Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[Tomyris]

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.

I agree with you. But he could do that.

Maybe we should all become Norwegians.

They have at least ONE guy who seems very knowledgeable.

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

That is an interesting one. I think you (pl) would have to choose between the Book of Concord (ironic title, here) and unity with the Catholics.

 

[JonNC]

Might?

Yes. Might. Being Catholic is significantly different than considering the hypothetical.

Jon

 

[canis73]

…

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?

Why would he do that? Theoretically, I guess he could. But the papal office is not a tiranny, he would never go against the theologians in matters as clear as this one.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Father K,

Thanks for your response.

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.

First of all, I am very happy that your ‘tradition’ does not misuse Scripture the way that some American Lutheran synods do.

As for the whole thing about the ‘Church’ – it was Christ himself who created His Church at Pentecost. If you hold that you are not a ‘church’, then you place yourself outside that which He established. Part of this it seems revolves around the differences in the definitions between the Catholic and Lutheran ‘traditions’ as to what the ‘Church’ actually is. And yes, I do believe that there IS a Church, one that all should belong to. As you know, American Lutherans claim that they are part of that Church.

You state that your church, or tradition, began in the 900s, suggesting I guess that the tradition that you are part of is a valid continuation of that which began 1100 years ago.

Father, this somehow ignores what happened in the 16th century. The Wiki article on Roman Catholicism in Norway states:

**“The Lutheran Reformation in Norway lasted from 1526 to 1536. Catholic Church property and the personal property of Catholic priests were confiscated by the Crown. ****Catholic priests were exiled and imprisoned unless they submitted to conversion to the Danish king’s faith. **Bishop Jon Arason of Holar, executed in 1550, was the last Catholic bishop of Iceland (until the establishment of the Diocese of Reykjavik in 1923). The Bishop of Hamar from 1513 to 1537, Mogens Lauritssøn, was imprisoned until his death in 1542.[16][17]

Many traditions from the Catholic Middle Ages continued for centuries more.** In the late 18th century and into the 19th century, a strict and puritan interpretation of the Lutheran faith, inspired by the preacher Hans Nielsen Hauge, spread through Norway, and popular religious practices turned more purely Lutheran.**
**

The Catholic Church per se, however, was not allowed to operate in Norway between 1537 and 1843, and throughout most of this period, Catholic priests faced execution. **In 1582 the scattered Catholics in Norway and elsewhere in Northern Europe were placed under the jurisdiction of a papal nuncio in Cologne, however, with threatening punishment Catholic pastoring could not materialise. In the late 16th century, a few incidents of crypto-Catholicism occurred within the Lutheran Church of Norway. However, these were isolated incidents.”

The Protestant Reformation in Norway resulted in the property of the Catholic Church and its’ priests being stolen, just like in Germany and elsewhere and in fact the Church was actually not allowed to operate in Norway for more than 300 years. The ‘theology’ of the realm, is now Lutheran.

The Church that was founded in Norway 1100 years ago was the Roman Catholic Church. What happened in the 16th century was a Revolt against that Church. What emerged from that Revolt is a state run church.

The Wiki article also documents the ‘current state’ of Catholicism in Norway.

**“There used to be several Catholic hospitals and schools around the country. There was also a Catholic orphanage in Oslo. But, between 1967 and 1989,[citation needed] the Socialist government in Norway bought most of the Catholic (and other private) hospitals by force and condemned the rest of them. **Almost all of the schools were closed because of a lack of students but a few of them had enough students to survive in Oslo, Arendal and Bergen.

Nowadays, the Catholic welfare institutions in Norway are limited. There are no Catholic hospitals or orphanages remaining, but the number of Catholic schools is increasing. In addition to the three schools mentioned above, a new elementary school has opened in Bodø.[10] There’s a Catholic high school in Bergen, [11] and an elementary school is planned for Drammen.[12] There is also a retirement home in Oslo, St. Elizabeth’s home for elderly, run by St. Elizabeth nuns. However, it was completely destroyed in a fire in December 2014[13]”

While your Lutheran ‘tradition’ may not condemn the pope as the antichrist, it appears that it is not exactly ‘Catholic friendly’.

Father, if I have gotten any of this wrong, I apologize and please correct me with the facts. Quite frankly, I have enough trouble understanding what all of the various American Lutheran groups believe and don’t believe.

God Bless You Father, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Randy,

Approved men? Approved by whom?

This is precisely the point. As in 2 Timothy, who, specifically and exactly are the ‘reliable men’.

Please correct me if you think I am wrong, but men who have been excommunicated because of their doctrinal innovations and obstinacy are not ‘reliable’.

God Bless You Randy, Topper

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

How many Catholic Bishops are there in the United States?

How many in Jamaica? Or Singapore?

I think we can see from this simple example that Bishops are assigned on the basis of the number of dioceses in a given country or region and that, in turn, is based upon the size of the Catholic population.

 

[Thorolfr]

The Protestant Reformation in Norway resulted in the property of the Catholic Church and its’ priests being stolen, just like in Germany and elsewhere and in fact the Church was actually not allowed to operate in Norway for more than 300 years. The ‘theology’ of the realm, is now Lutheran.

I wonder how much of that “property of the Catholic Church” had previously been “stolen” from pagan believers and pagan temples when Norway was converted to Christianity under King Olaf I Tryggvason and St.Olaf? According to Wikipedia:

Olaf I then made it his priority to convert the country to Christianity using all means at his disposal. By destroying temples and torturing and killing pagan resisters he succeeded in making every part of Norway at least nominally Christian. Expanding his efforts to the Norse settlements in the west the kings’ sagas credit him with Christianizing the Faroes, Orkney, Shetland, Iceland and Greenland.

After Olaf’s defeat at the Battle of Svolder in 1000 there was a partial relapse to paganism in Norway under the rule of the Jarls of Lade. In the following reign of Saint Olaf, pagan remnants were stamped out and Christianity entrenched.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Scandinavia

 

[KjetilK]

As for the whole thing about the ‘Church’ – it was Christ himself who created His Church at Pentecost. If you hold that you are not a ‘church’, then you place yourself outside that which He established.

Yes, if I said such a thing. Which I didn’t. Byzantinism is not a Church. Do you say that Byzantines in communion with Rome aren’t in the Church?

I am Lutheran because my Church is part of the Lutheran tradition, just like somebody in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church is a Byzantine because his Church is part of the Byzantine tradition. But I have a hard time believing you actually didn’t get that. The Church I am a member of is NOT ‘the Lutheran Church’ but ‘the Church of Norway.’

Part of this it seems revolves around the differences in the definitions between the Catholic and Lutheran ‘traditions’ as to what the ‘Church’ actually is. And yes, I do believe that there IS a Church, one that all should belong to. As you know, American Lutherans claim that they are part of that Church.

Again, there is no single Lutheran ecclesiology. Just as there is, say, no single Byzantine, Alexandrian, Armenian, or Anglican ecclesiology.

You state that your church, or tradition, began in the 900s, suggesting I guess that the tradition that you are part of is a valid continuation of that which began 1100 years ago.

Father, this somehow ignores what happened in the 16th century. The Wiki article on Roman Catholicism in Norway states…

Yes, I’m fully aware that many things happened in the 1500s that shouldn’t have happened. But much of what was lost has been restored. Your arguments seem to be based on the idea that reform is impossible.

The Protestant Reformation in Norway resulted in the property of the Catholic Church and its’ priests being stolen, just like in Germany and elsewhere and in fact the Church was actually not allowed to operate in Norway for more than 300 years. The ‘theology’ of the realm, is now Lutheran.

Well, that is one way of seeing history. We could also say that the Church was reformed, and ‘severed’ the ties with Rome. The Orthodox churches also severed their ties with Rome, yet I fail to find the same attitude towards them.

The Church that was founded in Norway 1100 years ago was the Roman Catholic Church. What happened in the 16th century was a Revolt against that Church. What emerged from that Revolt is a state run church.

What emerged was a Church which wasn’t ruled by the pope. Just like in the East.

While your Lutheran ‘tradition’ may not condemn the pope as the antichrist, it appears that it is not exactly ‘Catholic friendly’.

Yes, because the Church of Norway and the socialist government is the exact same thing. Obviously.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, if I said such a thing. Which I didn’t. Byzantinism is not a Church. Do you say that Byzantines in communion with Rome aren’t in the Church?

I am Lutheran because my Church is part of the Lutheran tradition, just like somebody in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church is a Byzantine because his Church is part of the Byzantine tradition. But I have a hard time believing you actually didn’t get that. The Church I am a member of is NOT ‘the Lutheran Church’ but ‘the Church of Norway.’

Is this a Norwegian thing or a Lutheran thing?

What I mean is this: I am an American who happens to live in North Carolina presently. See the state in red:

http://www.myonlinemaps.com/images/north-carolina-map.gif

Similarly, I am a Catholic who happens to reside in the Diocese of Raleigh presently. Like every Catholic I have ever known, I do not consider the Diocese of Raleigh to be my “church”. I attend a specific parish in my diocese, but when I travel - whether it is to South Carolina or Singapore (yep, been there), I can walk into any Catholic Church on the planet and feel as if I am in MY church. I’m not a guest…I belong there as much as any of the locals.

You, on the other hand, seem to see yourself not as a member of a larger Church but as a member of a tiny group based in Norway that is only tangentially connected to the rest of Christendom.

I’m not sure even other Lutherans on this board look at things that way, but I will look for their comments.

 

[JonNC]

Is this a Norwegian thing or a Lutheran thing?

What I mean is this: I am an American who happens to live in North Carolina presently. See the state in red:

http://www.myonlinemaps.com/images/north-carolina-map.gif

Similarly, I am a Catholic who happens to reside in the Diocese of Raleigh presently. Like every Catholic I have ever known, I do not consider the Diocese of Raleigh to be my “church”. I attend a specific parish in my diocese, but when I travel - whether it is to South Carolina or Singapore (yep, been there), I can walk into any Catholic Church on the planet and feel as if I am in MY church. I’m not a guest…I belong there as much as any of the locals.

You, on the other hand, seem to see yourself not as a member of a larger Church but as a member of a tiny group based in Norway that is only tangentially connected to the rest of Christendom.

I’m not sure even other Lutherans on this board look at things that way, but I will look for their comments.

I think, though I could be wrong, that Orthodox view the Church this way - gathered around the bishop, so to speak, that is the Church.

Lutheranism isn’t dramatically different. The Church is the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. So, the Church is universal (catholic), as well as local.

Jon

 

[Tomyris]

How many Catholic Bishops are there in the United States?

How many in Jamaica? Or Singapore?

I think we can see from this simple example that Bishops are assigned on the basis of the number of dioceses in a given country or region and that, in turn, is based upon the size of the Catholic population.

Really? Do you have exact figures? How often is this adjusted?

In 2014 there were 17,483 parishes in the US. In 1965 there were 17,637. This is from cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/requestedchurchstats.html

In 2014 there were 145 dioceses according to usccb.org/about/bishops-and-dioceses/

In 1965 the Catholic population was 48.5 million, in 2014 it was 76.7 million, from the same source.
Has the number of bishops in charge of dioceses changed in the US in the same time period? Do you know?

Singapore is an archdiocese directly under the Holy See with a Catholic population of 303,000 - a quick look at the ratio will show the population:bishop ration is then rather different then for the US, but then it is unusual.

Jamaica has a Catholic population of 58,400 and three bishops. Again, look at the population:bishop ratio.

Your argument seems to fall flat, by the way.

None of which really has any bearing on my argument that it should be bishops, not representatives in general, at a council. You quibble. I am a sort of a data geek at times.

 

[Tomyris]

I think, though I could be wrong, that Orthodox view the Church this way - gathered around the bishop, so to speak, that is the Church.

Lutheranism isn’t dramatically different. The Church is the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. So, the Church is universal (catholic), as well as local.

Jon

The Orthodox now are confronted with overlapping dioceses - Antiochean, Russian, Greek, etc., sometimes with churches within blocks of each other. Their priests followed the immigrants and established mission churches often answering to bishops in the home country.

It is a real mess. Administratively, this is something the Catholics have done right. I think the Lutherans have as well.

 

[Picky_Picky]

The Orthodox now are confronted with overlapping dioceses - Antiochean, Russian, Greek, etc., sometimes with churches within blocks of each other. Their priests followed the immigrants and established mission churches often answering to bishops in the home country.

It is a real mess. Administratively, this is something the Catholics have done right. I think the Lutherans have as well.

That sounds like a UScentric view, perhaps.

 

[KjetilK]

Is this a Norwegian thing or a Lutheran thing?

What I mean is this: I am an American who happens to live in North Carolina presently. See the state in red:

http://www.myonlinemaps.com/images/north-carolina-map.gif

Similarly, I am a Catholic who happens to reside in the Diocese of Raleigh presently. Like every Catholic I have ever known, I do not consider the Diocese of Raleigh to be my “church”. I attend a specific parish in my diocese, but when I travel - whether it is to South Carolina or Singapore (yep, been there), I can walk into any Catholic Church on the planet and feel as if I am in MY church. I’m not a guest…I belong there as much as any of the locals.

You, on the other hand, seem to see yourself not as a member of a larger Church but as a member of a tiny group based in Norway that is only tangentially connected to the rest of Christendom.

I’m not sure even other Lutherans on this board look at things that way, but I will look for their comments.

Come to think about it, the example of you was a bit off. You are part of the Latin rite, which is one particular Church. But there are 22 more particular churches in yiur communion. That is my point. The one church consists of many particular churches - which can be based nationally, culturally, etc. Melkite Greek Catholic Church is a particular Church, originally based in the Near East. They are part of the Byzantine tradition.

The question is: To be true particular Church, do you need to be in communion with Rome?

 

[KjetilK]

I think, though I could be wrong, that Orthodox view the Church this way - gathered around the bishop, so to speak, that is the Church.

Lutheranism isn’t dramatically different. The Church is the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. So, the Church is universal (catholic), as well as local.

Not only the Orthodox. Roman Catholic teaching also holds that the Church is where people are gathered around their bishop. This is also the view of St. Ignatius of Antioch, stated most directly in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

This is also found in Lumen gentium 21: “In the bishops, therefore, for whom priests are assistants, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Supreme High Priest, is present in the midst of those who believe.”

And this is, in my view, what we do find in , art. VIIConfessio Augustana: “[One] holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.” The question is who can rightly teach and administer the sacraments, and that is those who are rightly called to the office (cf. art. V and XIV). It is my opinion that this involves ordination, and that a proper ordination is an episcopal one – either an ordination of a bishop by a bishop (what we often call consecration) or an ordination of a priest by a bishop (what we often simply call ordination).

So, in definition, the Lutheran view is not especially dissimilar to the Roman Catholic view. The question is the same as before: To be true particular Church, do you need to be in communion with Rome?

 

[Topper17]

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.

If your intention was to offend, you have succeeded.

Furthermore, we are both Americans, speak English, and are from the same period in time. Given that you completely misunderstand and misrepresent where I am coming from, I would suggest that you leave Scriptural interpretation to others.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Thor,

Thanks for your response.

I wonder how much of that “property of the Catholic Church” had previously been “stolen” from pagan believers and pagan temples when Norway was converted to Christianity under King Olaf I Tryggvason and St.Olaf?

Where do you draw the line? I would suggest that, historically at least, with regards to stolen property, Lutherans tend to draw the line in a place which is favorable to them. We are constantly hearing about the Augsburg Confession, but it is a little known fact that at Augsburg, where the Lutheranism was attempting to appease the Church, they refused to return property that they had stolen from the Church.

**“Early in July the bishops presented their complaints to the Diet of the plundering and destruction of churches, seizure of monasteries and hospitals, prohibition of Masses, and attacks on religious processions by the Protestants. When Charles called upon the Protestants to restore the property they had seized they said that to do so would be against their consciences. **Charles responded crushingly: ‘The Word of God the Gospel, and every law civil and canonical, forbid a man to appropriate to himself the property of another. **He said that as Emperor he had the duty of guarding of the rights of all, especially those Catholic unwilling to accept Protestantism or go into exile, who should at least be allowed to remain in their homes and practice their ancestral faith, specifically the Mass, the Protestants replied that they would not tolerate the Mass,” **Carroll, pg. 102

Rather than picking an example of the theft of property from over a millennium ago, the Augsburg Lutherans were refusing to return property which they had stolen less than 10 years before, from 'fellow Christians". And their ‘reason’ for refusing to return that property – that it would go against their consciences. What does that tell us about their consciences?

Where was it exactly that the Lutherans got the idea that they should be allowed to steal the property of the Catholic Church. From Martin Luther of course.

**“I advise the temporal authorities, however, to take over the possessions of such monasteries, …In doing this, no permission of pope or bishop is to be sought beforehand, **nor are their ban and curse to be feared; for I am writing this for those only who understand the Gospel and who have the right to take such action in their own lands, cities and jurisdiction…… **In the second place: such possessions of monasteries as are taken over by the authorities” **AN ORDINANCE OF A COMMON CHEST, MARTIN Luther, 1523

This is actually rather humorous. Luther here recommends that prior to the stealing of property, the owner of that property is not to be “consulted”. Better to just steal it without notice.

In a letter to Count Johann Heinrich of Schwarzburg, a Lutheran secular authority, Luther wrote that:

"but if witnesses could testify that they did not preach the true Gospel (of Luther), but papistical heresies, the count would have the right, nay, the duty, to oust them from their parishes…
. . **there is need of great care, lest the possessions of such vacated foundations become common plunder and everyone make off with what he can get . **. . the blame is laid at my door whenever monasteries and foundations are vacated . . . This makes me unwilling to take the additional blame if some greedy bellies should grab these spiritual possessions and claim, in excuse of their conduct, that I was the cause of it . . .

In the first place: it would indeed be well if no rural monasteries, such as those of the Benedictines, Cistercians, Celestines, and the like, had ever appeared upon earth. But now that they are here, the best thing is to suffer them to pass away or to assist them, wherever one properly can, to disappear altogether. (as for the material possessions of the Church) Let everyone examine himself to see what he should take for his own needs and what he should leave for the common chest.”, Martin Luther, Dec 12, 1523

So…under Luther’s “criteria”, what exactly and specifically is “required” in order to “relieve” the Church of it’s physical property? Luther tells us that it ONLY requires that “but if witnesses could testify that they did not preach the true Gospel”. Of course the witnesses only have to believe that the Gospel that a certain Church (or church) was teaching was in error. And of course, according to Luther, the owner of that property need not be consulted.

So where does that leave Lutheran/Catholic relations today. We are still teaching what we taught then. IF Lutherans were right to teach that it was proper to steal the property of the Church then, why not today?

It wasn’t just the ‘young Luther’ who recommended this theft. Luther was still rationalizing theft in 1541:

**“If they are not the church but the devil’s whore that has not remained faithful to Christ, then it is irrefutably and thoroughly established that they should not possess church property.” **(Wider Hans Wurst, or Against Jack Sausage, 1541, LW, vol. 41, 179-256, translated by Eric W. Gritsch; citation from p. 220)

So there it is Thor. Do you agree with Luther here? Are you willing to say that Luther was right to call for people to steal the property of the Catholic Church?

God Bless You Thor, Topper

 

[Thorolfr]

Where do you draw the line? I would suggest that, historically at least, with regards to stolen property, Lutherans tend to draw the line in a place which is favorable to them. We are constantly hearing about the Augsburg Confession, but it is a little known fact that at Augsburg, where the Lutheranism was attempting to appease the Church, they refused to return property that they had stolen from the Church.

Like I said before, where did the Catholic Church get all this property in the first place that you say was stolen from it? It was probably ultimately property that was stolen by various noble families from other noble families or from their subjects and then given to the Catholic Church to build churches, monasteries and other religious foundations. For the Church to have stolen property stolen from it is not a big concern

 

[Topper17]

Hi Father K,

Thanks for your response.

Yes, if I said such a thing. Which I didn’t. Byzantinism is not a Church. Do you say that Byzantines in communion with Rome aren’t in the Church?

We differ on a very important point Father. I believe that Christ established ONE Church, that we are ALL called to belong to it. I believe that that Church on earth is a physical reality, and that it is known here as the Roman Catholic Church, which was founded at Pentecost. Those which have split off have done so in spite of Christ’s call for unity.

I am Lutheran because my Church is part of the Lutheran tradition, just like somebody in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church is a Byzantine because his Church is part of the Byzantine tradition. But I have a hard time believing you actually didn’t get that. The Church I am a member of is NOT ‘the Lutheran Church’ but ‘the Church of Norway.’

Again, there is no single Lutheran ecclesiology. Just as there is, say, no single Byzantine, Alexandrian, Armenian, or Anglican ecclesiology.

First of all, it seems to me that the statement that ‘I am Lutheran because my church is Lutheran’ is rather circular. As for what I get and what I don’t get, it might be that I actually ‘get it’, but simply disagree. As I posted yesterday, the Church of Norway IS a Lutheran church. The fact that there is no ‘single’ Lutheran ecclesiology only serves to prove one of my main points, which is that Luther built doctrinal discord into ‘the cake’.

Yes, I’m fully aware that many things happened in the 1500s that shouldn’t have happened. But much of what was lost has been restored. Your arguments seem to be based on the idea that reform is impossible.

Ok, so what has been restored, specifically and exactly? In my post of yesterday I documented that even in recent times, the Lutheran government has forced the shutdown of various Catholic humanitarian agencies. Are those going to be ‘restored’?

Well, that is one way of seeing history. We could also say that the Church was reformed, and ‘severed’ the ties with Rome. The Orthodox churches also severed their ties with Rome, yet I fail to find the same attitude towards them.

What emerged was a Church which wasn’t ruled by the pope. Just like in the East.

Father, I see a very big difference between Orthodoxy and Protestantism in terms of the damage that each has done to Christian unity, and therefore to Christianity itself.

In a thousand years Orthodoxy has ‘only’ broken into 17 or so doctrinally independent communions. In less than half that time, how many are there in Protestantism? The reason I think for the difference in the ‘rate of decay’, is that when the Orthodox broke away, they took with them FAR MORE of God’s Absolute Truth. They are NOT Sola Scriptura and they are NOT Salvation by Faith Alone.

Futhermore, the ‘fruits’ of Orthodoxy are FAR different than those of Protestantism. The people of the Orthodox countries are FAR more likely to believe in God and are far more likely to be actively Christian. Where is the faith in God the lowest and where is church attendance the lowest? In the Scandanavian Countries, where Lutheranism was made the religion of the ‘realm’ almost 500 years ago, and the Catholic Church outlawed.

The abortion rates, marriage rates, cohabitation rates, and divorce rates are all pretty shocking in Scandinavia.

Thus it would appear that Orthodoxy is FAR less ‘damaging’ to faith and to Christianity in general than is Protestantism. The thing about the Scandinavian countries which is so telling is that it was there and only there that Lutheranism was allowed to completely shape the culture without any real influence from the Catholic Church.

Yes, because the Church of Norway and the socialist government is the exact same thing. Obviously.

From the Wiki article on religion in Norway:

“Religion in Norway is mostly Evangelical Lutheran, with 76.1% of the population officially belonging to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway in 2013.[1] The Roman Catholic Church is the next largest Christian denomination at 2.4% and a total of 82% belong to Christian denominations.”
And……

“According to the most recent Eurobarometer Poll of 2010,[5]

22% of Norwegian citizens responded that "they believe there is a God".
44% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".
29% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force".
5% answered that they "do not know".

Phil Zuckerman, an Associate Professor of Sociology at Pitzer College, estimates atheism rates in Norway as ranging from 31 to 72%, based on various studies.”

It seems to me Father that a case could be made that Lutheranism, where left on its own for several hundred years, and absent any Catholic influence, leads to a very low percentage of belief in God and a very high atheism rate. In fact, in Norway, there are a lot of people who claim to be Lutheran who don’t believe in God in the normal Christian sense.

In addition, in leaving communion with Rome, the Orthodox did not give authority over to the secular governments, which made disaster inevitable.

Given the facts, I don’t see Orthodoxy as being as anywhere as big a threat to Christianity as Protestantism and Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

I apologize if you find this upsetting Father and if you think that there is another way to interpret the facts about religion in Norway, I am open to your thoughts.

God Bless You Father, Topper

 

[Topper17]

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

My point is simply that they have NOT, in 50 years, managed to even discuss that which is at the core of our differences, papal infallibility. You confirm this . Why do you think they have not?

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.

Jon, I have absolutely no idea where you are coming from here. My point though is that the Dialogue has ABSOLUTELY NO WAY of dealing with the fact that neither side is going to give in on doctrine. They continue to dialogue knowing for a FACT that they are not on track to doctrinal unity. It makes me wonder what the goals of the Dialogue actually are.

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.

I am opposed to Lutheran doctrine where it is opposed to the teachings of the Church that Christ established for ALL OF US. As long as Lutherans continue to oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church and depict the papacy or pope as the antichrist, I will continue to point out what I think are the flaws of Lutheranism.

As for the Dialogue Statements, let’s just recognize that the Dialogue AIN’T WORKIN, at least not in terms of achieving doctrinal unity, which again, was commanded by Christ, the Apostles, Scripture and the Fathers.

For the record, when I first came here, EC convinced me to read 100 pages of the Dialogue, representing our unity as a ‘done deal’. I was extremely unimpressed with all of the dancing around and disingenuous ‘appearance’ of unity. As for the LCMS position on the JDDL, for Heaven’s sake Jon, I have read the statements of your LCMS leadership on and my criticisms are mild by comparison.

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.

This ‘interesting hypothetical’ that you mention - what do you think the probability of this actually happening? Please note, the term ‘probability’ indicates that the likelihood is to be expressed numerically. Since you know it is not going to happen, what is your point? Mine about the delegates to the hypothetical Council was to show that Protestantism will NEVER be a part of a Council in which they would agree, beforehand, to abide by the doctrinal teachings of the majority, which is by the way exactly how Ecumencial Councils have ALWAYS worked.

I guess my point is that since there is virtually no chance whatsoever that the Catholic Church is going to declare the Augsburg Confession to be ‘Catholic’, properly using the capital “C”, there is no reason that to believe that Lutherans actually will be forced into making the ‘decision’ that you allude to.

However, if you actually did ‘make a decision’, would that decision include the Formula of Concord being ‘demoted’ to being ‘non-authoritative’? I ask because I am becoming more and more convinced that it is the Formula of Concord which is a barrier to unity, and not so much the Augsburg Confession. Would the Formula be retrated, or would it remain as is, but would be simply abandoned?

Would you personally abandon Lutheranism if the Catholic Church accepted the Augsburg Confession as being ‘Catholic’ but rejected at the same time, the Formula of Concord as being heretical? Now THAT is an ‘interesting hypothetical’.