Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[MaryT777]

One of the most bizarre aspects of this whole thread is that Lutherans are CLOSE to Catholics in many, many ways. If you have trouble reconciling with them, what will you do when you try to talk to Christians who are more distant from the Catholic Church than they are?

Which Lutheran Synod are you referring to? We have signed a Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of justification with the LWF which includes the ELCA.

The LCMS official stated it was a step back for Lutherans. Isn’t Justification important to agree upon to be “CLOSE?”

How can we be close to Lutherans when the ELCA ordains women, has ok’d from what I’ve read homosexual unions/relationhips that include sex, and abortion as a women’s choice and/or lack of an official pro life statement.

I don’t think the LCMS teaching in the book of Concord that the Pope sits in the seat of the AntiChrist is remotely close to Catholicism.

Mary.

 

[Selah_KY]

One of the most bizarre aspects of this whole thread is that Lutherans are CLOSE to Catholics in many, many ways. If you have trouble reconciling with them, what will you do when you try to talk to Christians who are more distant from the Catholic Church than they are?

I’ve had that thought more than once, but the topic of the thread IS Lutheran-Catholic relations.

 

[Topper17]

All Christians is highly unlikely, regardless of the starting point, but I would be excited to see where such a scenario would go.

I agree, it is an interesting scenario to consider, so why don’t you play along a little bit? It’s just a hypothetical, but one which I think is very revealing.

Can you think of a more fair apportionment of delegates and votes that that the Church would have 1100 and the LCMS would have 2, with Lutheranism overall having about 70? Is there a ‘more equitable’ way of doing it in your estimation? If so, what would that be? In addition, do you think that the LCMS would agree to attend a Council and and also agree, prior to the Council, to abide by the doctrinal decisions that would be made.

I can’t speak for the entire synod, but here’s a couple of thoughts: 1) within the Lutheran tradition, Church polity is adiaphoron, 2) for me personally, even if the LCMS didn’t agree, I would agree to whatever the patriarchates together agreed to.

OK, you have my attention. Specifically which patriarchates are you speaking of? Additionally, why would you not want Lutheranism or the LCMS to be involved and require them to be in agreement? Are you that ready to abandon the LCMS?

It doesn’t, currently, just as it doesn’t within Eastern Orthodoxy. Even so, he is the one we speak to when dialogue between our communions occurs.

That you speak to him when you speak to us doesn’t mean a thing. We speak to that little punk in North Korea but that doesn’t me that we have one shred of respect for him.

Here you admit that the ‘honor’ of the Primacy that you offer the Pope, means absolutely nothing in the real world. The papacy or pope is simply the antichrist, which is not much of an ‘honor’.

It doesn’t, currently, just as it doesn’t within Eastern Orthodoxy. Even so, he is the one we speak to when dialogue between our communions occurs.

Ok, if the word “Primacy” means absolutely nothing of any substance, then you should not state that Lutherans believe that the Pope holds that “Primacy”.

In fact, it seems that Luther’s ‘brand’ of anticatholicism was more virulent than that of the rest of the Reformers, and actually Jon, the deeper we get into this subject the more it appears that Lutheranism’s anti-Catholic views directly reflect that of Luther.

 

[Thorolfr]

How can we be close to Lutherans when the ELCA ordains women, has ok’d from what I’ve read homosexual unions/relationhips that include sex, and abortion as a women’s choice and/or lack of an official pro life statement.

Those differences are going to be a pretty big stumbling blocks to closer Catholic/ELCA relations. There is zero chance that the ELCA is going to change it’s current stance allowing the ordination of women and my own congregation has a woman pastor. I recently visited an ELCA congregation that last year took the step to became a congregation that officially and publicly welcomes LGBT believers (they call them Reconciling in Christ congregations). I predict that more and more ELCA congregations will take this step.

 

[Tomyris]

I agree, it is an interesting scenario to consider, so why don’t you play along a little bit? It’s just a hypothetical, but one which I think is very revealing.

Can you think of a more fair apportionment of delegates and votes that that the Church would have 1100 and the LCMS would have 2, with Lutheranism overall having about 70? Is there a ‘more equitable’ way of doing it in your estimation? I

I’ll play along…

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

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

Will the Catholic Church accept this?

 

[Tomyris]

Which Lutheran Synod are you referring to? We have signed a Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of justification with the LWF which includes the ELCA.

The LCMS official stated it was a step back for Lutherans. Isn’t Justification important to agree upon to be “CLOSE?”

How can we be close to Lutherans when the ELCA ordains women, has ok’d from what I’ve read homosexual unions/relationhips that include sex, and abortion as a women’s choice and/or lack of an official pro life statement.

I don’t think the LCMS teaching in the book of Concord that the Pope sits in the seat of the AntiChrist is remotely close to Catholicism.

Mary.

I’m considering the whole range of issues, Mary. All things considered, and in comparison to many Protestants, you and the Lutherans are very, very close.

The main complaint of the Reformed about the Lutherans was that the Lutherans didn’t go far enough in reforming the church, and that the radicals went too far.

 

[KjetilK]

Actually, Lutheranism has not yet actually officially defined the NT canon as being 27 books, and in fact follow Luther in his decision to place four of the NT books into a ‘secondary category’. The ‘antilegomena’ are books which are not to be used for doctrine. The four books are; James (of course), Jude, Revelation, and Hebrews. So really, Lutheranism only has 23 books that they draw doctrine from, and even those are not officially set in stone.

You are yet again treating Lutheranism as a Church, and not an ecclesial tradition comparable to Byzantinism. Within the latter, there are canonical differences. Some Byzantines have a larger canon than others. That doesn’t mean that the problem is with Byzantinism itself.

In the Church of Norway we have no distinction, in the 27 book New Testament canon, between homologoumena and antilegomena. Doctrine is ‘drawn’ from all books, and we read from all books in the liturgy (unlike many of our Byzantine friends who do not read the Revelation of John during the Divine Liturgy). Of course, when I say that doctrine is ‘drawn’ from all books, it must be said that we do doctrine based not only on Scripture, but also on Tradition, and on the writings of the Church Fathers. Sola Scriptura in its original Lutheran form, as expressed through Confessio Augustana, would be better described as Prima Scriptura, as we hold the primacy of Scripture, not the ‘soleness’ of Scripture. In method, this is pretty close to what Ratzinger/pope Benedict taught, privately and officially, in Dogma and Preaching (Ignatius Press 2011): 26-39 and the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini.

 

[KjetilK]

In fact, it seems that Luther’s ‘brand’ of anticatholicism was more virulent than that of the rest of the Reformers, and actually Jon, the deeper we get into this subject the more it appears that Lutheranism’s anti-Catholic views directly reflect that of Luther.

And, with all due respect, you are wrong. And the reason is, yet again, that you treat Lutheranism as a church, and that you keep granting Luther more authority than he ever had.

But why don’t you treat Byzantinism the same way? Is it perhaps that you would then have to trash talk your own?

 

[commenter]

Yes, I find some Catholics’ obsession (in truth not all, and certainly not all in the Catholic leadership) with Luther a bit bizarre, as if 500 years prior to the Protestant Reformation what is still called the Great Schism had not happened.

Sometimes it feels as if these Catholics believe that undoing the Protestant Reformation could be used as a first step to convince the Patriarchs that their forebears were wrong 1000 years ago.

Well I have some news for them: I don’t see anytime soon the Protestant Reformation being undone nor the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs recognizing the supremacy of the pope. So if Rome (and others) are serious about unity, they will have to define “unity” in a way that doesn’t involve recognizing that the pope of Rome has universal theological jurisdiction over all followers of Christ. The genie is already out of the bottle and it has been shown that living according to Jesus’ doctrine does not require membership in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[commenter]

Well I have some news for them: I don’t see anytime soon the Protestant Reformation being undone …

The Reformation has mostly come undone now. Most Lutherans and Protestants are now in churches that have abandoned their own historic doctrine and moral teaching, in addition to beliefs found in Scripture and general Christian tradition. They no longer are a Christian alternative to Rome (though they include Christian individuals).

So if Rome (and others) are serious about unity, they will have to define “unity” in a way that doesn’t involve recognizing that the pope of Rome has universal theological jurisdiction over all followers of Christ.

The definition of unity has to include Truth.
In the 1960s it was perceived that many different traditions were seemingly able to maintain Christian orthodoxy, and avoid surrender to the secular culture, without a pope.
(In hindsight, I think many forgot what Newman taught us, and ignored some trends already underway).
The papacy was still defended, though some suggested it was dispensable.
What have the past 50 years taught us about churches and absorption into secular media culture? Besides the Mainline, even evangelicals raise concerns. Some are slouching towards liberal doctrine, others are morphing into non denominational churches whose doctrine is neither liberal nor conservative, but absent.

The LCMS and few others are (THANK GOD) exceptions to the pattern. We need to look at them closely as to their strengths. That does not rule out the fact that most of our data for 50 years shows the papacy to be more necessary now than it appeared in 1965.

The genie is already out of the bottle and it has been shown that living according to Jesus’ doctrine does not require membership in the Roman Catholic Church.

Very true.
BUT: Keep in mind the clergy who prayerfully “shepherd” uncertain women into abortion clinics and “protect” them from prolife demonstrators all think they are “living according to Jesus’ doctrine”.

 

[commenter]

And, with all due respect, you are wrong. And the reason is, yet again, that you treat Lutheranism as a church, and that you keep granting Luther more authority than he ever had.

But why don’t you treat Byzantinism the same way? Is it perhaps that you would then have to trash talk your own?

Byzantine Christians have patriarchs, and a historic momentum of hierarchy and tradition that are different from Lutheranism. So that is important, but a different conversation.

 

[KjetilK]

Byzantine Christians have patriarchs, and a historic momentum of hierarchy and tradition that are different from Lutheranism. So that is important, but a different conversation.

You do not understand my point.

There are major differences between different Byzantine churches. Some are in communion with Rome, some are not. Some allow contraceptives, some do not. Som even do not recognise the baptism of other Byzantine churches.

My point is that these differences do not show that there is a problem with Byzantinism as such. Therefore you cannot point to a difference between two Lutheran churches and immediately conclude that the problem is with Lutheranism as such.

And Topper is projecting the anti-Papal stance of (arguably) Luther himself, some individual Lutherans, and some Lutheran churches, i.e. that the Pope and/or the Papacy is the anti-Christ, onto Lutheranism as such. But that is not the case. The Formula of Concord is not a confession of Lutheranism. It is a confession of select Lutheran churches. Just like rejecting papal supremacy is a doctrine of select Byzantine churches, but not of Byzantinism itself.

The Church of Norway, in which I am a priest, have never held that the Pope and/or the Papacy is the anti-Christ. That doesn’t make us ‘less Lutheran,’ just like rejecting the supremacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople doesn’t make the Greek Cathoilc Byzantines ‘more Byzantine’ or ‘less Byzantine.’

Both Byzantinism and Lutheranism are ecclesial traditions which manifest in different particular churches. So no, this is not a different conversation. It goes right to the heart of what Lutheranism is. It is not a Church. It was not ‘founded by Luther’ and it does not treat Luther as a man with any formal authority.

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

 

[Thorolfr]

The Reformation has mostly come undone now. Most Lutherans and Protestants are now in churches that have abandoned their own historic doctrine and moral teaching, in addition to beliefs found in Scripture and general Christian tradition. They no longer are a Christian alternative to Rome (though they include Christian individuals).

The definition of unity has to include Truth.
In the 1960s it was perceived that many different traditions were seemingly able to maintain Christian orthodoxy, and avoid surrender to the secular culture, without a pope.
(In hindsight, I think many forgot what Newman taught us, and ignored some trends already underway).
The papacy was still defended, though some suggested it was dispensable.
What have the past 50 years taught us about churches and absorption into secular media culture? Besides the Mainline, even evangelicals raise concerns. Some are slouching towards liberal doctrine, others are morphing into non denominational churches whose doctrine is neither liberal nor conservative, but absent.

The LCMS and few others are (THANK GOD) exceptions to the pattern. We need to look at them closely as to their strengths. That does not rule out the fact that most of our data for 50 years shows the papacy to be more necessary now than it appeared in 1965.

Very true.
BUT: Keep in mind the clergy who prayerfully “shepherd” uncertain women into abortion clinics and “protect” them from prolife demonstrators all think they are “living according to Jesus’ doctrine”.

Someone reading your comments might assume that Jesus spent a lot of time speaking against abortion, homosexuality, women pastors and other “liberal” practices and told us all about the need for Christians to have a Pope and that Mainline churches have failed in this regard. Except that Jesus didn’t say anything about any of those topics. But when it comes to preaching the central messages of Jesus’ ministry, I think that my own “liberal” Mainline church does a good job.

 

[KathleenGee]

There is nothing in Church history that shows Peter lacking primacy among the apostles.

And there is nothing supporting the need to remove primacy from the apostles either. The seat of Peter holds the Keys to the Blood of Christ. The papacy is not about telling everybody what to do or taking the place of God. The role of the papacy and the bishops…in communion…is to be servants of God.

The Catholic Church does not stand on the papacy and bishops…but on the life of Christ.

The conciliar model of governing was tried out in the times of the apostles…2000 years ago…and what stood out in all practicality of governing was the episcopal model. One head.
And the Bishop of Rome was in communion with the other bishops…not this isolated church separated from the other patriarchs…because of the unity given us by Christ Himself because those of the hierarchy are individually chosen by Him to the priesthood.

I attended a Lutheran service with a client for almost a year. When first walking in, I experienced the presence of the Holy Trinity. But parts of the Mass were missing, I did not witness the consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, I did not hear of the communion of saints and the deep, sacramental presence of the Lord.

But I saw all as brothers and sisters in Christ…and I had to go to Mass to fully commune with the Lord.

The Catholic Church will never rid itself of the papacy. Never. A conciliar model…puts you in the driver’s seat…you decide which one or which bishop you want to follow…it leads to more fracturing…and the watering down of faith.

I also read that bishops in America vote differently when they do so as individuals…upholding the fullness of Catholic doctrine. But when they come together to vote on these bishops councils…the faith gets watered down. That says alot.

I don’t want any wishy washy religion.

 

[protestantinca]

The LCMS and few others are (THANK GOD) exceptions to the pattern. We need to look at them closely as to their strengths. That does not rule out the fact that most of our data for 50 years shows the papacy to be more necessary now than it appeared in 1965.

Very true.
BUT: Keep in mind the clergy who prayerfully “shepherd” uncertain women into abortion clinics and “protect” them from prolife demonstrators all think they are “living according to Jesus’ doctrine”.

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

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

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

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

 

[KathleenGee]

In the 70’s, liberation theology came about as indigenous countries in various parts of the world were falling to Marxism. Some of the priests got overly involved in politics…they cared so deeply for the poor…but some began to draw on a certain theology. These weren’t Jesuits…

But the whole movement of liberation theology was brought to the pope and it took several years for this to be studied and addressed…and it was finally decided on that this theology did not reveal the fullness of Christ and His grace working in us…but rather the focus on the work of human hands and efforts, class division. By then Cardinal Ratzinger was in charge and corrected a number of incorrect teachings, writings and practices throughout the universal church.

We were given a new catechism in 1985, many professional lay ministers had to go in for training to correct any incorrect ideas they may have absorbed during the times of the late 60’s and through the 70’s. Countless vocations to the priesthood and religious life were lost in these times.

The loss of many priestly and religious vocations impacted our parishes, our schools. The Eastern Orthodox did not have such losses in their churches because of false interpretation on Christian life, the liturgy, morality.

The papacy has the authority to clean house when the universal church is suffering as how we did the latter part of the last century…sounds like we are so old…but we remember when the Mass was in Latin and then the changes into Vatican II…many good…but so many strange ideas and practices came about in various aspects of our Catholic faith due to heretical concepts.

Heresy destroys the common unity we are all called to be part of in the Body of Christ.

 

[protestantinca]

In the 70’s, liberation theology came about as indigenous countries in various parts of the world were falling to Marxism. Some of the priests got overly involved in politics…they cared so deeply for the poor…but some began to draw on a certain theology. These weren’t Jesuits…

But the whole movement of liberation theology was brought to the pope and it took several years for this to be studied and addressed…and it was finally decided on that this theology did not reveal the fullness of Christ and His grace working in us…but rather the focus on the work of human hands and efforts, class division. By then Cardinal Ratzinger was in charge and corrected a number of incorrect teachings, writings and practices throughout the universal church.

We were given a new catechism in 1985, many professional lay ministers had to go in for training to correct any incorrect ideas they may have absorbed during the times of the late 60’s and through the 70’s. Countless vocations to the priesthood and religious life were lost in these times.

The loss of many priestly and religious vocations impacted our parishes, our schools. The Eastern Orthodox did not have such losses in their churches because of false interpretation on Christian life, the liturgy, morality.

The papacy has the authority to clean house when the universal church is suffering as how we did the latter part of the last century…sounds like we are so old…but we remember when the Mass was in Latin and then the changes into Vatican II…many good…but so many strange ideas and practices came about in various aspects of our Catholic faith due to heretical concepts.

Heresy destroys the common unity we are all called to be part of in the Body of Christ.

How do you reconcile this with,

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

"Pope Francis has reinstated a Central American priest who was suspended by the Vatican in the 1980s for his involvement in the political activities of Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista movement.

The Rev. Miguel D’Escoto Brockman, 81, was suspended from his duties by St. John Paul II and recently wrote to Francis asking for that order to be revoked so he could celebrate Mass again before he died.

D’Escoto and three other dissident priests were suspended in 1985 for defying a church ban on clergy holding government jobs. The Sandinistas, who supported the “popular church” of liberation theology, overthrew the pro-American regime of Anastasio Somoza in 1979. D’Escoto served as Nicaragua’s foreign minister from 1979 to 1990."

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

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

 

[commenter]

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

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

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

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

The Catholic Church is holy; that holiness is not affected by the holiness of Catholics in a given time or place (though that is important to those individuals). Likewise, the Catholic Church preaches the Truth. The truthfulness of Catholic doctrine is not affected by how many Catholics happen to agree with it at a given time. No college is the Catholic Church, and Catholicism is not cozy with liberalism or conservatism.

The LCMS, to its credit, affirms Christianity. As it should, as it is bolstered by Scripture, The Creeds, The Ancient Church Councils, The Early Church Fathers, The Foundational *Documents of Lutheranism, and The Prayerful Guidance of Godly *Leaders and Pastors. No danger of them going astray!

So you can see with such a powerful safety net the LCMS is in a much safer situation from other Lutheran groups that have drifted away from historic Christianity, and become subordinate to the secular culture. Those other Lutheran groups were, sadly, limited to the guidance of only scripture, the creeds, the ancient church councils, the foundational documents of lutheranism, and prayerful guidance of godly leaders and pastors. The ELCA, etc, did the best they could with what little they had; but obviously it just isn’t enough.

end sarcastic interlude; apologies to JonNC, etc

I sincerely honor the LCMS and WELS and agree they maintain much fidelity. I want to know more about their strengths. But what is the standard or template for “fidelity”? To a large extent, it was, and continues, to be, Catholicism. You are correct to applaud LCMS as mostly right; now take a closer look at the template - their template - for “rightness”.

 

[KjetilK]

There is nothing in Church history that shows Peter lacking primacy among the apostles.

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

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

 

[KathleenGee]

Kjetlik…

I used liberation theology because I was exposed to it…it did put a little ‘hook’ in me and affected my own faith. I didn’t realize how much effect it had until the day the Holy Father was shot in Rome… 7 years after I left that country. I prayed one rosary for the Holy Father…and without intending so, my faith was healed from the exposure to this form of theology…as if there was some sort of power to it.

I understand what Pope Francis is saying, and that is we must form relationships…and I did at that Lutheran church. I went to the funeral and a number of members came to speak with me, including the pastor who kept his written homily for me…I had to attend my final seminar – on the roots of the papacy, no less.

I also work for the state with a lesbian household and it was very hard for me…for several years…but I recall my faith that Christ stands at the door of every heart and He stands before these women’s hearts as well.

The liberation theology you referenced is akin to what we term here in America as social justice. This goes beyond personal charity of our neighbor to work within our society’s social structures to make them more humane for all our members. Likewise, contrary to individual church people…the Church also recognizes the duty to obey our country’s laws that protect our well being as its citizens.

And about the second part…I did put some teachings from our seminar regarding papal infallibility.

Alot of times I think Protestants are stuck on Pope Leo who was head of the Church during Luther. This particular pope was brought up…Leo who was made a cardinal at the age of 13, put on all sorts of banquets, gave alot of money to the poor, and frequented his Swiss retreat.

The Borgias and De Medici popes counted about 7 of them. None of them ever taught on faith and morals. So these ‘bad’ popes never utilized their office in the way the Lord intended. And there were those parish priests and bishops in Germany at the time who worked very hard to counteract the clergy abuses during those times.

But regarding papal infallibility…there is nothing new to add to faith, but there always is in regards to morals. The pope and bishops are servants of God…that is their proper role.

Papal infallibility is not about a pope imposing his personal beliefs or interpretation on the rest of us. On the contrary, the pope can only draw on the doctrine of faith that is already there…the final revelation of Christ coming to us through the Church at the Council of Nicea, correcting Arianism and defining Christ as True God and True Man, One Substance with the Father.

Today, popes speak to us through letters, and not all letters carry the same weight. So when in doubt…consult the local bishop…who is ahead anyway, and the local diocese always comes through in explaining a letter to the faithful and the attitude we should take in living out our Christian faith.

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

The pope…and that title…is English…and it sounds hard and cold to me…having been with Latins…Holy Father or Papa is more agreeable and reflective of who he really is…

The pope is no walking catechism, no man god, no boss running everything solo. The pope has countless advisors. But before the Lord, we are all the same. As Catholics, we are the People of God, pope, bishops, and lay…all equal before Him.

The pope represents rather the faith we all hold dear in our communion with the Good Shepherd. I think people tend to project former Pope Leo onto our popes. When I see the pope, I see my common faith reflected and shared with him. i don’t see him as the controller. Rather I see the Holy Father as our main visible believer in faith and gain strength just seeing him…a faith that does not compromise Our Lord and brings us into full communion with Him and with each other.

As such, the Holy Father extends to us the Living Revelation of Christ’s will for us in these times in how we are to serve the Lord. I went to a Protestant emerging church and the pastor was saying some of the very same things Pope Francis said and shared with him he also was participating in the grace of leadership over his congregation.

I experienced Christ at work with the dear Lutheran minister and his deacon.

But the leadership of the Holy Father extends to all who believe in Christ and for Catholics, more so this deep communion we have in the Lord. We just don’t look at the pope so exclusively, if that is the right word, in how protestants perceive us or his position.