Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[Per_Crucem]

Yes, that is the only difference. Nothing more.

What other dogmatic differences exist between Orthodox Byzantines and Catholic Byzantines?

Then please show where. Where, in Confessio Augustana, is this supposed break with apostolic tradition?

Justification, the intercession of the saints, apostolic succession, free will, the eucharist as a sacrifice.

 

[KjetilK]

Where have I stated it is AOk for Byzantines to be disunited? The CC is trying to reunite them.

So it is not OK, then? So when you are using the disunity between particular Lutheran churches as an indication of the invalidity of Lutheranism, you are also saying that the disunity between particular Byzantine churches as an indication of the invalidity of Byzantinism? Interesting.

Perhaps you are missing something in your attempt to equate the Catholic and Orthodox Byzantines with Lutheranism…the Orthodox Byzantines are still united under their respective Patriarchs…though there may be autocephalous ones…which I think is the situation in the Orthodox Churches.

It is simply not true that all Byzantine Orthodox churches are in communion with each other. In fact disunity there is more rampant than within the Lutheran tradition. It even goes so far as thyemj not recognizing each other’s baptisms.

 

[Per_Crucem]

That was not what I said. If it is a problem for me that I am not in communion with someone from WELS, that it is an equal problem for a Byzantine in communion with Rome that he is not in communion with a person in the Russian Orthodox Church.

I didn’t say that the problem with Lutheranism is that you are not in communion with WELS.

 

[KjetilK]

What other dogmatic differences exist between Orthodox Byzantines and Catholic Byzantines?

I can mention four: Purgatory, Filioque, the difference between divine simplicity and the idea of God’s nature and his uncreated energies / hesychasm (which is a major difference), and the fasting requirements (which, judging from the Orthodox on this forum, is a major difference).

Justification, the intercession of the saints, apostolic succession, free will, the eucharist as a sacrifice.

Well, in order for me to answer that, it would be helpful if you could point out where these differences lie, exactly.

As a start I can say that Lutheranism does not proclaim that Christ’s justice is imputed to the believer (as is taught by Calvinists), but that faith is reckoned as justification, as taught by St. Paul: “And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” (Rom 4:5, Revised Standar Version, Catholic ed.) This faith is, as James and Paul proclaimed, a living faith working through love (Jas 2:14-26; Gal 5:6). And that is, as Pope Benedict pointed out, perfectly compatible with Roman Catholic doctrine (and, by your account, the apostolic tradition).

Neither apostolic succession nor free will is discussed in Confessio Augustana. Luther may have held beliefs on that (he certainly did on the latter). But so what? Have you been listening to my points at all? What matters is what the confessions say, and how they are interpreted and used within the particular Lutheran churches. Not what any one theologian has to say.

 

[KjetilK]

I didn’t say that the problem with Lutheranism is that you are not in communion with WELS.

Maybe not you, but Topper uses differences between, say, the Church of Norway and WELS, as a problem - saying that we need one person (i.e. the pope) to tell us what is ‘true Lutheranism.’

But if that is true, then there is an equal - yes and EQUAL - problem when there are differences between, say, the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Greek Catholic Church. What is 'true Byzantinism?

 

[Per_Crucem]

I can mention four: Purgatory, Filioque, the difference between divine simplicity and the idea of God’s nature and his uncreated energies / hesychasm (which is a major difference), and the fasting requirements (which, judging from the Orthodox on this forum, is a major difference).

That is a difference between the Latin and Byzantine tradition, not between Byzantine Catholics and Byzantine Orthodox. The Eastern Catholics don’t have a tradition of purgatory nor do they recite the filioque.

As a start I can say that Lutheranism does not proclaim that Christ’s justice is imputed to the believer (as is taught by Calvinists), but that faith is reckoned as justification, as taught by St. Paul: “And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.”

Understood. But AC IV still would, at least at the time of the Reformation, disagree with the Latin Catholic understanding. Hence why both the Confutation and a church council condemned it.

Neither apostolic succession nor free will is discussed in Confessio Augustana. Luther may have held beliefs on that (he certainly did on the latter). But so what? Have you been listening to my points at all? What matters is what the confessions say, and how they are interpreted and used within the particular Lutheran churches. Not what any one theologian has to say.

Article XVIII discusses free will. There are various ecclesiastical articles.

 

[Topper17]

Hi KG,

Problem is…if we had Sola Scriptura from the beginning, then there would be no Eucharist, no bishop, no value for virgins and celibates…we would be fractured from the very beginning with personal interpretation which is not in line with the Church being as a ‘convocation’, a gathering of believers.

I think that if Luther’s Sola Scriptura had been taught from the beginning of Christianity almost 2000 years ago, Christianity would not have existed in Luther’s time. There would have been no Church for Luther to Rebel against. It certainly would have not lasted until now. Christianity as we know it would have disappeared by now.

Within Protestantism, church splits occur on an average of once every 27 years. When you do the math, starting out almost 2000 years ago, you end up with more than one doctrinally independent denomination per Christian.

God Bless You KG, Topper

 

[SalusaSecondus]

1. Why, when a number of popes have said the path to reconciliation is forgiveness, do Catholics persist in NOT forgiving Luther for, among other things, disobeying the Pope?

Yes. I think the Pope has a much more conciliatory tone then most Catholics, at least on line. All the Catholics in RL I know don’t seem to care either way.

2.DO Catholics believe Lutherans when they say Pope Francis is not, personally, the anti-Christ? If you want to find someone who actually DOES say that sort of thing, there is always Google, if you need that in your life.

Don’t know. Lutherans are all over the map on this one. I am a Lutheran and I believe the office / person thing is a distinction without a difference. The office of the Pope cannot be the antichrist if the Pope personally is not the antichrist.

1. What do you Catholics and Lutherans need from each other for reconciliation to occur?

There is not going to be any reconciliation as long as we both hold to our respective theology. I support what we would need is for the other to abandon their conscience and accept some different theology.

1. What do you Catholics and Lutherans need to do personally to effect reconciliation?

Nothing.

1. Do you need to personally ask for forgiveness from the other side for your behavior, attitude, thoughts, actions, etc., that are less than Christian perfection? This is Lent, so here I am helping you.

Yes, As Luther said in is first thesis, a Christians whole life should be one of repentance.

 

[KjetilK]

That is a difference between the Latin and Byzantine tradition, not between Byzantine Catholics and Byzantine Orthodox. The Eastern Catholics don’t have a tradition of purgatory nor do they recite the filioque.

The Byzantines in communion with Rome is not at liberty to reject these doctrines, while the Byzantines who aren’t in communion with Rome is at liberty to do so. That marks a major, major difference.

Understood. But AC IV still would, at least at the time of the Reformation, disagree with the Latin Catholic understanding. Hence why both the Confutation and a church council condemned it.

Three points:

1. There is a difference of terminology between Confessio Augustana and the Roman Confutation. The Confutation does, rightly, point out that out works are, in some way, meritorious. But this is not denied in Confessio Augustana. The difference is that justification is not used as a term for that. The difference is mainly a semantic one, since Lutherans teach that without works – according to each person’s ability – faith avails nothing.
2. If you mean the Council of Trent, I will have to point out that much good was said there, but most of the rejections of Lutheran doctrine was actually a rejection of Calvinist doctrine.
3. We do not live in the past. What is interesting is what the different chrurches teach now, and how that is interpreted. As pope Benedict has shown, the idea of faith alone, sola fide, “is is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love.”

Article XVIII discusses free will. There are various ecclesiastical articles.

Can you point out the problem in article XVIII? AFAIK, the Roman Catholic Church does neither teach that man can “work the righteousness of God” or obtain “spiritual righteousness” by his own will and power, “without the Holy Ghost.” In fact, I have discussed this with a Roman Catholic priest many times, and he points out time and time again that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that no one – no one – can seek God by their own will if God has not first granted them the grace to do so. And what does the Confutation say to this article? Well, read for yourself: “In the eighteenth article they confess the power of the Free Will - viz. that it has the power to work a civil righteousness, but that it has not, without the Holy Ghost, the virtue to work the righteousness of God. This confession is received and approved.”

 

[Topper17]

Hi Kjet,

Thanks for your response.

This only makes sense if Lutheranism is a a Church, and not an ecclesial tradition. But Lutheranism is the latter, not the former.

So if it is a problem for, say, the LCMS, that Lutheranism cannot be clearly defined, it is equally a problem for, say, the Russian Catholic Church, that Byzantism cannot be clearly defined either.

The Russian Greek Catholic Church (Russian: Российская греко-католическая церковь, Rossiyskaya greko-katolicheskaya tserkov) is a Byzantine Rite church sui juris in full union with the Catholic Church. Historically it represents the first reunion of the Russian Orthodox Church’ with the Roman Catholic Church after the Russian Orthodox Church went in schism. It is now in full communion with and subject to the authority of the Pope as defined by Eastern canon law.

First of all, please correct me if I have misunderstood, but I don’t think that the analogy of the Russian Catholic Church is appropriate at all. In fact, the Russian Greek Catholic Church is “now in full communion with and subject to the authority of the Pope as defined by Eastern canon law.” (Wiki)

First of all, I would like to know, if you know - how many different doctrinally independent Lutheran are there?

What ‘authority’ is there within Lutheranism which is capable of uniting Lutheranism?

I guess what I am taking from your comments, and something that I never really understood until my time here on CA, is just how fragmented Lutheranism is doctrinally. It seems that a lot of what I have always heard is how Lutherans are not Protestants (and the like). Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that Lutheranism is almost as fragmented as Protestantism in general. Given this, I cannot understand now how Lutherans should not be considered to be Protestants. What is the distinction?

My guess is that your knowledge of Sola Scriptura comes from some online Roman Catholic apologist. Because the way you phrase it, I hope it didn’t come from a Lutheran.

Over the years I have had quite a few discussions with Lutherans about Sola Scriptura, and also with many other Protestants. One of the things that I learned is that a lot of people claim to hold to Sola Scriptura, but also that they don’t mean the same thing by the term, at all. Furthermore, they don’t ‘use’ Scripture in the same way, and of course, they don’t come to the same ‘conclusions’ from Scripture. I see ‘Sola Scriptura’ as being an overarching umbrella term which covers a surprising number of competing and conflicting beliefs about Scripture.

As we know, it was Luther who introduced SS into Western Christianity. Once when I was pointing this out, and also about how many different ‘versions’ there are, I was told by a Lutheran here on CA, that what we should do is accept the ‘version’ of Sola Scriptura of the Lutherans, because, it was developed by Luther. As you might imagine, I thought it was a pretty humorous suggestion.

God Bless You Kjet, Topper

 

[Thorolfr]

It seems that a lot of what I have always heard is how Lutherans are not Protestants (and the like). Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that Lutheranism is almost as fragmented as Protestantism in general. Given this, I cannot understand now how Lutherans should not be considered to be Protestants. What is the distinction?

I don’t know why Lutherans should not be considered Protestants. The definition of “Protestant” from Merriam-Webster says:

Definition of PROTESTANT

1
capitalized
a : any of a group of German princes and cities presenting a defense of freedom of conscience against an edict of the Diet of Spires in 1529 intended to suppress the Lutheran movement
b : a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth; broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church

According to Wikipedia:

Six princes of the Holy Roman Empire and rulers of fourteen Imperial Free Cities, who issued a protest or dissent against the edict of the Diet of Speyer, which reversed concessions made to Lutherans three years earlier, were the first to be called Protestants.[22] The etymology of the word protestant is derived from Latin, pro (“for”) and testari (“witness”) and/or protestatio (“declare”).[23]

During the Reformation, the term was hardly used outside of the German politics. The word evangelical (German: evangelisch), which refers to the gospel, was much more widely used for those involved in the religious movement.[24] Protestantism as a general term is now used in contradistinction to the other major Christian faiths, i.e. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Initially, the word Protestant became a general term to mean any adherent to the Reformation movement in Germany and was taken up by Lutherans. Even though Martin Luther himself insisted on Christian or Evangelical as the only acceptable names for individuals who professed Christ. French and Swiss Protestants preferred the word reformed (French: réformé), regardless of one’s affiliation with Lutheran or Reformed branch of Protestantism. It later acquired a broader sense, referring to a member of any Western church outside the Roman communion

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism

 

[Selah_KY]

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.

Exactly! And when you look at how each division moves farther from The Church, it’s easy to see how we’ve ended up with churches like the Unitarians.

So there is an appearance of unity, but divisions under the surface nonetheless.

True, but:

**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. **

The non-acceptance of those Catholics to the authoritative teachings does not eclipse the Truth that the Church teaches.

What matters is what the confessions say, and how they are interpreted and used within the particular Lutheran churches. Not what any one theologian has to say.

Which explains exactly why I believe that we need a unifying theologian. And why I ended up where I am.

First of all, I would like to know, if you know - how many different doctrinally independent Lutheran are there?

As of today…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lutheran_denominations

 

[Topper17]

Hi Sal,

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

That of course would be the opinion of the ‘Harrison faction’. Chances are that Harrison’s successor will be a 'good president and will be working towards undoing the errors of his predecessor (which of course is Harrison).

There is no hint in your statement that either Harrison or his predecessor of his successor has been, or is, or will be teaching in accordance with God’s Absolute Truth.

For that matter, it sounds to me like there could be a split coming for the LCMS, after which there would be two ‘presidents’ of two competing and doctrinally conflicting ‘traditions’.

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.

It was Luther himself that built into Lutheranism the propensity to be ‘deeply divided’.

God Bless You Sal, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Rita,

Thanks for your response.

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

Unfortunately I do think that it is the strategy used by most, but NOT all debaters here.

Personally, I am not at all impressed by statements about what people believe UNLESS they can actually explain WHY they believe what they do. I don’t find the ‘it is correct because that is what I believe’ argument to be very compelling, but I do agree that it is the basis for a lot of argumentation. Personally, I believe that if people cannot explain WHY, specifically and exactly, they believe what they do, then they really SHOULD consider the views of those who can.

The problem though I think is that the whole ‘I am led by the Holy Spirit to believe what I do’ is SO incredibly seductive and appealing to the human ego, that the opinions of the ‘other’ are often automatically dismissed.

(Obviously) I am more impressed by actual facts and the opinions of various Scholars than I am by random poorly formed personal opinions. This is not to say that all of these people should be followed lock step, but only that their opinions should be CONSIDERED.

God Bless You Rita, Topper

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Hi Sal,

That of course would be the opinion of the ‘Harrison faction’. Chances are that Harrison’s successor will be a 'good president and will be working towards undoing the errors of his predecessor (which of course is Harrison).

There is no hint in your statement that either Harrison or his predecessor of his successor has been, or is, or will be teaching in accordance with God’s Absolute Truth.

For that matter, it sounds to me like there could be a split coming for the LCMS, after which there would be two ‘presidents’ of two competing and doctrinally conflicting ‘traditions’.

It was Luther himself that built into Lutheranism the propensity to be ‘deeply divided’.

God Bless You Sal, Topper

I agree. The LCMS is a house divided against itself. Between the conservatives and liberals, the traditionalists and the modernists. Their synod conferences are quite heated so I heard. For now the house is teetering on the brink. Many LCMS parishes demonstrate it at the local level with their two services, contemporary and traditional, such as two congregations sharing one parish. They have been asking for this schism for decades. Its inevitable. Either we will see a schism, or we will simply see a mass exodus of conservatives into other denominations like we saw with the Episcopal Church. Some might head over to the Wisconsin Synod, some might go to Orthodoxy, and some might go to Rome. Either way, I hope it comes quickly and decisively. Wishy washyness serves to help no one.

 

[Topper17]

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.

I am glad to hear this ‘positive reformulation’ Jon. It is not at all the impression that I got from the post you wrote earlier.

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.

I am perfectly willing to change my position on Luther or Lutheranism or anything else, but I will not do so without some kind of compelling argument or factual evidence that would cause me to do so.

As an example, I fully understand that the LCMS takes the position that the pope is “only” the antichrist because of his ‘office’, or that it is ‘only’ the office which is the antichrist, (as if that is less offensive somehow). I also am fully aware that this ‘reformulation’ is NOT supported by the actual text and obvious intent of the Formula. After all Jon, if the authors of that document had wanted to make sure that everyone understood that they were referring to ‘only’ the office of the papacy, they could have used the word ‘office’. In spite of the fact that the concept of the ‘office of the papacy’ was well known at the time, the authors of the Formula made NO such distinction. The word ‘office’ is not evident in the Formula. What you might think of as my obstinacy, I prefer to see as my refusal to dishonestly claim to accept an explanation that I don’t believe. In truth Jon, it really is a matter of honesty and integrity, and also an understanding of the importance of the subject.

I am reminded of Luther’s opponents who were always being accused of being dishonest, and yet they were really COMPELLED to oppose Luther and his beliefs BECAUSE they really DID disagree with him and also because they believed that the Church would be tremendously divided if his teachings were to take root. We all know how that turned out.

My argument is not so much with the LCMS on this issue as it is with the Formula, and as we have discussed before, the LCMS does not have the authority to speak for the Formula, except within the LCMS, which is a small sliver of Lutheranism. A ‘Catholic issue’ with the language of the Formula simply cannot be ‘solved’ by ANY statement of a particular Lutheran tradition. The language and intent of the Formula simply is what it is. Neither of us can change it, but what would be impressive would be if the LCMS or any ‘Formula Lutheran’ body would officially refute and erase those of the most anti-Catholic statements.

I believe Jon, that my opinions are consistent with and are based upon the facts, especially with the facts that are ‘lesser known’. If you think I have come to errant conclusions, and you would like me to change my position, then it would seem that you should be able to either refute the facts that I present, OR, you should present a way of interpreting those facts which supports your position and refutes mine. I don’t see that being attempted much at all. Either way. I would LOVE to be proven wrong on the facts, because if I have been operating with an errant understanding of the history, then I could have taken a faulty position. If you ever see that I don’t have my facts straight, please point it out. Likewise, if you have what you think is a compelling way to look at the facts that would cause me to question my views, please present it. I want to see the best that you and others have and I want to see our disagreements discussed openly and fully.

Furthermore, the ‘reformulation’ of the LCMS about the antichrist DOES NOT address my issues with Lutheranism’s overall anti-Catholic teachings and with the Formula itself. Neither does it address the major problem posed by the language in the Formula about the ‘adherents’, meaning lay Catholics like me.

Jon, I support my positions with historical facts and statements from primarily Protestant Scholars. In other words, I share some of the things I have learned in my readings. On the other hand, you have been reading Bouyer for months now, but I have not seen you share one quote from that excellent book and neither have I seen you make any references to any of his comments or conclusions, which is a shame. His views would make for an excellent discussion.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12828137]I am glad to hear this ‘positive reformulation’ Jon. It is not at all the impression that I got from the post you wrote earlier.

The fact that you had the wrong impression does not mean I reformulated what I meant.

His peace

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

The Russian Greek Catholic Church (Russian: Российская греко-католическая церковь, Rossiyskaya greko-katolicheskaya tserkov) is a Byzantine Rite church sui juris in full union with the Catholic Church. Historically it represents the first reunion of the Russian Orthodox Church’ with the Roman Catholic Church after the Russian Orthodox Church went in schism. It is now in full communion with and subject to the authority of the Pope as defined by Eastern canon law.

First of all, please correct me if I have misunderstood, but I don’t think that the analogy of the Russian Catholic Church is appropriate at all. In fact, the Russian Greek Catholic Church is “now in full communion with and subject to the authority of the Pope as defined by Eastern canon law.” (Wiki)

First of all, I would like to know, if you know - how many different doctrinally independent Lutheran are there?

What ‘authority’ is there within Lutheranism which is capable of uniting Lutheranism?

I don’t think people here understand my point. My point is that there are vast differences between the different Byzantine churches (some have communion with the pope, some don’t, and some don’t even see him as part of the Church of Christ at all). So what ‘authority’ is there within Byzantinism which is capable of uniting Byzantinism? If it isn’t, is this a defect of Byzantinism itself? If so, why not reject it altogether (and force every Eastern Catholic to become Western)? If not, why assume that the same - yes the same - situation within Lutheranism somehow ‘proves’ the invalidity of Lutheranism qua Lutheranism?

What matters is what the confessions say, and how they are interpreted and used within the particular Lutheran churches. Not what any one theologian has to say.

Which explains exactly why I believe that we need a unifying theologian. And why I ended up where I am.

But why is this a problem unique to Lutheranism - or other ‘Protestant’ traditions? Why is it not likewise, in the exact same way, a problem for, say, the Byzantine bishop Christo Proykov of the Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church that he is not in communion with the Byzantine Patriarch Kirill of Moscow? What makes the Byzantine tradition stand out, principally? Note that I’m not talking practically or quantitatively, but principally. Note that even if some of the Roman Catholics on this board think otherwise, the differences between the different Byzantine churches are vast, even to the point of not recognising each others baptisms.

The fact is that you need to take each Byzantine Church in turn, and the same with the Lutheran churches.

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes, Topper…if we had had the Reformation much earlier in time, Christianity would cease to exist.

You go to Mass, you go beyond the people…and there at the center of the Mass is the Resurrected Lord…just as present now as He was on Easter Sunday.

Every Sunday is called Resurrection Sunday and it is the greatest feast in the Church, not Easter or Christmas.

The other…is that when open, I can go to any Catholic church and enter to pray before Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament…the Divine Presence is always remaining with us…again out far beyond people…not the effect of my faith…but He physically present to us.

Again this residing of Our Lord in the tabernacle…fulfills the Ark of the Covenant. And only the consecrated priesthood can provide us this living presence of Our Lord.

Again…the Church is not about my way of looking at things…this is still the working of the flesh which brings about division…but about Christ present to us.

We don’t personally interpret the Word of God. We consume the Word of God.

There is a link…have to make time to find it…about the forthcoming event of Catholic Lutheran relations…from the Vatican itself…on their website…

 

[Selah_KY]

But why is this a problem unique to Lutheranism - or other ‘Protestant’ traditions?

What makes the Byzantine tradition stand out, principally?

To me, there is no difference and that is why I am Roman Catholic and not Orthodox, despite loving very much the members of my local Antiochan Orthodox church.