Questions on the claims of Lutherans

[gcnuss]

This proclamation made by the Lutherans have opened the flood gates for evangelical’s to twist and pronounce all kinds of negativity towards the magesterium, which still goes on today.
Why do you have to attack the Catholic Church? Does not Truth stand alone? Truth serves no purpose to attack another’s doctrine or belief’s.

As a Lutheran in the 21st century, I see no reason to attack the Catholic Church. At the time of the Reformation, things were much different, including the Church’s use of (or encouragement of) secular authority to command loyalty to itself. Of course, one can point to examples of non-Catholics doing the same thing. One can hope that we have all learned the futility of doing so.

Can the Lutheran’s, Orthodox’s and protestantism stand on it’s own merit without ever having to attack the Roman Catholic Church?

Yes, at least from a Lutheran perspective. I’ll let others speak for themselves.

What is the bases or the fact for the Lutheran doctrine to possess such negative attacks on the Magesterium of the Catholic Church in the first place?

I think that the tenor of the times was such that moderation was not a common virtue. “If you don’t agree with me (us), you must be of the devil” or something like that seems to have driven much of the dialogue then. Does that excuse such attacks? Not at all, to me, But, I guess it made sense then.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

gcnuss;10952231]As a Lutheran in the 21st century, I see no reason to attack the Catholic Church.

21st century Lutheran? We have over 500 years of Character damage to the Catholic Magesterim not to mention her doctrines. We are now left with 500 years of damage control. I can appreciate the Lutherans of late making clarifications to such doctrines as “sola scriptura”. You Lutherans have a lot of making up to do among protestants and evangelicals who have taken your Sola Scriptura doctrine and wacked it to pieces.

At the time of the Reformation, things were much different, including the Church’s use of (or encouragement of) secular authority to command loyalty to itself.

That’s an understatement; The Roman Catholic Church was never influenced by secular powers until post-Nicea or Constantinople. It’s not until after the reformation Rome finally paves the way to be free from secular powers. The RCC debunked Communism with the "Immaculate Conception and she solidified her break from secular powers by pronouncing “infallibility” holding to divine authority.

One can argue that it was the Lutherans and protestants who kept to the aid of secular princes’s and Kings who were blood thirsty for church property and position. Luther was their excuse for self gain.

Of course, one can point to examples of non-Catholics doing the same thing. One can hope that we have all learned the futility of doing so.

No argument here; both sides did error during the political power struggles and used the Church. The difference here is that the Church was already recognized by secular powers, but some secular powers began to shift for change and claimed to be the head of their own Church’s, thus protestantism.

Yes, at least from a Lutheran perspective. I’ll let others speak for themselves.

The Lutheran document claiming the Pope to be the anti-christ, is that a document binding and believed by all Lutherans?

I think that the tenor of the times was such that moderation was not a common virtue. “If you don’t agree with me (us), you must be of the devil” or something like that seems to have driven much of the dialogue then. Does that excuse such attacks? Not at all, to me, But, I guess it made sense then.

Words stated by authority in those days went a long way among the populace. But to make a document for all to hold too? that attacks the integrity of the Pope’s and the Magesterium? A document can become binding which the believer holds too. Yet because these are man made they are subject to change.

 

[gcnuss]

The Lutheran document claiming the Pope to be the anti-christ, is that a document binding and believed by all Lutherans?

I do not consider it to be binding on Lutherans today. I would venture to say that my opinion is widely, although not unanimously, held by Lutherans. If it were a matter of immutable doctrine, I don’t know how any Lutherans would engage in ecumenical dialogue with Catholics.

Inasmuch as I did not live in the 16th century and experience the struggles of that time, I defer to those who did to express a contemporary opinion of the Papacy. For me, I have lived in a time when those serving as Bishop of Rome have been excellent spokesmen for our Lord and are worthy of admiration. I would never suggest that they could be the anti-Christ.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I do not consider it to be binding on Lutherans today. I would venture to say that my opinion is widely, although not unanimously, held by Lutherans. If it were a matter of immutable doctrine, I don’t know how any Lutherans would engage in ecumenical dialogue with Catholics.

Inasmuch as I did not live in the 16th century and experience the struggles of that time, I defer to those who did to express a contemporary opinion of the Papacy. For me, I have lived in a time when those serving as Bishop of Rome have been excellent spokesmen for our Lord and are worthy of admiration. I would never suggest that they could be the anti-Christ.

Thank you Pastor Gary; You are most gracious You know how we Catholic’s can be when it comes to the difference between a document and a dogma. A document supports a dogma but the dogma is binding upon all believers. I was hoping for a clarification along those lines on the Lutheran document in question.

Thank you so much for your time Pastor:thumbsup:

 

[pablope]

Oh, yes. I have been home for about 4 weeks, going to rehab 3 times a week, and working on my recovery at home. Thanks for asking. My CAF “family” has been such a blessing during this time.

But are you wheelchair bound in the meantime? I do hope you get better as the school year is just around the corner…

Analogy: last year I was one of a team of four 5th grade teachers. One of us has particularly good skills at reading instruction. She’s our go-to colleague for reading instruction and ideas. She has a primacy among us that we recognize, even though that primacy is not one of special authority.

 

[gcnuss]

Thank you Pastor Gary; You are most gracious You know how we Catholic’s can be when it comes to the difference between a document and a dogma. A document supports a dogma but the dogma is binding upon all believers. I was hoping for a clarification along those lines on the Lutheran document in question.

Gabriel,

Thank you for your kind words. It is a privilege and a pleasure to engage in discussions of faith and belief with my Catholic brothers and sisters. The more we understand about each other, the closer we come, God willing, to reunion.

I should have mentioned that the one document Lutherans are expected to subscribe to is the Augsburg Confession. There is no mention of the anti-Christ in that document. We also stress the teachings in Luther’s Small Catechism – no anti-Christ there either.

I am saddened that, for most of five centuries, there has been a tendency to look for the bad in each other’s traditions and teachings to the exclusion of sharing those things that are good.

 

[benjohnson]

The Lutheran document claiming the Pope to be the anti-christ, is that a document binding and believed by all Lutherans?

Our church holds to the confessions and the Book of Concord - but it’s the office that is against Christ, and then only if the office is administered per the warnings in scripture.

That said, we were happy to pray for Pope Francis in our intentions after his election, and of course he’d be welcome in our church and shown as much hospitality as we could. Even my staunch pastor has no qualm calling John Paul II a Saint. To me as well, it seems clear.

While it may seem contradictory, I see no problem and have humbly prayed for all men holding the Papal office in my lifetime.

 

[SteveVH]

It is an inference that the keys, since St. Peter received them initially, that they were given only to him. There is no reason to make that inference, scripturally or via Tradition. The keys were intended for the Church, the entire Church.

Again, there is no reason to infer that only St. Peter, whether it be at Rome or at Antioch, controls the “doors”. The lutheran confessions contend that while Peter received the keys for the Church, all of the Church has them. Our communion is not alone in that perception.

Jon

Or is it an inference that the keys were given to the whole Church, even to those who broke away form the original Church. How can that possibly be? How can two, or three, or thirty thousand different faith traditions all claim the keys to the kingdom?

Jesus gave much authority to all of the Apostles. The authority to bind and loose and to forgive sin, for instance. But he only gave the keys to Peter. That is not an inference, that is how the Scripture reads. That it means something beyond or different than the literal sense is an inference, is it not?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Many Lutherans seek counsel and guidance from Francis. We pray for the Pope, our presiding and synod bishops.

 

[KrazyKat]

Many Lutherans seek counsel and guidance from Francis. We pray for the Pope, our presiding and synod bishops.

God loves us all!! He alone knows our heart. “Alone with God, united with all,”