Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12856711]As I have stated here several times Jon, I have read a statement from the Dialogue which states very clearly that they have NOT yet addressed the issue of Papal Infallibility. IF you think they actually HAVE then produce some evidence that they actually have.

They have discussed primacy. What reasons have you found that they have given for not yet tackling infallibility?

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 In other words, the offensive ‘antichrist language’ and the “stuff” about the 'adherents" will NEVER need to be withdrawn, but will simply no longer apply once the Catholic Church stops teaching against Christ.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

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

What on Earth are you talking about? Both sides - read what Catholics regularly say here that Catholic doctrine cannot change - state that their side is right, and the other side must submit. That’s the baseline stating point. As I have demonstrated from various documents, that isn’t how the dialogue process works.
Now, again, if you have evidence that this is how the dialogue meetings proceed, I’d love to see it. But my sense is that the dialogue session would end moments after a position such as that from either side were voiced.

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

And yours, Topper, are far, far more anti-Lutheran than the statements and positions of your communion. You positions on Luther himself are far outside the mainstream of contemporary Catholic writings. But that’s not the point. What we think, again, doesn’t matter. I don’t think I have portrayed anything here that is not evidenced in the DIALOGUE STATEMENTS! That’s where the dialogue takes place. To know the approach to dialogue of particular partners, you look to the dialogue statements. Don’t look at what I’ve said about the topic, but look at the dialogue statements.

Jon

 

[Picky_Picky]

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

Well, I understand that, but it’s a bit weird to describe that as “subordinate to the English government”. I disagree totally with your description of how things are with the CofE, but that’s a matter of judgement, of course.

 

[commenter]

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

That is your understanding of your faith and church, and I respect that. But MY church is the Catholic Church. My diocese is a subdivision of that. My parish is too.

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

“Realm”?
Again, you are looking at religion through a particular lens, and I respect that. But that is only one lens. I would see that, in the subdivision of Earth called Norway, authority would rest in the Church that evangelized it in the Middle Ages, that is traced directly to the apostles. That Church is still in Norway, though much smaller than the Church of Norway, which began in the Reformation; and both are worthy of respect.

The particular churches, with their bishops and archbishops, are perfectly capable of appointing their own bishops.

A congregationalist would refute you and say the individual parish is a “particular church”, and should choose their own pastor. Unitarians would argue that the individual is his own pastor. I know you don’t accept that but they would say you are only part way “reformed”. Those movements follow your lead, but take your argument to its logical conclusion.

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

.

I sympathize with your point. People quote nonsense from Catholic theologians too. But at least I can say, yes that writer is Catholic, but we have a Catholic Magisterium that is the reliable teacher. The truth doesn’t depend on who gets published.

In your post you express frustration at a couple Catholic posters (they frustrate me sometimes too, even when I agree with them). Why not take some time to tell us about your ministries, what your parish and diocese are doing? Are there any Catholic parishes in your city? Are they argumentative and defensive, like the Catholics you meet on CAF?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

:sad_yes:

Protestantism is one more reason they look down on Catholics.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

So, a senate rather than a house of representatives according to population size?

The little guys always go for this…

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

Uh, no. You are speaking to someone who has not been following this thread too closely and just asked an honest question.

And how, exactly, is your tradition integrated into the one Church that Jesus promised to build? I’m asking because Jesus did not promise to form an “ecclesial tradition”, did he? So, there must be some means by which you are incorporated into that which HE did promise to build and which is (since the first century) shepherded by the Bishop of Rome.

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

Well, that’s one answer.

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

And what, exactly, is the relationship between me and my diocese and the Bishop of Rome?

Well, for many reasons. (1) I don’t agree that the Pope has supremacy.

A misunderstanding which can be corrected by a careful review of history and a prayerful review of scripture.

(2) I don’t see the reason. I am Norwegian, so naturally I remain in the Church which actually has authority in the Norwegian realm.

Here is an article which may be of interest in this regard:

Roman Catholicism in Norway
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_Norway

The Catholic Church in Norway dates back to AD 900. It’s prior claims on your allegiance predate those of your Protestant forebears by more than 500 years.

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

Of course not nor does the passage I quoted suggest otherwise.

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

I have no disagreement with this. However, the process is highly consultative as this article explains:

How Bishops are Appointed
usccb.org/about/leadership/appointing-bishops.cfm

 

[Thorolfr]

And how, exactly, is your tradition integrated into the one Church that Jesus promised to build? I’m asking because Jesus did not promise to form an “ecclesial tradition”, did he? So, there must be some means by which you are incorporated into that which HE did promise to build and which is (since the first century) shepherded by the Bishop of Rome.

From what little solid history exists, all of Christianity was not one church shepherded since the first century by the Bishop of Rome. That is more of a Catholic fantasy than real history in my opinion (and that of other historians as well).

 

[KathleenGee]

KjeitlK,

In regards to the Byzantine Church, there was conflicts in the past between Rome. Our instructor was very clear that the Apostles Peter and Paul were led by the Holy Spirit solely for the purpose of the ecclesia, and not for imperialistic reasons.

Rome would always trump those who made decisions that involved imperialism, stating that instead the Church would only serve the purpose of the Church itself and not national government.

Likewise my Orthodox friend shared with me that in his faith tradition, the Church and country would be united against heresy and all enemies of religion.

The Byzantine Church developed in another direction that gives us alot to learn and so I am only a beginning student with Orthodoxy. But I do know they rejected joining the Reformers.

I also shared about so much of Luther’s beliefs were based on his own scrupulosity. I see that continued in some Protestants accusing us of following the Pope…when we are nourished by Christ’s Word and Blood defined in worship and our doctrine of faith in communion with the pope and bishops, or we worship Mary, or deny the living reality of the communion of the saints and the souls in purgatory…who are with us and anticipate us joining them with the Lord. Some still think we pay our way into heaven through indulgences and have no idea what we as Catholics truly believe in. I think we get it alot worse from such Protestants than the Orthodox.

The other I see lacking in Luther is his scruples affecting him where he cannot see the grace of Christ working through the Church…and our humanity. People…Catholics included, are fine with Christ as True God, but when it comes to Christ as True Man…Christ the Word of God through which the universe was made…cannot understand why we have statues or pictures or devotion to Mary, our Marian processions, feast day of saints…the Catholic Church’s believers’ lives are witnesses to the Resurrected Lord.

So many times because Protestants do not have the Church, and they have no belief or concept of the communion of saints, ironically have no testimony to give in relation to the reality of the Risen Lord. I hear so many fundamentalist preachers only being able to draw back on the lives of the ancient Jews of faith in the Bible, they before Christ being the only ones they can trust to provide us witness of faith, but hardly anyone else who gives testimony to the Lord outside the Bible. So they are stuck in times of witness before Christ and only that at the times immediately following the life of Christ.

 

[KathleenGee]

KjetliK

The diocesan bishop has full authority over his own diocese. He is pretty much running the show so to speak…but in communion in faith with the Pope and bishops.

The Anglicans are the closest to Catholics, and second the Lutherans who have bishops and priests. I saw a program on EWTN centering on a former Anglican priest who entered the Roman Catholic Church – maintaining his priesthood of course – because in his soul in deep prayer, he finally saw himself in schism.

We cannot be in schism as that is contrary to the spirit of the Church reflected in the will of Christ. My continual desire, as I shared with my Lutheran pastor…and I always venerated his prayers he prayed by outwardly bowing my head at his congregation…is that we all be at one table, and the dear shook his head ‘no’.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

So, here is an exercise for you, KjetilK:

If you were ALREADY a Catholic, would either of these two reasons be sufficient grounds for you to leave the Catholic Church?

If your best friend in the world was Catholic, would you advise him to leave Catholicism on the basis of those two opinions alone?

If your honest answers are “no”, then these two points are insufficient reasons for you to remain separated from the Catholic Church.

 

[KathleenGee]

KjetliK…

I also wanted to share with you how much I like your posts…

 

[commenter]

From what little solid history exists, all of Christianity was not one church shepherded since the first century by the Bishop of Rome. That is more of a Catholic fantasy than real history in my opinion (and that of other historians as well).

There were several different forms of Christianity, each with their own canons of the NT. One of these movements, Catholicism, formed around the Magisterium, and the canon chosen by the Magisterium. This became the foundation for what Christians call orthodox Christian Tradition, and the familiar 27 book canon of the NT. The other Christianities not in union with the Pope were defined by the Magisterium as “heresies”. Their ideas kept cycling in and out, taking different forms within Catholicism or later, Protestantism, all opposed to the Magisterium.

Recent decades have seen a revival of those other forms. The New Age Religion, and now the movements to add books to the New Testament. This is happening now in the United Church of Christ, and other liberal churches. I am betting the ELCA will be debating adding new books within a decade, and LCMS tempted to add them, some time after that. Perhaps it will be on a congregational option basis.

Right now you have

• churches that support the Magisterium, and its NT canon; (Catholics, some others)
• churches that deny the Magisterium, but support its canon; (most Protestants)
• a few, but growing number of churches and congregations that deny both the Magisterium, and its canon;

In the future that middle group will disappear.

 

[JonNC]

So, here is an exercise for you, KjetilK:

If you were ALREADY a Catholic, would either of these two reasons be sufficient grounds for you to leave the Catholic Church?

If your best friend in the world was Catholic, would you advise him to leave Catholicism on the basis of those two opinions alone?

If your honest answers are “no”, then these two points are insufficient reasons for you to remain separated from the Catholic Church.

Speaking for me, Randy, the first might be, but whether it is or not, I would not encourage as friend to leave the CC.
The second, no, anymore than I would encourage my best friend to leave Orthodoxy.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

So, a senate rather than a house of representatives according to population size?

The little guys always go for this…

And the big guys go for the house of representatives approach.

frankly do not see how either works, since employing either would lead us back to the status quo.
A lot would depend on the sincerity of the representatives to the council, in this scenario, and their willingness to try to find language that the Spirit can use to speak truth to everyone.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Speaking for me, Randy, the first might be, but whether it is or not, I would not encourage as friend to leave the CC.
The second, no, anymore than I would encourage my best friend to leave Orthodoxy.

Jon

Might?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Many a Protestant delays becoming Catholic because he doesn’t understand, or isn’t entirely convinced of, every doctrine of the Catholic Church. A better standard would be to ask yourself: if you were already Catholic, would these questions, doubts, or objections be strong enough to justify leaving the Catholic Church? … You might not fully understand why the Catholic position is true, you might see good arguments both for and against a certain teaching, but you don’t have a positive reason to leave the Catholic Church, which is to say that you lack a positive reason for remaining Protestant.

Of course, this analysis risks overlooking the very real difference between those who are considering leaving the Catholic Church and those who are considering (re)joining. In the case of the latter, there’s a good deal of inertia that can hold you back. Not least of these considerations is that you might well already have a denomination or a local church that feels like home. Sometimes, it’s even more than that: for example, the Protestant pastors who convert to Catholicism knowing that it’ll cut them off from the only livelihood that they’ve ever known.

It can be an enormous personal sacrifice to put all of that on the line. But if we’re going to be faithful to the Christ who prayed that we would all be one (John 17:20-23), and who called us to give up everything (including domestic tranquility, Matthew 10:34-38) to follow Him, it’s a risk that we need to be willing to take. Anything less than that is a statement that we’ll follow Christ only so long as He doesn’t ask us to do anything hard - like leaving the comfort of our local church community.

If the burden of proof in the Reformation debates lies on the side of those who reject the Catholic Church, this entails the need to take the Catholic position more seriously than it tends to be taken. If you’re Evangelical because on such-and-such important doctrine, you’ve read only Evangelical authors, and know only the Evangelical position, you’re not meeting that burden. If the only things you’ve read on the Catholic position on this doctrine are from authors arguing against Catholicism, you’re not meeting that burden. Instead, you’re declaring Catholicism guilty without permitting her a word in her own defense.

Francis Beckwith took a different approach: he actually investigated what the early Church believed. Was it the case that the early Christians believed in sola fide, or in forensic justification? He started by reading Protestant authors who talked about the Church Fathers. But then he went to the Church Fathers collection over on New Advent, and read the Fathers for himself. He quickly discovered that while a particular passage, in isolation, might sound Protestant, the Fathers themselves sounded awfully Catholic (both on the issue of justification, and more broadly). It was through this honest exploration that he came to see the strength of the Catholic position, which helped to send him back home.

The ins-and-outs of that investigation will necessarily differ from believer to believer: different people struggle with different aspects of Catholicism. But whether your issue is the Eucharist, or the papacy, or Mary, or purgatory, or justification (or all of the above!), I want to propose a simple standard: you should be able to describe the Catholic position in a way that an orthodox, informed Catholic would recognize and agree with. That doesn’t mean that you will necessarily agree with the Catholic position, but that you should at least understand the position well enough to disagree with it. If you can’t do this, it may well be that your Protestantism is built upon protesting a strawman.

Taken from:

Two Steps for Beginning Your Examination of the Catholic Church
By Joe Heschmeyer
catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2015/03/two-steps-for-beginning-your.html

 

[Tomyris]

So, a senate rather than a house of representatives according to population size?

The little guys always go for this…

I found Topper’s proposal immensely entertaining, as was my counterproposal. Not only was it weighted severely against the Lutherans - something I am sure we are all SHOCKED to find Topper doing - but it is thoroughly anti-Catholic. For one thing, Catholic councils are made up of bishops, and are certainly not on the basis of population! It feeds into my own narrative that Topper is not so much Catholic as anti-Lutheran.

So let’s walk away from the absurdities and discuss what a REAL council would look like. For one thing, the Reformed would show up. Surprised? Here’s the WCF on synods and councils

CHAPTER 31
Of Synods and Councils

1. For the better government, and further edification of the church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils: and it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office, and the power which Christ hath given them for edification and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies; and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the church.

1. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word.

1. All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.

1. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.

I would think that a certain number of bishops would have to show up, and for the Catholics to accept it, for the pope to give his nod. That takes care of the Orthodox, Catholics and conservative Lutherans. At that point we venture into difficulty, as there are some bishops that will never be recognized by the others as legitimate: women bishops, outspoken and ‘practicing’ gay bishops, demonstrably heretical (and I mean anti-Nicene, not just anti-presently-developed-Catholic-theology) bishops who think they deserve a seat at the table.

The problem with getting the Reformed to show up, and those farther away, is that the idea of a council with the Catholics would, at best, raise eyebrows. My denomination is not particularly anti-Catholic. We are more indifferent, I suppose, than anything. But I know anti-Catholic Presbyterians (as well as some who admire the Catholic Church), and I know there are many who are, let us say, extreme that way.

After the Great Council we would take whatever the Council decided back and vote on it. All, part, or none of it would be accepted.

Wander farther. The independent baptists do not believe in ANY denominational structure, especially the imposition of authority on any local church from outside, which is why it is the Southern Baptist Convention, NOT Denomination, such word, I think being regarded as too “Romish”. Further out are those churches without clergy, such as I think the Quakers and some others past that that are not organized at all in any meaningful way, yet call themselves Christians and the Catholics would regard them as “separated brethren”, meaning they get invites to the Great Council.

So my thinking is that a Great Council might go some distance, but never the full journey towards the unity of all Christians.

 

[Tomyris]

So, here is an exercise for you, KjetilK:

If you were ALREADY a Catholic, would either of these two reasons be sufficient grounds for you to leave the Catholic Church?

If your best friend in the world was Catholic, would you advise him to leave Catholicism on the basis of those two opinions alone?

If your honest answers are “no”, then these two points are insufficient reasons for you to remain separated from the Catholic Church.

The first is simply unanswerable, Randy, as no Catholic would deny papal supremacy, at least in theory. I cannot answer how I would answer this if I were Catholic, because I cannot answer how I would think if my thinking were different.

If I was Japanese, would I like burritos? I have no idea.

To answer the second, I am not Norwegian.

 

[Tomyris]

And the big guys go for the house of representatives approach.

frankly do not see how either works, since employing either would lead us back to the status quo.
A lot would depend on the sincerity of the representatives to the council, in this scenario, and their willingness to try to find language that the Spirit can use to speak truth to everyone.

Jon

The simplest steps towards unity the Catholic Church could make would be for the pope to

1. renounce papal supremacy for himself and his successors until the end of time
2. Renounce infallibility, maybe infallibly.

If he did that, would Catholics be able to tell him he could not do that?

And, since we are wandering into hypotheticals, what if he decided that his office WAS anti-Christ, abolished the papacy and stepped down from it?

 

[JonNC]

The simplest steps towards unity the Catholic Church could make would be for the pope to

1. renounce papal supremacy for himself and his successors until the end of time
2. Renounce infallibility, maybe infallibly.

If he did that, would Catholics be able to tell him he could not do that?

The problem with this is it is the old practice that failed for 450 years leading up to Vat. II. When one side says the other must renounce a teaching they hold. Its a nonstarter, or at least a dialogue killer.

And, since we are wandering into hypotheticals, what if he decided that his office WAS anti-Christ, abolished the papacy and stepped down from it?

The more interesting hypothetical is what if he decided that the Augsburg Confession was an acceptable Catholic confession of faith. I think lots of Lutherans would be stunned by the profound level of decision it would force us into making.

Jon