Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[KjetilK]

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 also believe that the Church is a physical reality. We have bishops and priests.

First of all, it seems to me that the statement that ‘I am Lutheran because my church is Lutheran’ is rather circular.

No, it is a simple point. I wasn’t making an argument. I was simply pointing out that the important part isn’t the ecclesial tradition of any Church, but what that particular church teaches.

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’.

Then we would have to say that the fact that there exist rather extreme differences in Byzantine ecclesiology proves that there is an inbuilt doctrinal discord in Byzantinism which would effect everyone there, including, say, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

And before you answer that, note that merely saying that ‘the Pope handles that’ (or something similar) doesn’t change anything. The thing we are discussing is, amongst other things, if we need the pope or not. Using that as a premise would be begging the question.

But my main point, which it seems I have to bang in time and time again is that you cannot use the disunity between different churches within one tradition as proof of the invalidity of that tradition, while ignoring the disunity between different churches within another tradition.

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’?

‘The Lutheran government’? If you want to make an argument, at least base it on facts. Most of the governments in the past 50 years have been, not overtly socialist, but what one might call ‘social democratic.’ Not ‘Lutheran.’

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.

The problem is that you are generalising.

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?

I fail to see the significance. The situation is extreme, yes, but that is a very American phenomenon. But what does that have to do with my Church, exactly?

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.

I’m guessing you haven’t spent much time in the old Soviet. I have a few friends from there, and it seems that Russia and the Ukrain is the only nations where Christianity is somewhat ‘mainstream,’ although I am highly suspicious of an Patriarch who so openly supports Putin. According to all my Russian friends, Putin is a very dangerous man. One suggested that he should either add the prefix ‘Ras’ to his name, or substitute ‘Stal’ for ‘Put.’

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

And I bet they are just saintly in France and Italy. Not that it matters. Does a contracepting Roman Catholic prove that the Roman Catholic Chuch have a liberal teaching on contraception?

From the Wiki article on religion in Norway…………… 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.

Believe what you want to believe. But then again, I can generalise too. I now declare that the insane amount of infidelity in France and Italy – in very high places – is proof that Roman Catholicism, where left on its own for several hundred years, and absent any Lutheran influence, leads to promiscuity. Or perhaps there is no causal connection in either case.

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.

Well, since your arguments about my country and the various governments are based mostly on ignorance and a very selective reading of Wikipedia articles, I’m not sure where to start.

 

[Stilldreamn]

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’.

That topic could prove to be an interesting thread.

 

[Koineman]

Hi Koin,

Thanks for your response.

First of all, I would like to get your reaction to my post numbers 274 and 275. You had claimed that Luther did not teach the ‘right of the individual’ to interpret Scripture, but my posts proved that he actually did.

Your specific quotes from Luther warrant looking further into. My skepticism of your claim was based on my knowledge that Luther and other Reformers did not throw out the necessity of church leadership and teaching; otherwise, they would have done away with the roles of pastors, elders, etc.

In fact, there is a great deal more evidence if you are interested. What do you think now that the facts have come to the surface? I ask because you seemed to think it was important to deny this. Is it still an important issue now that it has been proven that he did, or is it now less important?

Further quotes would be helpful, as I would have to look into this more extensively. I would still maintain, however, that neither Luther nor any of his contemporaries would have ever espoused the idea that laypeople don’t need teachers and pastors to teach them the Scriptures. That is the idea I was denying.

Given that the official position of the LCMS is that there will be doctrinal unity with the Church IF the Church changes it’s teachings, I have no choice but to, unfortunately, agree with you. This leaves us with the discussion as to which one is the more likely to be the ONE that is teaching correctly according to God’s Absolute Truth (if either). My position is that a MUCH stronger case can be made for the Church than can be made for Lutheranism, especially when all of the “details” are known (such as the fact that Luther taught Private Interpretation.)

In my case, after studying the RCC in depth and coming very close to joining (I was in RCIA but didn’t complete it), I would have to disagree. I believe that Rome is in error on the gospel, and according to Paul, ***nobody ***should be accepted–not even he, any of the apostles, or an angel from heaven–if he or she preaches another gospel (Gal. 1:8-9). However, whether Rome is preaching a false gospel or just a weakened gospel is something I’m still unsure of. Trent’s comments on meritorious works, I must admit, tend to push me toward the worse conclusion, unfortunately.

Yes, but I think that the “Hypothetical Council” causes us to think about how it could actually happen, and that that actually causes us to think critically about the hypothetical Lutheran approach to such a situation. They SHOULD be willing to attend a truly Ecumenical Council of ALL Christians and abide by the decisions made. But as you seem to agree, they would probably not, which I think speaks volumes. Luther was very much opposed to his followers attending Trent, demonstrating his preference for dividing Christianity rather than uniting it.

Well, I was referring to the unwillingness to jettison crucial beliefs, not about being willing or unwilling to attend an ecumenical council.

But more to the point: I would welcome the idea of the LCMS attending a truly ecumenical council. I am very skeptical, however, of what such a council would accomplish. Even the church that is closest to the RCC–the EOC–has not been willing to jettison the things that divide them from the RCC, if I understand the situation right.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

:yup:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
DECLARATION
“DOMINUS IESUS”
ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY
OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

1. Therefore, **there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.**58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

 

[KjetilK]

:yup:

You should really read the things you post: “The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.”

So no, according to the very document you cited, you do not need to be in communion with Rome to be a true particular Church.

 

[KjetilK]

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.

Well, I did only give two reasons. I’m not sure that I would leave, since the Roman Catholic Church is a valid Church. But for me to change, go over to the Roman Catholic Church, I would have to have a good reason. Either negatively - that I was ‘forced out’ of my own Church - or positively - that I was in fact convinced that I needed to be in communion with Rome.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Thor,

Thanks for your response.

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

Not a big concern?

I find it extremely interesting that you seem to agree with the Lutherans stealing the property of the Catholic Church in the 16th century. At the very least you are not willing to state, even in the mildest terms, that what they did was wrong.

Given that you seem to believe that what they did 500 years ago was justifiable, then why would the exact same be wrong today. After all, according to Luther, who set the standard for this theft, all that is needed is to have someone decide that the Church was teaching falsely and THAT is all that is needed in order to justify that theft.

Well, we are STILL teaching anti-Lutheran teachings, and so if that theft was justifiable 500 years ago, it would only follow that anybody could just as easily justify stealing from the Catholic Church today. Do you believe that the Lutheran Church has the right to steal from the Catholic Church today?

God Bless Thor, Topper

 

[SteveVH]

“The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.”

So no, according to the very document you cited, you do not need to be in communion with Rome to be a true particular Church.

This is referring to the EO who have valid succession and a valid Eucharist. It isn’t referring to the Lutheran Church which is not considered a “particular Church”, at least from the Catholic view due to the very issues of valid succession and Eucharist.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Father K,

Thanks for your response.

I also believe that the Church is a physical reality. We have bishops and priests.

No, it is a simple point. I wasn’t making an argument. I was simply pointing out that the important part isn’t the ecclesial tradition of any Church, but what that particular church teaches.

We both agree that there is a Church on earth. However, if our two ‘traditions’ (churches really) teach opposing and confliction doctrines, then ONLY ONE of them can be teaching in accordance with God’s Absolute Truth (assuming that one actually is). Therefore, the church which is NOT teaching the doctrines of Christianity correctly is NOT the Church that Christ established with the authority to teach.

Then we would have to say that the fact that there exist rather extreme differences in Byzantine ecclesiology proves that there is an inbuilt doctrinal discord in Byzantinism which would effect everyone there, including, say, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

And before you answer that, note that merely saying that ‘the Pope handles that’ (or something similar) doesn’t change anything. The thing we are discussing is, amongst other things, if we need the pope or not. Using that as a premise would be begging the question.

The existence of Orthodox communions NOT in communion with Rome does NOT justify the Protestant communions which are not.

But my main point, which it seems I have to bang in time and time again is that you cannot use the disunity between different churches within one tradition as proof of the invalidity of that tradition, while ignoring the disunity between different churches within another tradition.

All of Protestantism follows Luther’s radical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and the Orthodox do not. As a result, the Orthodox are nowhere near as fractured as Protestantism. It is all a matter of degree or magnitude. From a Catholic perspective, the errors of the Orthodox, primarily in abandoning communion with Rome, is NOWHERE near the errors of Protestantism, which by the way, keep expanding exponentially, with even belief in God suffering. Remember, 22% in Norway, a statistic which is very revealing.

‘The Lutheran government’? If you want to make an argument, at least base it on facts. Most of the governments in the past 50 years have been, not overtly socialist, but what one might call ‘social democratic.’ Not ‘Lutheran.’

Isn’t the Church of Norway basically an agency of the state, and funded by the state? How much more ‘connected’ could they get?

The problem is that you are generalising.

Not at all Father. I produced statistics which support my argument and have seen nothing of the kind in support of yours. I am backing my arguments with specifics, and you are not.

Believe what you want to believe. But then again, I can generalise too. I now declare that the insane amount of infidelity in France and Italy – in very high places – is proof that Roman Catholicism, where left on its own for several hundred years, and absent any Lutheran influence, leads to promiscuity. Or perhaps there is no causal connection in either case.

Well, since your arguments about my country and the various governments are based mostly on ignorance and a very selective reading of Wikipedia articles, I’m not sure where to start.

With all due respect Father, you are generalizing. You can make your claims about the French and the Italians, but you have not supported your tongue-in-cheek argument with anything of any substance. What I did was provide statistical evidence as to my claim. As far as which one of us would be generalizing – that would be you at this point.

The fact remains that only 22% of people in Norway believe in God, and the vast majority of people in Norway consider themselves to be Lutheran. BTW, since you brought up Italy, the corresponding figure in Italy is 73%. I have explained how I think that wildly low number in Norway is the result of Luther’s Sola Scriptura and Salvation by Faith Alone. If you have an alternate hypothesis that fits the data, I am all ears.

I am assuming that you have a much better understanding of ‘what happened’ to Norway and I would appreciate your perspective.

As for my believing what I want – I would suggest that you have a good idea specifically and exactly why I believe what I do.

God Bless You Father K, Topper

 

[KjetilK]

This is referring to the EO who have valid succession and a valid Eucharist. It isn’t referring to the Lutheran Church which is not considered a “particular Church”, at least from the Catholic view due to the very issues of valid succession and Eucharist.

Yes, I know (from a Roman Catholic perspective, that is). Randy Carson claimed that the document he quoted from, the same document I quoted from, affirmed that you have to be in communion with Rome to be a true particular Church. But that is just not true, as that document shows.

What you need to be a true particular Church is to have valid succession and a valid Eucharist. Then we can discuss whether or not we have that. Note that pointing to a document from 1896 (which doesn’t mention any Lutherans at all), while ignoring the history after, is not a good argument.

But the main point I was making is that being in communion with Rome is not what makes, or doesn’t make, a Church a true particular Church.

 

[KjetilK]

We both agree that there is a Church on earth. However, if our two ‘traditions’ (churches really) teach opposing and confliction doctrines, then ONLY ONE of them can be teaching in accordance with God’s Absolute Truth (assuming that one actually is). Therefore, the church which is NOT teaching the doctrines of Christianity correctly is NOT the Church that Christ established with the authority to teach.

Perhaps, on things concerning faith or morals, that is. But that has nothing to do with Lutheranism as such.

The existence of Orthodox communions NOT in communion with Rome does NOT justify the Protestant communions which are not.

Which I haven’t said either. I have said that there exists different ecclesial traditions, and the important differences is not between different traditions, or within different tradition, but between particular Churches.

All of Protestantism follows Luther’s radical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and the Orthodox do not. As a result, the Orthodox are nowhere near as fractured as Protestantism. It is all a matter of degree or magnitude. From a Catholic perspective, the errors of the Orthodox, primarily in abandoning communion with Rome, is NOWHERE near the errors of Protestantism, which by the way, keep expanding exponentially, with even belief in God suffering. Remember, 22% in Norway, a statistic which is very revealing.

I have no idea how that can be construed as an answer to the point I was making. And you say that “the errors of the Orthodox, primarily in abandoning communion with Rome, is NOWHERE near the errors of Protestantism.” What, then, of the many Orthodox who do not accept the validity of your baptism?

Isn’t the Church of Norway basically an agency of the state, and funded by the state? How much more ‘connected’ could they get?

We are no longer a state Church. We are (partly) financed by the state, but so is every other religious organisation (and quite a few non-religious ones, like the Humanist Society), including the Roman Catholic Church.

Not at all Father. I produced statistics which support my argument and have seen nothing of the kind in support of yours. I am backing my arguments with specifics, and you are not.

No, you are basing your ‘facts’ on things you think you know about my country.

The fact remains that only 22% of people in Norway believe in God, and the vast majority of people in Norway consider themselves to be Lutheran.

I fail to see the significance. These people aren’t bishops and priest. And these are not the people who are part of the pastoral and ecclesial councils of the Church.

And the point of pointing to France and Italy is that in these countries, an average of 55% of men and 32% (34%) women say they have cheated at least once. I’m pretty sure most of these are Roman Catholics. So does that prove that the Roman Catholic Church is to blame? And I have heard may times that in France and Italy is is culturally accepted for men in high places to have a mistress. Is that also the fault of the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12861792]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?

I would disagree that this is the core disagreement, though it is part of it. I think the disagreement is foundationally universal jurisdiction, which they have discussed, though not yet in depth. It is, in my view, the single most important point of division in all of the Church Militant. Speaking speculatively, since I can’t know for sure their reasoning, they may be trying to deal with other items, in effect clearing the way for this important one.

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.

I was speaking of you polemic that that Lutherans would not abandon the charge against the papacy, even if we came to agreement on it. Your disagreement, however, is with your leadership, and I’m not sure we can question their goals beyond what they have said.

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.

Just as you should expect Lutherans to reject the innovative claims of the papacy that spawned not only the charge, but also in large measure the great schism 500 years before.
That said, your statement here seems quite different than your claim to seek unity. Certainly your approach to dialogue makes one wonder what YOUR goals are.

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.

So, which is it you want? True unity or the dancing. You’ll get the dancing for liberal Lutherans. That said, I have been critical of the LCMS for not signing on, and then issuing a clarification like the Catholic Church did. I find little in the JDDJ outside of Lutheran teaching.

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.

And you’re convinced that the Catholic Churchwould accept a stepping back from papal supremacy in a council? Really?

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.

But you want us to abandon a charge - not even a doctrine- as a prerequisite for dialogue.

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?

I didn’t mention to FoC, or Smalcald, or the Treatise. I only mentioned CA. And with a Capital C Catholic, I would be quite tempted.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Still,

Thanks for your response.

That topic could prove to be an interesting thread.

I agree. I think it would ‘flesh out’ for each Lutheran poster, just what it is, specifically and exactly, that makes ‘being a Lutheran’. Is it the Augsburg Confession, or is it the Confession plus all of the Formula of Concord? Would a Formula Lutheran be willing to renounce the Formula in order to come into communion with Rome?

That kind of a thread would have the potential to bring some clarity to these issues.

God Bless You Still, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Koin,

Thanks for your response.

Your specific quotes from Luther warrant looking further into. My skepticism of your claim was based on my knowledge that Luther and other Reformers did not throw out the necessity of church leadership and teaching; otherwise, they would have done away with the roles of pastors, elders, etc.

Further quotes would be helpful, as I would have to look into this more extensively. I would still maintain, however, that neither Luther nor any of his contemporaries would have ever espoused the idea that laypeople don’t need teachers and pastors to teach them the Scriptures. That is the idea I was denying.

I think that the struggle might be that the standard explanation about Luther’s teachings does not include his earlier teaching on the Right of the Individual to interpret. That is exactly what he taught until 1525 or so, when the Peasant’s War brought out to him the dangers associated with that radical teaching.

Sometimes I see this expressed by Lutherans as how Luther could not possibly have taught Private Interpretation - because - it is that PI which has caused so much doctrinal confusion, and of course, it can’t be a teaching of Luther, (or something like that).

For the first 7 years of so of Luther’s Reformation, he taught in opposition to the Catholic and modern day Lutheran teaching that it is the Church that determines doctrine. In effect, the Reformation was founded on Luther’s teaching about Private Interpretation, which by the way, modern Lutheranism repudiates.

Noted Protestant Scholar R. C. Sproul on the subject:

R. C. Sproul : “Two of the great legacies of the Reformation were the principal of private interpretation and the translation of the Bible into the vernacular. The two principals go hand in hand and were accomplished only after great controversy and persecution. Scores of persons paid with their lives by being burned at the stake (particularly in England) for daring to translate the bible into the vernacular. One of Luther’s greatest achievements was a translation of the Bible into German so that any literate person could read it for himself.

It was Luther himself who brought the issue of private interpretation of the Bible into sharp focus in the sixteenth century. Hidden beneath the famous response of the Reformer to the ecclesiastical and imperial authorities at the Diet of Worms was the implicit principal of private interpretation……When asked to recant of his writings, Luther replied, “Unless I am convinced by Sacred Scripture or by evident reason, I cannot recant. For my conscience is held captive by the Word of God and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me.” Notice that Luther said “unless I am convinced…….” In earlier debates at Leipzig and Augsburg, Luther had dared to presume to interpret Scripture contrary to interpretations rendered by Popes and by church councils. **That he would be so presumptuous led to the repeated charge of arrogance by church officials. **Luther did not take these charges lightly but agonized over them. He believed that he could be wrong but maintained that the Pope and councils could also err. For him only one source of truth was free from error. He said, “The Scriptures never err.” **Thus, unless the leaders of the church could convince him of his error, he felt duty-bound to follow what his own conscience was convinced Scripture taught. With this controversy the principal of private interpretation was born and baptized with fire.” **R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, pg. 33-4

It wasn’t until 1525 that Luther realized that Luther Sola Scripture plus Private Interpreation, for everybody, (SS+PI) was a really, really bad idea. He hadn’t listened to the (much better Catholic) Theologians who had been warning him of exactly this problem for 7 years (since the Leipzig Debate). As McGrath puts it, Luther tried to “tried to rein in the movement by emphasizing the importance of authorized religious leaders, such as himself, and institutions in the interpretation of the Bible”. No longer was he teaching that everyone could use THEIR personal Private Interpretation to understand the Scriptures.

The ‘model of authority’ that was used to found the Reformation was founded was wrong, as Luther basically admitted, although not until it was too late. The ‘radicals’ and the Anabaptists had already used his principles to forge their own path, a path that was unacceptable to the Reformer.

The question then turns to what Luther did after 1525 when it finally became apparent, even to him, that SS+PI for everyone was not going to work out very well in the real world.

“Since Luther and his opponents both appealed to the authority of Scripture but reached different conclusions about its meaning, Luther found it expedient to supplement his theological arguments with appeals to personal authority as the one whom God had used to initiate the Reformation.” (Lutheran Professor) Mark U. Edwards, “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”, pg. 200

Gradually Luther ‘switched’ from Private Interpretation for everyone, to Interpretation as according to Martin Luther. Anyone who disagreed and refused to be corrected was vilified, to say the very least.

If you would like to read documentation on any specific aspect of this issue, please let me know and I will see what I can do.

To be continued:

 

[Topper17]

In my case, after studying the RCC in depth and coming very close to joining (I was in RCIA but didn’t complete it), I would have to disagree. I believe that Rome is in error on the gospel, and according to Paul, ***nobody ***should be accepted–not even he, any of the apostles, or an angel from heaven–if he or she preaches another gospel (Gal. 1:8-9). However, whether Rome is preaching a false gospel or just a weakened gospel is something I’m still unsure of. Trent’s comments on meritorious works, I must admit, tend to push me toward the worse conclusion, unfortunately

.
OK, so where does it say in the Bible that Paul was speaking about Lutheran doctrine being accepted and Catholic doctrine being rejected? Couldn’t the Church have made use of the same passage against Lutheran teachings, and with FAR MORE historical justification?

Well, I was referring to the unwillingness to jettison crucial beliefs, not about being willing or unwilling to attend an ecumenical council.

Ok, so what is the point of attending an Ecumenical Council UNLESS you are willing to abide by the doctrinal decisions reached?

But more to the point: I would welcome the idea of the LCMS attending a truly ecumenical council. I am very skeptical, however, of what such a council would accomplish. Even the church that is closest to the RCC–the EOC–has not been willing to jettison the things that divide them from the RCC, if I understand the situation right.

Ok, do you believe that the LCMS would ever attend a Council in which they would agree, beforehand, that they would alter their doctrinal teachings to be in accord with the decisions of the Council?

My understanding is that you are right, that there have been “all Orthodox” Councils that have made decisions trying to unite them doctrinally, but that when the various communions ‘go back home’, they have reneged on their agreement to abide by the decisions of the whole. Fracturing Christianity is SO MUCH easier than reuniting it once it has been fractured.

As ridiculous as it might sound to Lutherans, I personally believe that they should all attend an “All Lutheran Ecumenical Council” and unite around a common set of doctrines. If that is not plausible, then how much less the possibility of any Lutheran body coming into official communion with Rome?

God Bless You Koin, Topper

 

[JonNC]

.

As ridiculous as it might sound to Lutherans, I personally believe that they should all attend an “All Lutheran Ecumenical Council” and unite around a common set of doctrines. If that is not plausible, then how much less the possibility of any Lutheran body coming into official communion with Rome?

Hi Topper,
Did I miss the council between the Vatican and the Old Catholics, PNCC, etc.?
Some of the issues that separate the LCMS from liberal Lutheran synods are essentially the same as the ones that separate Catholics from Catholics. Women’s ordination, for example.

But more importantly, how does this advance the progress in ecumenism that you have been complaining is missing?

Jon

 

[Koineman]

.
OK, so where does it say in the Bible that Paul was speaking about Lutheran doctrine being accepted and Catholic doctrine being rejected?

I believe that sola fide is taught in Scripture. I also see evidence for the Catholic view there, too, which is why lately I have begun to wonder if both sides have it right but are focusing on the issue from different angles; that the issue of justification by faith is paradoxical and that, in some sense that transcends our ability to grasp intellectually, both Rome and Wittenberg are right. As I said in another post somewhere else, that will not satisfy the rationalists, but I am not afraid of paradox.

I’m not sure about all that; it’s a thought I’ve been tossing around in my head lately.

Couldn’t the Church have made use of the same passage against Lutheran teachings, and with FAR MORE historical justification?

Perhaps. But the concept of sola fide is not totally absent from the church fathers.

Ok, so what is the point of attending an Ecumenical Council UNLESS you are willing to abide by the doctrinal decisions reached?

That’s a fair question. If all the sides in the debate–Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and others–actually agreed on such a huge issue as justification, that would not be something easily written off. Do you realize what a historic, landmark occasion that would be? So that would be my reason for attending–to see if that actually would end up happening.

Ok, do you believe that the LCMS would ever attend a Council in which they would agree, beforehand, that they would alter their doctrinal teachings to be in accord with the decisions of the Council?

I don’t know for sure. It’s difficult to speak for them. I doubt it.

My understanding is that you are right, that there have been “all Orthodox” Councils that have made decisions trying to unite them doctrinally, but that when the various communions ‘go back home’, they have reneged on their agreement to abide by the decisions of the whole. Fracturing Christianity is SO MUCH easier than reuniting it once it has been fractured.

As ridiculous as it might sound to Lutherans, I personally believe that they should all attend an “All Lutheran Ecumenical Council” and unite around a common set of doctrines. If that is not plausible, then how much less the possibility of any Lutheran body coming into official communion with Rome?

God Bless You Koin, Topper

I agree. The things that separate the LCMS from, say, the ELCA are just as powerful barriers as those that exist between us and the RCC. Unity is indeed extremely difficult–hence my comment above about the difficulty in NOT accepting an ecumenical decision if ALL the churches involved actually agreed on a huge issue. It would be like a miracle that you just can’t write off.

 

[commenter]

Hi Topper,
Did I miss the council between the Vatican and the Old Catholics, PNCC, etc.?

Huffington Post did a respectful summary. The Lifetime Channel focused on aspects of reverence.

Some of the issues that separate the LCMS from liberal Lutheran synods are essentially the same as the ones that separate Catholics from Catholics. Women’s ordination, for example.
Jon

The different Lutheran synods are “equal”. There is no Magisterium, just individuals. I know there are Confessions and Book of Concord, and other authoritative documents, but they are interpreted, or granted weight in importance, by groups of people. A group could start up tomorrow, add new authoritative documents, and claim to be Lutheran. Who says they are not?

Yes, there are new denominations started each year, with the word Catholic. And yes, there are people within the Church who disagree with the Magisterium,* and with each *other. None of this alters the fact that there is a Magisterium, which Catholics and non Catholics can easily identify.

The Old Catholics and PNCC are simply latter day Protestants, in spite of their sacraments. Protestants vary among themselves over how many Ecumenical Councils they accept as authentic, and over how late the Catholic hierarchy was still accurate in doctrine. So too the Old Catholics and PNCC. Some Old Catholic groups are getting more liberal - in other words, pushing back the date when the RC became unreliable. If there had been a council with Rome 20 years ago, it would be irrelevant by now, since they keep morphing and diverging.

It is a different process in Lutheranism. I, and you, regard the LCMS as closer to historic Christianity than ELCA. But I’m sure ELCA has found a quote from the Bible, Luther, or historic documents to back up every heretical comma and semicolon. And this is even without - yet - adding any of the new NT books, which their slightly more liberal peers are doing now.

It’s not Catholics separating from Catholics that is relevant here, it’s the fact that some Catholics are separating from the Magisterium; always have been, more in one decade, less in another. But the Magisterium isn’t going anywhere. The Magisterium is like an on/off switch. You may or may not like it, but we all agree about what position it is in. Lutheranism is different.

 

[KathleenGee]

God is the Author of communion.

What are we looking at that is separating us? Men?