GospelOfMatthew
New member
Well Catholicism and Orthodoxy have the True Presence, Lutheranism does not. That should be a factor in your decisions I would think.
God Bless
God Bless
- Status
I’ve been a here a long time. I’ve seen good Catholic after good Catholic complain about poor catechesis in the Catholic Church. I think the question answers itself, so I feel no need to ask it. I know the reason, and the article explains it: the influence of the Reformed in American Lutheranism.JonNC:
I read the link.
A very long link, and seemingly odd that’s such a long apology is needed to prove to Lutherans in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod that crucifixes are okay for Lutherans. If the use were so common why the need to defend it at such length?
You do not ask that though; you do not ask why is such a long explanation for the validity of a crucifix needed?
For those who are well catechized, no explanation is needed. It doesn’t change the fact that the use of the crucifix in Lutheranism is historic, common, and yes, regular.
A bit more:
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
You ought to know with full knowledge what you are leaving before you leave, right? Now that an interest has been sparked, seek the truth.
Go back to the scripture then on to the Early Church Fathers.
Be a seeker of truth rather than a chaser of emotions and attachments.
The Lutheran Church does not have valid sacraments according to the church you were baptized in. This should be a serious part of your considerations.
Last edited:
H
Hodos
Guest
I would be glad to discuss in private if you like. Feel free to PM me.
C
ChristMyLife
Guest
As a Catholic I find the idea that devout Lutherans are without Christ extremely disturbing.
Christ most certainly dwells with Lutherans.
Christ may not have a full Sacramental presence in Lutheran communities in the same way as Catholics, but he definitely has a mystical and even sanctifying presence among them, as well as the normal omnipresence of God.
Lutherans are our kinfolk in the family of Christ, and fellow subjects of King Jesus. It is wrong for other subjects to speak on behalf of the King as to how he interacts with his various realms.
We can infer from what we believe that he has a special relationship with us (in the Sacraments), but that doesn’t preclude him also having a relationship with others in various other manners.
I’d even go so far as to concede that the Lutheran Eucharist conveys a certain type of Sacramental grace. Not sacramental grace per se, but by virtue of the commemorating the Lord’s supper it may convey a certain sanctifying grace which resembles sacramental grace.
Last edited:
C
ChristMyLife
Guest
I agree that the same spiritual riches and superabundant grace which flows through the Mysteries contained in Catholicism and Orthodoxy is lacking in Protestantism, but I wouldn’t be so harsh on the Protestants.
There are many good Protestant Christians who live lives of grace and who are every bit as holy and Spirit-filled as many Catholics…
Some “devout Catholics” who don’t know how to love or embrace mercy will be surprised when they see various Protestants entering heaven before them.
There are many good Protestant Christians who live lives of grace and who are every bit as holy and Spirit-filled as many Catholics…
Some “devout Catholics” who don’t know how to love or embrace mercy will be surprised when they see various Protestants entering heaven before them.
Last edited:
C
ChristMyLife
Guest
I hope you’re not implying I’m a Universalist…
Here, how’s this:
I believe many of the most “devout” Catholics will be eternally damned.
Here, how’s this:
I believe many of the most “devout” Catholics will be eternally damned.
C
ChristMyLife
Guest
Okay…
And certainly an ecumenical softening of the stance on Protestants carries with it the danger of leading to religious indifferentism, lack of zeal in evangelizing, the heresy of universalism, and various other heresies.
But keep in mind an over hardening also carries with it the dangers of leading to religious bigotry, phariseeism, and spiritual pride, hatred, and anger.
And certainly an ecumenical softening of the stance on Protestants carries with it the danger of leading to religious indifferentism, lack of zeal in evangelizing, the heresy of universalism, and various other heresies.
But keep in mind an over hardening also carries with it the dangers of leading to religious bigotry, phariseeism, and spiritual pride, hatred, and anger.
C
ChristMyLife
Guest
It’s a tight rope to walk between mercy and justice, between pastoral necessity and Gospel truth.
Surely we’ll all fall many times to either being too harsh or overly soft… Only Jesus was always exactly perfect in everything.
As long as we recognize these things and do our best to both hold to orthodoxy and be merciful and charitable, that’s what matters most.
Although, I will say this.
I believe a charitable heretic has a better chance of entering heaven than a hateful orthodox, for “God desires mercy and not sacrifice.” I believe the Gospel parables about the righteous Samaritans illustrates this principle well.
Surely we’ll all fall many times to either being too harsh or overly soft… Only Jesus was always exactly perfect in everything.
As long as we recognize these things and do our best to both hold to orthodoxy and be merciful and charitable, that’s what matters most.
Although, I will say this.
I believe a charitable heretic has a better chance of entering heaven than a hateful orthodox, for “God desires mercy and not sacrifice.” I believe the Gospel parables about the righteous Samaritans illustrates this principle well.
Last edited:
C
ChristMyLife
Guest
I’m well acquainted with the Fathers… But something we’ve got to remember when we read them whether they be 4th or 14th century is that they lived in a VERY different world from us.
The Church has to constantly adapt its pastoral methods and disciplines to the situations around it. The Church must ever remain dynamic, always seeking to learn, develop the skills and the mission God has given her, and adapt.
Notice I don’t use the word “change.” The Church’s faith itself is immutable, but the way that faith is lived and practiced is very dynamic.
The Church has to constantly adapt its pastoral methods and disciplines to the situations around it. The Church must ever remain dynamic, always seeking to learn, develop the skills and the mission God has given her, and adapt.
Notice I don’t use the word “change.” The Church’s faith itself is immutable, but the way that faith is lived and practiced is very dynamic.
C
ChristMyLife
Guest
I’d tend to agree.
If he’s a formal/culpable heretic who spreads his heresies to others and shipwrecks their faith, even if he has heroic levels of charity his salvation is questionable at best.
But if he’s going around destroying others faith with heresies, I would doubt whether he was truly charitable.
If he’s a formal/culpable heretic who spreads his heresies to others and shipwrecks their faith, even if he has heroic levels of charity his salvation is questionable at best.
But if he’s going around destroying others faith with heresies, I would doubt whether he was truly charitable.
Last edited:
C
ChristMyLife
Guest
Something else I’ll say, in all my dealings with various Protestants in real life and on this forum, I’m not sure if I’ve ever met a single one who was a formal/culpable heretic.
I’ve seen MANY who are in material heresy, but usually out of confusion and ignorance, which is a sort of innocent doubt the way canon law spells it out.
I think formal, culpable heretics in Protestantism are fairly rare.
I’ve seen MANY who are in material heresy, but usually out of confusion and ignorance, which is a sort of innocent doubt the way canon law spells it out.
I think formal, culpable heretics in Protestantism are fairly rare.
C
ChristMyLife
Guest
That’s not the only difference…
Education, culture, arts, science, and tons more stuff.
21st century Americans have a VASTLY different worldview and live in a VASTLY different societal millieu than say an 8th century Spaniard, which is even more vastly different from say a 3rd century Alexandrian Greek.
Sure, the basic human condition remains. Sex and relationships, birth, life, growing and learning, eating, drinking, sleeping, working, having a family, clothes, entertainment, growing old, death.
But the mindsets and worldviews and particulars… Utterly different.
A Saint who evangelized 10,000 people in 10th century France, were he teleported to NYC today would be lucky if he was able to evangelize 2 people if he used the exact same methods and language. He would be forced to adapt to his surroundings to be efficacious.
Education, culture, arts, science, and tons more stuff.
21st century Americans have a VASTLY different worldview and live in a VASTLY different societal millieu than say an 8th century Spaniard, which is even more vastly different from say a 3rd century Alexandrian Greek.
Sure, the basic human condition remains. Sex and relationships, birth, life, growing and learning, eating, drinking, sleeping, working, having a family, clothes, entertainment, growing old, death.
But the mindsets and worldviews and particulars… Utterly different.
A Saint who evangelized 10,000 people in 10th century France, were he teleported to NYC today would be lucky if he was able to evangelize 2 people if he used the exact same methods and language. He would be forced to adapt to his surroundings to be efficacious.
Last edited:
C
ChristMyLife
Guest
Are you a canonical Catholic in good standing with the Church, and do you believe Vatican II was guided by the Holy Spirit?
A lot of what you’re saying sounds very rigid and kind of like you’re coming from an SSPX or traditionalist/sede background.
I’m not saying everything you said isn’t technically correct… But man.
I’ve seen two by fours less rigid than that comment.
The reason why I ask is because some of the things you wrote seem to contradict what the Church has taught since VII.
A lot of what you’re saying sounds very rigid and kind of like you’re coming from an SSPX or traditionalist/sede background.
I’m not saying everything you said isn’t technically correct… But man.
I’ve seen two by fours less rigid than that comment.
The reason why I ask is because some of the things you wrote seem to contradict what the Church has taught since VII.
Last edited:
Your post was very kind, and I find reflective of Catholic leaders of the recent time. The part that I included here reminds one of similar words by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who wrote to Bavarian Lutheran Bishop Johannes Hanselmann In 1993
“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.” [Briefwechsel von Landesbischof Johannes Hanselmann und Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger über das Communio-Schreiben der Römischen Glaubenskongregation, Una Sancta, 48 (1993): 348.]
C
ChristMyLife
Guest
A lot of traditionalists even in good standing with the Church I don’t think really understand what VII was about.
It had nothing to do with abandoning doctrine.
It was about relationship, a “pastoral council” as it’s been called.
I for one am grateful for VII. Had it not been for VII, neither I nor my wife would be Catholic today.
It had nothing to do with abandoning doctrine.
It was about relationship, a “pastoral council” as it’s been called.
I for one am grateful for VII. Had it not been for VII, neither I nor my wife would be Catholic today.
C
ChristMyLife
Guest
I don’t really care to label people as modernists, liberals, trads, whatever.
In my eyes, you either accept and embrace what the Church teaches today - especially the documents of VII, the Catholic Catechism, and the Code of Canon Law, seeing as how those are what are most germane to Catholics today.
Or
You dissent from Church teaching and essentially think you know better than the Church. (Whether you’re a “liberal” who wants women priests or a “trad” who thinks VII was heretical).
In my eyes, you either accept and embrace what the Church teaches today - especially the documents of VII, the Catholic Catechism, and the Code of Canon Law, seeing as how those are what are most germane to Catholics today.
Or
You dissent from Church teaching and essentially think you know better than the Church. (Whether you’re a “liberal” who wants women priests or a “trad” who thinks VII was heretical).
Last edited:
He is a wonderful and good Christian man.
- Status