much more anti-Catholic than the Augsburg Confession, which of course results in those who hold to the Formula today as being more anti-Catholic than those who do not. Would you see this as a valid generalization?

Yes, if they actually follow the words of the Formula.

Furthermore, since one can actually be a True Lutheran WITHOUT holding to the Formula of Concord, and given the anti-Catholic nature of the Formula, it is logical that those who DO hold to it COULD reject it and still maintain their ‘Lutheranism’. Correct? That would be a HUGE step towards unity with the Catholic Church? Right?

Probably.

This is the part I do not understand. In another post you said that your tradition is something like 1000 years old. How is that possible given the complete transformation (doctrinally) that took place in Scandinavia in the 16th century? So when did the Church of Norway become part of the Lutheran ecclesial tradition if not in the 16th century?

Yes, there was a Reformation. But you will not find, for instance, a Russian Orthodox bishop who will say that their history only goes back as far as approximately 1054 (give or take a few hundred years). What happened in the 16th century was that the Church of Norway broke with Rome, not that it ceased to exist.

OK, so is it then your position that the portion of Lutheranism which holds to the Forumla of Concord is actually some kind of a schism or offshoot from True Lutheranism?

Yes and no. No, if ‘true Lutheranism’ implies that there is one Lutheran Church (which I deny, holding that Lutheranism is rather an ecclesial tradition comparable to the Byzantine tradition). Yes, if what is implied by ‘true Lutheranism’ is being true to Tradition. And an important part of Tradition is the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, as the Western Patriarch. The claim that the anti-Christ is not just a (future?) pope but the papacy itself is contrary to that.

I am not such a big fan of the Formula of Concord either. It seems to me that whenever I ask a ‘Formula Lutheran’ why, specifically and exactly they hold that it is Authoritative, about the most definite thing I get back is ‘because we believe it’, or some other circular type statement. I can never seem to get a real answer as to why.

I generally assume that people actually believe what they claim to believe, and that they are convinced of the arguments leading to that position. So if they do not, maybe they should either rethink their ecclesial allegiance, or perhaps push forward for a ‘Reformation’ in which the document in question is rejected altogether.

 

[Topper17]

Hi PC,

Probably not. It is very much determined by region, for sure. Urban centers are more likely to try to appeal to what the SBC or non-denom church is doing down the street so that they can appeal to the same demographic. That is, after all, the basis of the church growth movement. It’s also very much determined by whether the area sports a confessional seminary. Ft. Wayne, for example, has a greater number of parishes that are liturgical and traditional, because that is how the seminary is.

My comments were mainly directed at Lutheranism as a whole historically.

We Catholics certainly have our own problems with liberal seminaries, although we might be past the worst of it now. The vast majority of the younger Priests I have met are extremely faithful to ALL of the teachings of the Church.

God Bless You PC, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Sel,

Thanks for your response.

Given the number of different opinions on this one thread, there’s no question you are right. I imagine there are far more opinions here on CAF outside of this thread.

The Catholic Church already teaches this! I’m in a rush and I don’t have time to find a source - hopefully someone else will jump in.

I think that an excellent answer has been provided in full, and right here on Catholic Answers to boot.

What “No Salvation Outside the Church” Means
By: Jim Blackburn

This excellent and comprehensive article is at the following:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

It also includes a section on the Invincibly Ignorant, referring to the appropriate sections of the CCC. Most importantly it provides an extremely important warning to those who resist the call to the Church when they know that they should not, referring to CCC 846.

And herein lies the crux of the problem within the LCMS. Former President Pr. Kieschnick was voted out (not by a huge margin) in favor of Pr. Harrison. Of course, those who voted for Pr. Kieschnick believe him to be the definitive speaker for our synod while those who voted for Pr. Harrison do likewise for him. And they could totally change places in the “official” position at the next election. It will just depend on who is the most fired up and who sends delegates. And then we’ll go through the same thing four years after that… INSANITY!

In any case, thanks to Pr. Kieshnick and Pr Preus, through their involvement in The Benke Affair (said in my most ominous, dark side voice), my eyes were opened to the level of dysfunction within the synod as a whole.

In other words, the direction of the LCMS will be determined by whichever political force is in power, at the moment. Given this fact, there is no possibility that the LCMS can ‘stay the course’, no matter what the ‘course’ is defined as being. It will be directed by the decisions of men.

Lutheran Professor Eric Gritsch wrote a very revealing book called ‘The History of Lutheranism’, including quite a bit of revealing ‘detail’ on the problems that the LCMS has had with division.

God Bless You Sel, Topper

 

[Thorolfr]

Most importantly it provides an extremely important warning to those who resist the call to the Church when they know that they should not, referring to CCC 846.

Or as Jim Blackburn says, “But once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it.”

Speaking personally, there are very few topics of faith that I have come to know the truth about with any absolute certainty and without questions or doubts. I can’t imagine ever “knowing” with certainty that the Catholic Church is the one true church. As a result, it would be hard to see how I could ever be considered “invincibly ignorant.” I can’t even say with absolute certainty that I know that Christianity is the true religion since I know that part of the reason that I am a Christian is due to an accident of history and birth (i.e. I was born into a family that comes from a part of the world that has a long history of being Christian whereas if I had been born in Thailand I would probably be a Buddhist or if I had been born in India I would probably be a Hindu, etc.).

 

[Selah_KY]

Our pastor spoke to us one time at daily Mass about a Lutheran minister friend of his attending one of our Sunday Masses. What impressed him the most was the amount of diversity in our parish…all different economic, cultural and racial differences…yet we are one. He did not have such diversity with his congregation. Likewise my pastor added, there were as many personal opinions in the parish as every person in there.

Yes! We are both Catholic AND catholic! Even here in rural Kentucky. I think, after unity under the Pope, this would be the second biggest reason I’m drawn to the Church.

So our unity is not among ourselves or our beliefs per se but our living communion with the Lord that unites us to all those in the past, including the Jews in the Old Testament, to the saints and believers of the past to all who believe in the Living Lord today. The Mass unites us with the martyrs in heaven and the communion of saints. There is this profound sense of transcendence…the Church both physical and spiritual with such an immense and long history.

Truly awe-inspiring, isn’t it?

In other words, the direction of the LCMS will be determined by whichever political force is in power, at the moment. Given this fact, there is no possibility that the LCMS can ‘stay the course’, no matter what the ‘course’ is defined as being. It will be directed by the decisions of men.

And my impression in the ELCA is that the laity have even more “power”, which has pulled them farther away from their roots. Remember the light bulb joke?
How many ELCA Lutherans does it take to change a lightbulb? All of them, they need to vote to see if changing the bulb is biblical.
(Is it okay to tell this since my ELCA family are the ones who shared it?)

 

[Topper17]

OK, again. Catholic condemnations, too, are offensive to Lutherans. Those condemnations, from both sides, are not in a vacuum. They express, however offensively, the real differences our communions have. When those differences are resolved, the condemnations go away.

Please correct me if I am wrong here Jon, but I seem to remember that you have taken the supposedly least offensive Lutheran position possible, which is that it is ‘only’ the papacy as an office that is the antichrist. Personally, I find that to be pretty offensive.

There is nothing in the Formula which mentions the ‘office’.

As you know Jon, during the course of Christian history the Catholic Church has condemned a plethora of heresies. Many of these groups took for their names the names of their originators. The Arians, Montanists, the Pelagians, to name just a few, took their names from men.

Jon, do you think that the Church was wrong to condemn these groups and their founders? Do you think that the Church should have been concerned that the Arians were ‘offended’ by the condemnation of their beliefs by the Church?

When you look at the list of heresies that were condemned by the Church prior to the ‘Reformation’, are there any which you personally agree with and are opposed to their being condemend by the Church? Which ones of them would you consider had the historical precedent on their side for THEIR condemnation of the Catholic Church?

As you know, there is an article here on Catholic Answers which classifies Protestantism as a heresy. I know that that might be offensive to you, but what would you have us do, (meaning really the Catholic Church)?

Would you like the Church to proclaim that it accepts Lutheranism, and maybe all the rest, as being an expression of Christianity which is equal to Catholicism? Would you like the Church to officially proclaim that it doesn’t really care whether there are seven or two Sacraments or some number in between?

As you know Jon, the Church has officially admitted that it is partially responsible for the problems which led to the ‘Reformation’. Where is the equivalent statement from Lutheranism? Has there been ANY admission of ANY guilt or responsibility?

Further, you, of all people, don’t get to say what Lutherans will or will not do. Lutheran synods make that decision.

And therein lies the problem Jon. Within Catholicism, there is ONLY ONE official teaching on each issue that has reached the status of dogma. There is ONLY ONE Magisterium, ONLY ONE teaching authority. Within Lutheranism, there are who knows how many competing and conflicting synods. Your synod speaks for about two percent of Lutheranism overall and that’s it.

For the record, I am perfectly aware that I do not speak for Lutheranism, but I would suggest that 1st VP Preus speaks with more authority as to the LCMS position than you do. When I quote him it is in an effort to correctly portray what appears to be the official position, or maybe a MORE official position of your communion. After all, if Preus had not been good at representing the LCMS, he never would have risen to that kind of position.

You mention the “Lutheran synods”, as in the plural synods. This of course begs the question as to which of them SHOULD be viewed as correctly representing ‘True Lutheranism’. Which one of them really has the authority to teach God’s Absolute Truth correctly? The fact that these various synods don’t even have a common core of Confessional documents doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that any of them are authoritative. Is the Formula of Concord to be viewed as being Authoritative or not? Who decides Jon?

From what I read here it looks like the LCMS is gearing itself for a split, which is in reality inevitable whether it be sooner or later. We must remember Jon that Luther inadvertently and unconsciously built in a guarantee of doctrinal dissension into Lutheranism. While there might be a few momentary reconnections, the trend is towards continued and even more rapid disunion and doctrinal confusion.

Entropy is defined as being a ‘lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.’ Luther built entropy into Protestantism and it can only get worse, which is the nature of entropy. Catholicism does not suffer from this problem.

 

[brian_custer]

many lutherans just won’t give up their stubborn rejection of the Catholic Church

what a very bad virus brother martin injected into christianity;; after all these hundreds of years it hasn’t been dislodged

secular humanism. moral relativatism & politcal correctness is the greatest danger to what is left of our shared & shattered christian faith