Question for Lutherans

[steido01]

I thank God the office continues despite the sins of those in the office or Church, I thought that was the same in the Lutheran Church. The Pastor can be sinful as can be but the Sacraments he presides over remain valid if properly ordained.

I will state we are a sinful lot we Catholics, and I openly admit it. We say therefore by the grace of God we exist.

Mary.

You’re correct that Lutherans, like our Catholic siblings, are not Donatists (in fact, our Confessions explicitly reject Donatism). I’m not talking about sin. I’m responding to mattp0625’s statement that the Catholic Church’s leadership has never experienced a hostile takeover. That’s just false. Heck, we’ve even seen a living pope put a dead pope’s skeletal body on trial!

 

[JonNC]

I thank God the office continues despite the sins of those in the office or Church, I thought that was the same in the Lutheran Church. The Pastor can be sinful as can be but the Sacraments he presides over remain valid if properly ordained.

I will state we are a sinful lot we Catholics, and I openly admit it. We say therefore by the grace of God we exist.

Mary.

It is indeed the same.

Catholics have no corner on being a sinful lot. I just transferred membership from one sinful lot to another. "If we confess our sins, He is faith and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. ".

Thanks be to God

Jon

 

[steido01]

I am not expert on things Nordic, hence I speak tentatively. But, if, as I seem to be seeing here, there remained validly consecrated RC bishops in the Church of Sweden, who continued in their offices, and ordained/consecrated, as valid bishops do, that’s the succession. Subject to the idea of correction, of course.

Liciety is another issue.

England, Scandinavia… white people, funny shoes, silly hats, castles, boats – is the difference all that noticeable?

 

[MaryT777]

It is indeed the same.

Catholics have no corner on being a sinful lot. I just transferred membership from one sinful lot to another. "If we confess our sins, He is faith and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. ".

Thanks be to God

Jon

God’s blessings to you…
Mary.

 

[mattp0625]

I am not expert on things Nordic, hence I speak tentatively. But, if, as I seem to be seeing here, there remained validly consecrated RC bishops in the Church of Sweden, who continued in their offices, and ordained/consecrated, as valid bishops do, that’s the succession. Subject to the idea of correction, of course.

Liciety is another issue.

I’m glad to see proof that Catholic bishops remained, despite the exile of the archbishop, and converted to Lutheranism

 

[GKC]

England, Scandinavia… white people, funny shoes, silly hats, castles, boats – is the difference all that noticeable?

Lutefisk

 

[Duane1966]

This is the next paragraph.

59.** Luther had no intention of establishing a new church, **

The part in bold we know not to be true.

From this website: shamelesspopery.com/did-luther-want-to-start-his-own-church/

The one thing that Winsted and Circk, and virtually all Protestant authors, agree upon is that Luther didn’t want to break away from the Catholic Church.

What’s meant by this, exactly? Again,** I’m not sure that the people who make this claim have given it a lot of thought. In any case, by almost any reasonable standard, this claim is totally false**. The late historian Eugene F. Rice, Jr., in his book The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460-1559, explained why the Reformation was never really a reform movement, at heart:*

The leaders of the Protestant Reformation, too, were sensitive to ecclesiastical abuses and wished to reform them. Yet the reform of abuses was not their fundamental concern. The attempt to reform an institution, after all, suggests that its abuses are temporary blemishes on a body fundamentally sound and beautiful. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin did not believe this.**

They attacked the corruption of the Renaissance papacy, but their aim was not merely to reform it; they identified the pope with Antichrist and wished to abolish the papacy altogether. They did not limit their attack on the sacrament of penance to the abuse of indulgences. They plucked out the sacrament itself root and branch because they believed it to have no scriptural foundation. They did not wish simply to reform monasticism; they saw the institution itself as a perversion. The Reformation was a passionate debate on the proper conditions of salvation. It concerned the very foundations of faith and doctrine. Protestants reproached the clergy not so much for living badly as for believing badly, for teaching false and dangerous things. Luther attacked not the corruption of institutions but what he believed to be the corruption of faith itself. The Protestant Reformation was not strictly a “reformation” at all. In the intention of its leaders it was a restoration of biblical Christianity.** In practice it was a revolution, a full-scale attack on the traditional doctrines and sacramental structure of the Roman Church.** It could say with Christ, “I came not to send peace, but a sword.”** In its relation to the Church as it existed in the second decade of the sixteenth century, it came not to reform but to destroy.**

If the core issue was simply that many Catholic clerics weren’t living according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, Luther could have been a reformer. There were countless who had gone before him who worked to clean up the Church, and several of these men were canonized.

But that wasn’t what the Reformation was about:** Luther wasn’t trying to get Catholics to live up to Catholic teachings as much as he was denying Catholic teachings,** and the foundations upon which they were built. Put simply, the Reformation was primarily about faith, not works.

Bear in mind, it’s not just modern historians who deny the whole narrative that Luther was a devout Catholic who got pushed out of the Church by the pope for asking too many questions or trying to clean things up. Luther’s own account explains his schism was due to his rejection of both the teaching authority and the teachings of the Catholic Church:**

The chief cause that I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the Church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority; for he said, although Christ be the head of the Church, yet, notwithstanding, there must be a corporal head of the Church upon earth. With this I could have been content, had he but taught the gospel pure and clear, and not introduced human inventions and lies in its stead.

Further, he took upon him power, rule, and authority over the Christian Church, and over the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God; no man must presume to expound the Scriptures, but only he, and according to his ridiculous conceits; so that he made himself lord over the Church, proclaiming her at the same time a powerful mother, and empress over the Scriptures, to which we must yield and be obedient; this was not to be endured. They who, against God’s Word, boast of the Church’s authority, are mere idiots. The pope attributes more power to the Church, which is begotten and born, than to the Word, which has begotten, conceived, and born the Church.

**By his own account, then, Luther left the Church because the Church has a pope, and the pope isn’t a Lutheran. **

Look at the part in bold Jon from Luther’s quote. He is saying the papacy was fine as long as the pope taught what Luther believed should be taught.

From Dave Armstrong:

The Protestant still cannot, however, adequately account for why so many doctrines changed, if in fact, the impulse for reformation had primarily to do with abuses-in-practice. All the corruption did not change Catholic dogma in any appreciable way, whereas the Protestant Revolt did; therefore it is reasonable to contend that it must contain some tradition-rejecting or novelty-creating element not present in the earlier forces and movements of the medieval era. Why, then, the massive doctrinal changes of the early Protestant movement?

 

[steido01]

Lutefisk

I smell corrected.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The part in bold we know not to be true.

From this website: shamelesspopery.com/did-luther-want-to-start-his-own-church/

Hello? Did you miss the part in From Conflict to Communion about historical research that is interdisciplinary and non-biased and theologians who are first and foremost at the service of research that is not driven by any desire to arrive at a predetermined conclusion?

It is not the adage that “Catholics (or Lutherans) need not apply” but it is that one engaged in this work must be utterly dispassionate, as befits a research academic, and willing to go where the fact trail leads…whatever the consequence and whatever the conclusion. Someone whose website is named “Shameless Popery” does not fit that category.

From Conflict to Communion

*18. **Research has contributed much to changing the perception of the past **in a number of ways. In the case of the Reformation, these include the Protestant as well as the Catholic accounts of church history, which have been able to correct previous confessional depictions of history through strict methodological guidelines and reflection on the conditions of their own points of view and presuppositions. On the Catholic side that applies especially to the newer research on Luther and Reformation and, on the Protestant side, to an altered picture of medieval theology and to a broader and more differentiated treatment of the late Middle Ages. In current depictions of the Reformation period, there is also new attention to a vast number of non-theological factors—political, economic, social, and cultural. The paradigm of “confessionalization” has made important corrections to previous historiography of the period.

1. The late Middle Ages are no longer seen as total darkness, as often portrayed by Protestants, nor are they perceived as entirely light, as in older Catholic depictions. This age appears today as a time of great oppositions—of external piety and deep interiority; of works-oriented theology in the sense of do ut des (“I give you so that you give me”) and conviction of one’s total dependence on the grace of God; of indifference toward religious obligations, even the obligations of office, and serious reforms, as in some of the monastic orders.
2. The church was anything but a monolithic entity; the corpus christianum encompassed very diverse theologies, lifestyles, and conceptions of the church. Historians say that the fifteenth century was an especially pious time in the church. During this period, more and more lay people received a good education and so were eager to hear better preaching and a theology that would help them to lead Christian lives. Luther picked up on such streams of theology and piety and developed them further.

/…/

1. In a new way, Luther was portrayed as an earnest religious person and conscientious man of prayer. Painstaking and detailed historical research has demonstrated that Catholic literature on Luther over the previous four centuries right up through modernity had been significantly shaped by the commentaries of Johannes Cochaleus, a contemporary opponent of Luther and advisor to Duke George of Saxony. Cochaleus had characterized Luther as an apostatized monk, a destroyer of Christendom, a corrupter of morals, and a heretic. The achievement of this first period of critical, but sympathetic, engagement with Luther’s character was the freeing of Catholic research from the one-sided approach of such polemical works on Luther. Sober historical analyses by other Catholic theologians showed that it was not the core concerns of the Reformation, such as the doctrine of justification, which led to the division of the church but, rather, Luther’s criticisms of the condition of the church at his time that sprang from these concerns.
2. The next step for Catholic research on Luther was to uncover analogous contents embedded in different theological thought structures and systems, carried out especially by a systematic comparison between the exemplary theologians of the two confessions, Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther. This work allowed theologians to understand Luther’s theology within its own framework. At the same time, Catholic research examined the meaning of the doctrine of justification within the Augsburg Confession. Here Luther’s reforming concerns could be set within the broader context of the composition of the Lutheran confessions, with the result that the intention of the Augsburg Confession could be seen as expressing fundamental reforming concerns as well as preserving the unity of the church.
3. These efforts led directly to the ecumenical project, begun in 1980 by Lutheran and Catholic theologians in Germany on the occasion of the 450th anniversary of the presentation of the Augsburg Confession, of a Catholic recognition of the Augsburg Confession. The extensive achievements of a later ecumenical working group of Protestant and Catholic theologians, tracing its roots back to this project of Catholic research on Luther, resulted in the study “The Condemnations of the Reformation Era: Do They Still Divide?” *

 

[Duane1966]

Hello? Did you miss the part in From Conflict to Communion about historical research that is interdisciplinary and non-biased and theologians who are first and foremost at the service of research that is not driven by any desire to arrive at a predetermined conclusion?

No, did not miss that part. You do realize that their are non-biased historians and theologians who are first and foremost at the service of research that is not driven by any desire to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, that have reached the conclusion that Luther did want to start a new Church?

It is not the adage that “Catholics (or Lutherans) need not apply” but it is that one engaged in this work must be utterly dispassionate, as befits a research academic, and willing to go where the fact trail leads…whatever the consequence and whatever the conclusion. Someone whose website is named “Shameless Popery” does not fit that category.

The part in bold I am amazed that you said. Just because someone is Catholic, and proud of it, does NOT mean they cannot be utterly dispassionate, as befits a research academic, and willing to go where the fact trail leads…whatever the consequence and whatever the conclusion.

Tell me, is it just possible those theologians in from Conflict to Communion reached a conclusion they wanted, even though the facts said something else? Perhaps they were not so non-biased as you believe.

If you must know, the person who runs that website is a Catholic priest ordained in the past year in Rome. He also went to seminary in Rome.

 

[JonNC]

The part in bold we know not to be true.

From this website: shamelesspopery.com/did-luther-want-to-start-his-own-church/

Look at the part in bold Jon from Luther’s quote. He is saying the papacy was fine as long as the pope taught what Luther believed should be taught.

From Dave Armstrong:

You realize I quoted a Vatican document.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

You realize I quoted a Vatican document.

Jon

I do realize that.

 

[JonNC]

I do realize that.

Okay

Jon

 

[Don_Ruggero]

No, did not miss that part. You do realize that their are non-biased historians and theologians who are first and foremost at the service of research that is not driven by any desire to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, that have reached the conclusion that Luther did want to start a new Church?

I would profess to having a more than fair familiarity with the range of literature on this topic.

I am a great advocate of academic freedom so that academics may write on wherever their research takes them…or, at least, where they think it takes them. They can put forth any thesis statement…they have to sustain it, however. That said, our writings come under the scrutiny and critique of our peers, who can assess the work that we have presented.

The part in bold I am amazed that you said. Just because someone is Catholic, and proud of it, does NOT mean they cannot be utterly dispassionate, as befits a research academic, and willing to go where the fact trail leads…whatever the consequence and whatever the conclusion.

Yes…one can be Catholic and dispassionate with the temperament for this sort of task. I am aware of that and you are not telling me something I don’t know. I should hope I am not unfamiliar with that reality.

Such is not, however, broadly the case from my experience. It requires a certain combination within a person to balance the various roles that, at times, may be in apparent conflict.

Students and even young academics whom I engaged in various out of classroom projects and opportunities, on the other hand, would not have been chosen for those opportunities if they had published under a title of the sort as the one cited.

Tell me, is it just possible those theologians in from Conflict to Communion reached a conclusion they wanted, even though the facts said something else? Perhaps they were not so non-biased as you believe.

No. actually, I do not happen to have that opinion of them at all. And a slight correction: they were not all theologians.

If you must know, the person who runs that website is a Catholic priest ordained in the past year in Rome. He also went to seminary in Rome.

I do know who he is.

You are not correct in what you assert. He is not a priest…yet. He is, however, a seminarian. He was installed in the stable ministry of acolyte with his American classmates earlier this year. He still has additional studies and then will be ordained as transitional deacon and then, please God, eventually priesthood according to the established timeline set by the American hierarchy for their seminarians who study in Rome.

In any event, my comment was not oriented to this particular individual in any way or sense but rather a general statement of how a title of that genre could be seen. If one wanted to be an academic and immersed in the field of ecumenism and international dialogue, for example, to which one is either invited or assigned, one would want to be conscious that there are styles and usages that would have a negative impact on that aspiration and how one could be perceived. That was the general point of my remark.

 

[Duane1966]

That said, our writings come under the scrutiny and critique of our peers, who can assess the work that we have presented.

Yup. I am aware of this and you are not telling me something I don’t know.

Yes…one can be Catholic and dispassionate with the temperament for this sort of task. I am aware of that and you are not telling me something I don’t know. I should hope I am not unfamiliar with that reality.

Such is not, however, broadly the case from my experience. It requires a certain combination within a person to balance the various roles that, at times, may be in apparent conflict.

Students and even young academics whom I engaged in various out of classroom projects and opportunities, on the other hand, would not have been chosen for those opportunities if they had published under a title of the sort as the one cited.

So, in other words, you looked for students in your mold to give them out of classroom projects and opportunities.

No. actually, I do not happen to have that opinion of them at all. And a slight correction: they were not all theologians.

Do not believe I ever used the word all. I simply asked about theologians that were part of that document.

In any event, my comment was not oriented to this particular individual in any way or sense but rather a general statement of how a title of that genre could be seen. If one wanted to be an academic and immersed in the field of ecumenism and international dialogue, for example, to which one is either invited or assigned, one would want to be conscious that there are styles and usages that would have a negative impact on that aspiration and how one could be perceived. That was the general point of my remark.

I realized you were making a general point, I just wanted to give you some background on the author.

In one instance you say that someone cannot fit the category, but then you admit that in rare instances they could.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

No, did not miss that part. You do realize that their are non-biased historians and theologians who are first and foremost at the service of research that is not driven by any desire to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, that have reached the conclusion that Luther did want to start a new Church?

The part in bold I am amazed that you said. Just because someone is Catholic, and proud of it, does NOT mean they cannot be utterly dispassionate, as befits a research academic, and willing to go where the fact trail leads…whatever the consequence and whatever the conclusion.

Tell me, is it just possible those theologians in from Conflict to Communion reached a conclusion they wanted, even though the facts said something else? Perhaps they were not so non-biased as you believe.

If you must know, the person who runs that website is a Catholic priest ordained in the past year in Rome. He also went to seminary in Rome.

Your quote states Luthers objections ,

1. Papal overreach
2. Preaching the gospel a mixed with error

What does that mean , it means he wanted those concerns to be addressed ( i.e. Reform )
Keep the faith , Starwars

 

[Picky_Picky]

Yup. I am aware of this and you are not telling me something I don’t know.

So, in other words, you looked for students in your mold to give them out of classroom projects and opportunities.

Do not believe I ever used the word all. I simply asked about theologians that were part of that document.

I realized you were making a general point, I just wanted to give you some background on the author.

In one instance you say that someone cannot fit the category, but then you admit that in rare instances they could.

I’m not very familiar with how Catholics address priests of their church, Duane, so I might well be wrong, but it occurs to me that you might perhaps be a little in danger of crossing the boundary of respect and politeness. In particular, the form “so in other words” often introduces an unfortunate misdescription, and I would guess that such is the case here.

 

[mattp0625]

I think you’re conflating the Great Schism of East-West to the Western Schism. You see, when multiple Popes are made by the same group of Cardinals at the same time, confusion ensues. Sometimes, the Catholic Church doesn’t even keep its house at the Vatican in the divorce. Or sometimes it does. Depends on who you ask. Odd thing, Papal history.

I did get my schisms mixed up, thank you.

However, the RCC did stay intact with the same church, office, dogma and doctrine.

It did not become something different.

I am not certain this is comparable to the situations in Sweden and Norway where the churches did change from Catholic to Lutheran.

With the east-west split, there was also a change in that they were no longer in communion with the pope as well as disagreement on certain doctrines.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I did get my schisms mixed up, thank you.

However, the RCC did stay intact with the same church, office, dogma and doctrine.

It did not become something different.

I am not certain this is comparable to the situations in Sweden and Norway where the churches did change from Catholic to Lutheran.

With the east-west split, there was also a change in office and disagreement on certain doctrine for the eastern churches that left.

Is it your argument, then, that changing from Catholic to Lutheran invalidates a church’s apostolic succession?

 

[mattp0625]

Is it your argument, then, that changing from Catholic to Lutheran invalidates a church’s apostolic succession?

It’s more about finding these bishops that converted to Lutheranism after the archbishop was exiled.

It’s also about the forcible changeover to a new church perpetrated by a king who made the church Lutheran by decree.

The combination of factors seems rather strange

The situation in Norway seems even stranger.