Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[Randy_Carson]

For me, at least, the lightbulb has gone on - we are much closer to unity than I once thought. The ‘stumbling blocks’ that do exist, while still significant, eventually may be overcome with humility from both sides.

Yes, as I have said elsewhere, I have done a complete 180 on this after reading:

lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/From%20Conflict%20to%20Communion.pdf

 

[Per_Crucem]

the Words of Scripture specifically the Words of Christ that he would lead his Church to all truth, and that he would be with his Church, protecting it from error on faith and morals until the end of time.

Why should I accept your interpretation of those passages you just alluded to as anything other than your personal opinion?

If you can not confidently say the Church is infallible than the 73 book bible (good for you) that you have may or or may not be the Written Word of God. You really wouldn’t know.

Sure I do. My confidence that it is the word of God rests on more than ecclesial authority. I am not saying that is not part of it, but it’s not all of it.

Regarding the LCMS Presidents…as an analogy, can you imagine the world-wide uproar if the Pope said the bible was other than 73 books, in contradiction to the Catholic Catechism?

Which Pope? Gregory? Cause he did say that Just joshing

Multiple LCMS Presidents are seeding confusion amongst their flock including my LCMS relatives. Adding 2 Maccabees and the praying for the dead is more than they can take.

Actually, it doesn’t have anything to do with praying for the dead. Seeing as how the LCMS has several liturgies where the dead are prayed for.

But your Christendom comment is relevant. Who to believe, 1.4B Catholics & Orthodox from year 400ad or reformers 1,100 years later acting on an unknown authority, removed from the apostolic faith?

We didn’t. All of the early Lutheran reformers held that the deuterocanon was Scripture. You’re arguing against a position we don’t hold to. We’re not Presbyterians.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Would Jesus Christ lead his Church in error for 1,100 years? Is that what he meant when he said he’d send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church to all Truth??

We don’t say that He did. There was a small hiccup in the late 15th, early 16th century. But the Lutheran Reformation corrected it. God is faithful

 

[Porknpie]

Again, the comparison of a President to the Pope doesn’t compute to Lutherans. Lutherans don’t (nay, cannot!) vest that sort of power in one, sinful man. If the Pope declared the canon to be something other than the 73 books acknowledged by the Roman communion, it would likely be a difficult time for Roman Catholics. The Lutheran understanding of ‘canon,’ however, permits a level of variation, just as the Roman Catholic church allowed prior to Trent (see Jerome, Cajetan, Erasmus, etc.).

The comparison to the Pope was an analogy. I just don’t understand why LCMS Presidents keep saying definitively that the bible has 66 books. It confuses the Milwaukee area relatives but… I like that it could be 73. Reason prevails. Trent only declared an anathema to what had been held for 1,100 years: 73 books. Jerome questioned and deferred to the OHCAC.

You raise a strong point; there is something to be said of the large consensus on these books. And for this reason, I consider the Apocrypha extremely useful for teaching and putting perspective on the faith. But I keep in mind that these books were considered disputed since the beginning. They weren’t suddenly put up for discussion in the 1500’s.

Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage all said 73. Florence many years later too… If you would have gone back to 400 ad and said only 66 were inspired and inerrant, they would have been like (where is a PRMerger video when u need one??). And if you would have told them all you needed was the bible, that is was the sole rule of faith…they would have been like

Your premise that it was the Reformers who first disputed the disputed books is flat wrong, but pretending it were correct? Good thing Lutherans don’t define a canon.

Great. Then you are at least open to 2 Maccabees when they are praying for the dead and that the Catholic position may be correct!

PnP

 

[Porknpie]

That’s fairly ambiguous, given the infallible authority of the Roman magisterium exercised at Trent. Do you condemn and anathematise the Orthodox churches for holding extra books as canonical and inspired?

No I don’t. I’m admittedly not clear on what Trent pronounced on the possibility of additional books being scripture (either the additional Orthodox or if another say Pauline writing was found).

Novo,

I’m open here to instruction & correction as I’ve read both arguments (canon definitely closed or not) and still don’t know what to believe.

PnP

 

[Per_Crucem]

Great. Then you are at least open to 2 Maccabees when they are praying for the dead and that the Catholic position may be correct!

PnP

It has little to do with the Catholic position, if by that you mean purgatory. The Orthodox pray for the dead and they don’t believe in purgatory. The early Lutherans prayed for the dead and they didn’t believe in purgatory.

 

[Porknpie]

The early Lutherans prayed for the dead and they didn’t believe in purgatory.

Per Crucem -

Can you reference this for me from the confessions? I’d like to share it with my relatives. None of them pray for the dead. Never. Ever.

Why did early Lutherans pray for the dead?

This is new to me.

:newidea:

…back later…got to go rake leaves.

PnP

 

[Novocastrian]

Strawman

I’m not sure that it is. Why wouldn’t Ignatius, whose ecclesiology virtually compels him to address the bishops of other churches by name, name the Vicar of Christ presiding over the mater et caput ecclesiae? Surely the bishop of Antioch, a Petrine See, would know his brother bishop at Rome? We know that Ignatius does not name a bishop, so why? Is he ignorant of the particular bishop whose see is at Rome, or does he know of no bishop at all? Either way, it’s a legitimate historical question, not a strawman.

Another strawman. Cyprian is talking about those outside of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. This quote has nothing to do with the papacy.

And yet you would have us believe that to be a member of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, we must be in communion with, and subjection to, the Roman Pontiff. How then can the quote, even if not mentioning the bishop of Rome, be nothing to do with the Papacy? Either it is relevant, or you admit that Cyprian’s ecclesiology is not the same as your own.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Poco hombre:

Quote:
Interesting Ignatius mentions by name some of those bishops of those cities he wrote too but zero mention of any bishops in Rome by name.( a catholic who did not know his head bishop ?)

Ignatius wrote his letters while imprisoned on a journey to Rome for trial and subsequent execution.

Just because he made no mention of the Bishop of Rome means nothing at all. He wrote about issues affecting the people he passed.

At some point on his journey he stopped writing, was not allowed to write or his writings have been lost to history.

 

[Novocastrian]

Ignatius wrote his letters while imprisoned on a journey to Rome for trial and subsequent execution.

Just because he made no mention of the Bishop of Rome means nothing at all. He wrote about issues affecting the people he passed.

At some point on his journey he stopped writing, was not allowed to write or his writings have been lost to history.

I agree that we shouldn’t absolutely infer something from it. Absence of evidence for a Roman bishop in Ignatius’s writings is not evidence of that bishop’s absence! But that’s not to say that we shouldn’t ask questions about that absence.

If we accept (or find plausible) certain studies which suggest that the Church at Rome, spread across the largest city in the ancient world (being multi-lingual and multi-ethnic, and in all probability highly socially stratified, with all the problems and divisions which can result from that), was more likely a collection of house-churches run by groups of presbyters in the first century, then perhaps we ought to see Ignatius’s failure to mention a Roman bishop as more significant.

My own position is somewhere between the traditional Catholic view and the above. I’m not convinced that there was a Roman bishop after the same monarchical fashion that we find in Ignatius’s Syria and Polycarp’s Asia; on the other hand, it seems unlikely that any group of presbyters would be utterly devoid of leadership. It seems more likely to me that a slightly looser and more ‘collegiate’ (oh how I hate that term! but I can’t think of a better one right now) episkope might have been exercised by one (?) of the presbyters among his brothers.

 

[SteveVH]

It has little to do with the Catholic position, if by that you mean purgatory. The Orthodox pray for the dead and they don’t believe in purgatory. The early Lutherans prayed for the dead and they didn’t believe in purgatory.

If those for whom the Lutherans prayed were not in purgatory then what was the purpose of their prayers? No prayers can loose one from hell and those in heaven have no need for our prayers. For what were they praying?

 

[Porknpie]

I’m not sure that it is. Why wouldn’t Ignatius, whose ecclesiology virtually compels him to address the bishops of other churches by name, name the Vicar of Christ presiding over the mater et caput ecclesiae? Surely the bishop of Antioch, a Petrine See, would know his brother bishop at Rome? We know that Ignatius does not name a bishop, so why? Is he ignorant of the particular bishop whose see is at Rome, or does he know of no bishop at all? Either way, it’s a legitimate historical question, not a strawman.

It’s a strawman to create a premise that he has to address someone by name in a letter. Then when he doesn’t, you tear it down.

And yet you would have us believe that to be a member of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, we must be in communion with, and subjection to, the Roman Pontiff. How then can the quote, even if not mentioning the bishop of Rome, be nothing to do with the Papacy?

You are arguing with the authority that Christ himself established on St. Peter…an office that has continued to this day. That’s a management issue.

Either it is relevant, or you admit that Cyprian’s ecclesiology is not the same as your own.

Reminds me of a protestant saying; “Which do you believe: the bible or the Catholic Church?”

 

[Porknpie]

If those for whom the Lutherans prayed were not in purgatory then what was the purpose of their prayers? No prayers can loose one from hell and those in heaven have no need for our prayers. For what were they praying?

Or who and why?

And where did they get that belief?

And how and why did that belief disappear??

 

[SteveVH]

Or who and why?

And where did they get that belief?

And how and why did that belief disappear??

Yep. Doesn’t make a lot of sense.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Or who and why?

And where did they get that belief?

And how and why did that belief disappear??

Interestingly, I believe the Orthodox hold to a belief in and practice prayer for the dead, but don’t necessarily believe in Purgatory.

 

[Peter_J]

That you believe that some men were indeed infallible.

To wit: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul.

 

[batman1973]

Reminds me of a protestant saying; “Which do you believe: the bible or the Catholic Church?”

I’ve never heard that as a Protestant saying.

 

[JonNC]

Per Crucem -

Can you reference this for me from the confessions? I’d like to share it with my relatives. None of them pray for the dead. Never. Ever.

Why did early Lutherans pray for the dead?

This is new to me.

:newidea:

…back later…got to go rake leaves.

PnP

From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

94] Now, as regards the adversaries’ citing the Fathers concerning the offering for the dead, we know that the ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not prohibit;

bookofconcord.org/defense_23_mass.php

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by SteveVH
If those for whom the Lutherans prayed were not in purgatory then what was the purpose of their prayers? No prayers can loose one from hell and those in heaven have no need for our prayers. For what were they praying?

Praying for the Heavenly Father to take our loved one into His loving arms.

Or who and why?

And where did they get that belief?

And how and why did that belief disappear??

The belief has not disappeared. Current day funeral services among Lutherans still offer prayers for the recently departed.
From the Lutheran Service Book:

“Give to Your whole Church in heaven and on earth Your light and Your peace…. Grant that all who have been nourished by the holy body and blood of Your Son may be raised to immortality and incorruption to be seated with Him at Your heavenly banquet.”

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

Praying for the Heavenly Father to take our loved one into His loving arms.

The belief has not disappeared. Current day funeral services among Lutherans still offer prayers for the recently departed.
From the Lutheran Service Book:

Jon

Jon thanks for the reference, I’ll take a look.

My dearly beloved sister-in-law passed away a few years ago at 48 yrs old after battling breast cancer for over 10 years. She was pretty darn near the healthiest person I know save…the use of the pill. It’s evil. Should not be used…the hormones I believe caused the cancer but who really knows for sure. I don’t remember any prayers for her per the above (although I said some) although I’m quite sure she is in heaven with no stops along the way.

PnP