The "Ask a Lutheran" Thread!

[JonNC]

=joe370;6035177]Hey Jon…
We seem to be in agreement regarding the Eucharist!

Short of the minute details of Transub., we do.

Jon, wouldn’t you consider the the fact that the bible as the Christians only authority, via individual interpretation, has played a role in the fracture of Jesus’ Body, the church?

Sure I would, just as I believe that some of the actions of Rome, particularly since the Great Schism, has also played a part. Of course, as a Lutheran, I do not practice individual interpretation.

As I mentioned before: Regarding things such as the Eucharist (true presence vs a symbol) - Baptism (by water vs water baptism being unnecessary) - justification by faith alone (vs "faith without works is dead) - the blessed mother Mary’ perpetual virginity, (believed by Martin Luther) - etc. etc. - all Protestant churches defer to sacred scripture as their final authority for these things, yet come away with opposing truths, and there can only be one truth regarding these doctrines, or any doctrine for that matter. How can we know who is right and who is wrong? All these church leaders, speaking authoritatively, insist that their interpretation of Sacred Scripture is the correct one?

First, sola fide and “faith without works is dead” are not in opposition. How can we know who is right and wrong is the question I have been asking for quite a while. I am told that Rome and Orthodoxy teach basically the same thing, that they both have apostolic succession, and yet they are not in communion with each other. Which Tradition should be believed? Of all the patriarchs, do you want me to believe the one that stands alone, vs. all the others?

Not at all! Just because it conforms to sacred scripture does not mean that I believe that sacred scripture is my final authority vis-a-vis faith and morals.

Then are you willing to say that the Magisterium and pope can and possibly do contradict scripture?

The bible tells us that Jesus left us with a teaching church:

*“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
*

Agreed.

The Magisterium is this teaching office of the Church **in my humble opinion. **Authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether these traditions are written or oral, have been entrusted to the living, teaching office of Jesus’ Church, as per Jesus Christ. The magisters of the CC are servants to the word of God and teach only what has been handed on to it. Catholic teachers do not view themselves as being on a level with sacred scripture. However, If God is the author of Sacred Scripture and the divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down by the fledgling church leaders of Jesus’ established church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then surely under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, Jesus’ established church had/has the authority to interpret what was written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

The key phrase is bolded. I ask your question back: How do you know that Rome is that Church? How do you know it isn’t in Antioch, or Jerusalem? Or Wittenburg?

Surely the same applies to all of the Protestant churches as well? Until all of the protestant churches are on the same page regarding the interpretation of the bible, I cannot know which one is right, or where truth can be found? Surely the one stands in stark contrast to the other.

The problem with this argument is the false idea that Protestantism is or was some single Church, at one time united and now splintered. This is not the case. For example, Baptists generally come out of the anabaptist movement, condemned in the earliest Lutheran writings. If anything, most of the early noncatholic western Churches splintered directly from Rome, not from each other. IOW, virtually none of them splintered off of Lutheranism.

The CC and the EOC are truly united when it comes to belief with one exception, and that is because they both embrace Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

Regularly here at CAF, this appears not to be the case. There seem many differences.

By the time Jesus’ one church split, (thanks to the sin of fallible humans) - giving way to the CC and the EOC, matters of doctrine were settled.

And then unsettled since, because of what the Orthodox call Rome’s innovations.

Who should I believe?

Jon

 

[joe370]

The difference is that while you say we have subtracted things, we would say that Rome has added things that were not a part of the early church - a mandatory belief in the immaculate conception of Mary, a mandatory belief in the universal jurisdiction of the papacy, a mandatory belief in indulgences, etc.

Hey Jay, before we get to who added and who subtracted, let me ask you a question regarding the following:

Luther removed James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation from their normal places and relegated them to the end of the New Testament, as not being entitled to the same status as other biblical books. In his New Testament table of contents, he numbered books 1-23 and then placed the four rejected ones without numbers.

Was he wrong or right to diminish the value of these sacred writings?

Gabriel covered the IC issue. Where does the CC state that indulgences are mandatory? I have been a Catholic for a quite a while now and no one has ever made that claim. Regarding the mandatory belief in the universal jurisdiction of the church built by Jesus, The CC received its authority from its founder, Jesus Christ:

1. “You are Peter, (Kepha) - and upon this Rock (kepha) - I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, Mt 16:18. Jesus built his Church on solid rock. He will be the ‘cornerstone’ Psa 118:22 and Eph 2:20-22, the foundation (cornerstone) 1Cor 3:11, and the ‘rock’ 1Cor 10:4. The ‘Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it,’ means, He will defend it from within and from without, against all adversaries for all time.
2. The Apostles are the foundation with Jesus Christ as the “Chief cornerstone”, Eph 2:20. If there is a foundation (a beginning) - there must be a middle and an end to Jesus’ established church.
3. Jesus Christ gave a higher authority for disputes between persons, even when there are two or more witnesses. He told them to appeal to the Church in Mt 18:17, “But if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be as a heathen and the publican (a tax collector for the Roman Empire).” Here, Christ gave full authority to His Church.
4. Paul admonishes those who refuse to accept the authority given to the Church and warns what will happen to them if they refuse in Rom 13:1-2, “Let everyone be subject to the higher authorities…”
5. Jesus Christ Himself is the head of the Church He founded, the “Head of His Body”, Eph 1:22. That is about as authoritative as can be attained.
6. Jesus’ church is called the “House of the living GOD”, and the “Pillar of Truth”, “…how to conduct yourself in the House of GOD, which is the Church of the living GOD, the pillar and mainstay of the truth,” 1Tim 3:15.
7. Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.
8. GOD has said He will be with His Church forever, “I will never leave you, neither will I forsake you,” Heb 13:5. In Mt 28:20, Jesus said, “I am with you all days, even until the end of the world.” That means He will be with His Church every day in every century until the end of time. Which Church was His Church when these verses were uttered?

 

[Charlotte408]

The difference is that while you say we have subtracted things, we would say that Rome has added things that were not a part of the early church - a mandatory belief in the immaculate conception of Mary, a mandatory belief in the universal jurisdiction of the papacy, a mandatory belief in indulgences, etc.

But, if the Catholic church came first, wouldnt they have precedence? And the catholic church MUST have come first, because the first Lutheran, Martin Luther was a catholic.

And when you say ‘early church’ … I think of the couple of hundred of years or so before the bible was compiled, when the christians were working off of traditions, verbal, etc…

BUT- if all that was word of mouth, and not documented anywhere, and the first documentation of a set ‘ways’ we have is the bible…that the catholic church put together, than how could you have any evidence of them adding anything to it?

You know what I mean? I’m not having the most articulate moment here…

***pleeeease … if you have any compassion for my sanity keep your answers short and to the point…when people reply with posts that are an ENTIRE page long i just get lost and usually dont bother reading the rest…i know…its terrible…so please bear with me!

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon, I talked to my niece’s husband about the true presence in the Eucharist and he says that your church is misinformed. Is it stated anywhere in the Augsburg Confessions that the bread and wine truly become Jesus flesh and blood? If it did, he would have to believe, I would think.

We seem to be in agreement regarding the Eucharist!

Short of the minute details of Transub., we do.

The definition of transubstantiation: "the whole substance of the bread and the wine changes into the substance of the body and blood of Christ when consecrated in the Eucharist. Isn’t this what you believe?

Quote:
Jon, wouldn’t you consider the the fact that the bible as the Christians only authority, via individual interpretation, has played a role in the fracture of Jesus’ Body, the church?

Sure I would, just as I believe that some of the actions of Rome, particularly since the Great Schism, has also played a part.

Agreed! Could you give me some examples of these actions by Rome?

Of course, as a Lutheran, I do not practice individual interpretation.

Jon, who has the right to interpret sacred scripture, if not the individual?

Quote:
As I mentioned before: Regarding things such as the Eucharist (true presence vs a symbol) - Baptism (by water vs water baptism being unnecessary) - justification by faith alone (vs "faith without works is dead) - the blessed mother Mary’ perpetual virginity, (believed by Martin Luther) - etc. etc. - all Protestant churches defer to sacred scripture as their final authority for these things, yet come away with opposing truths, and there can only be one truth regarding these doctrines, or any doctrine for that matter. How can we know who is right and who is wrong? All these church leaders, speaking authoritatively, insist that their interpretation of Sacred Scripture is the correct one?

First, sola fide and “faith without works is dead” are not in opposition. How can we know who is right and wrong is the question I have been asking for quite a while. I am told that Rome and Orthodoxy teach basically the same thing, that they both have apostolic succession, and yet they are not in communion with each other. Which Tradition should be believed? Of all the patriarchs, do you want me to believe the one that stands alone, vs. all the others?

Regarding sola fida, I agree with you, but most Protestants don’t. Other than indulgences and the filique, the CC and the EOC do teach the same thing. If I am wrong please correct me. Both the EOC and the CC can trace their lineage all the way back to the Apostles, so yes, they both have apostolic succession, and yes, they are not in communion, yet. They have made tremendous strides in the last few decades, and I pray that they will once again reunite. Like you said, that would probably inspire quite a few people. Regarding the question: which Tradition should be believed, could you please cite the different traditions so I can make an informed decision?

Quote:
Not at all! Just because it conforms to sacred scripture does not mean that I believe that sacred scripture is my final authority vis-a-vis faith and morals.

Then are you willing to say that the Magisterium and pope can and possibly do contradict scripture?

If I believe that the teaching office of the CC is my final authority, then it would be kind of silly for me to say that the Magisterium and pope can and possibly do contradict scripture. If they do contradict the bible, could you please identify these contradictions?

Quote:
The bible tells us that Jesus left us with a teaching church:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Agreed.

Jon, can you give me the name of this teaching church that Jesus built circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, and let’s assume for the moment that it’s not the CC?

 

[joe370]

Continued…

Quote:
The Magisterium is this teaching office of the Church in my humble opinion. Authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether these traditions are written or oral, have been entrusted to the living, teaching office of Jesus’ Church, as per Jesus Christ. The magisters of the CC are servants to the word of God and teach only what has been handed on to it. Catholic teachers do not view themselves as being on a level with sacred scripture. However, If God is the author of Sacred Scripture and the divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down by the fledgling church leaders of Jesus’ established church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then surely under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, Jesus’ established church had/has the authority to interpret what was written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

The key phrase is bolded. I ask your question back: How do you know that Rome is that Church? How do you know it isn’t in Antioch, or Jerusalem? Or Wittenburg?

Agreed! It is just my humble opinion! That is a good question Jon. The term Catholic Church, as you know, means the Universal Church. Catholic coming from the Greek word katholikos, which means (according to the whole)- (general) or (universal). How are we in the 21st century to know which church was built by Jesus almost 2000 years ago? Perhaps the early church leadership can shed some light. Learning how the teachers of the early Church used the word catholic during the time in which the ancient creeds were written is crucial. In that way, I think, we will be able to better understand whether to interpret the creeds as meaning the “invisible Church of all believers” or “the divinely established and authoritative institutional Church established by Christ through his apostles.”

Let’s look at some of these examples:

St. Ignatius of Antioch, (disciple of John) - Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2, AD 107.

Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist, which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

St. Polycarp, The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 8:1, & 16:2, AD 156.

When at last he had finished his prayer, in which he remembered all who had met with him ant any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world. . .

And certainly the most admirable Polycarp was one of these [elect], in whose times among us he showed himself an apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.

Tertullian, Demurrer Against the Heretics, 20, AD 200.

Where was [the heretic] Marcian, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus [AD 138-161] for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus [AD 175-189], until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. . . . Afterward . . . Marcian professed repentance and agreed to the conditions granted to him – that he should receive reconciliation if he restored to the Church all the others whom he had been training for perdition; he was prevented, however, by death.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromaties 7:17:107:3, aft. AD 202.

From what has been said, then, it seems clear to me that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one; and in it are enrolled those who, in accord with a design, are just. . . . We say, therefore, that in substance, in concept, in origin and in eminence, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, gathering as it does into the unity of the one faith which results from the familiar covenants, - or rather, from the one covenant in different times, by the will of the one God and through the one Lord, - those already chosen, those predestined by God who knew before the foundation of the world that they would be just…*

 

[joe370]

Continued…

St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter of Cyprian to All His People 43 (40), 5, AD 251.

They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 18:23, AD 350.

[The Church] is called Catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness . . .

St. Augustine, The True Religion 7:12, AD 390.

We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. When heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. They will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name, which the whole world employs in her regard.

St. Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation’ 5:6, AD 397.

If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, “I do not believe”? Indeed, I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.

After Jesus’ ascension, the apostles dispersed to preach Christianity to the world. They each founded different churches which would eventually be called patriarchates. Some of the most prominent disciples of Jesus founded the patriarchates that made up the Pentarchy: Jerusalem - James, Antioch - Peter, Rome - Peter, Alexandria - Mark, Constantinople - Andrew. By the close of the 4th century the CC was officially organized into patriarchates. The CC’s of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem became official headquarters, and these were all identified as Catholic churches, as opposed to EOC’s. The Lutheran church in Lutherstadt Wittenberg, Germany was built in the 16th century and cannot trace her lineage all the way back to the apostles.

 

[IowaJay]

Hey Jay, before we get to who added and who subtracted, let me ask you a question regarding the following:

Luther removed James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation from their normal places and relegated them to the end of the New Testament, as not being entitled to the same status as other biblical books. In his New Testament table of contents, he numbered books 1-23 and then placed the four rejected ones without numbers.

Was he wrong or right to diminish the value of these sacred writings?

I agree he was wrong. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed on this issue. As others have stated, Lutherans do not follow everything Luther did.

Gabriel covered the IC issue.

Gabriel did not address my problem with IC. My problem is not with IC itself. My problem is that IC it has been declared by Rome as a dogma that all must believe in - that’s why I used the word “mandatory.” Luther himself and the Eastern Orthodox believe in the sinlessness of Mary. They just didn’t proclaim to to be universally binding on all the faithful. So, I agree that Rome did not “add” IC itself, they added the “mandatory” part.

Where does the CC state that indulgences are mandatory? I have been a Catholic for a quite a while now and no one has ever made that claim.

Note that I said that a belief in indulgences is mandatory, not that it is mandatory that everyone obtain an indulgence. Indulgences are mentioned in the CC - paragraph 1471. A Catholic is obligated to believe in all of the Catechism, including paragraph 1471, so as I said, before, a belief in indulgences is mandatory.

Regarding the mandatory belief in the universal jurisdiction of the church built by Jesus, The CC received its authority from its founder, Jesus Christ:

1. “You are Peter, (Kepha) - and upon this Rock (kepha) - I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, Mt 16:18. Jesus built his Church on solid rock. He will be the ‘cornerstone’ Psa 118:22 and Eph 2:20-22, the foundation (cornerstone) 1Cor 3:11, and the ‘rock’ 1Cor 10:4. The ‘Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it,’ means, He will defend it from within and from without, against all adversaries for all time.
2. The Apostles are the foundation with Jesus Christ as the “Chief cornerstone”, Eph 2:20. If there is a foundation (a beginning) - there must be a middle and an end to Jesus’ established church.
3. Jesus Christ gave a higher authority for disputes between persons, even when there are two or more witnesses. He told them to appeal to the Church in Mt 18:17, “But if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be as a heathen and the publican (a tax collector for the Roman Empire).” Here, Christ gave full authority to His Church.
4. Paul admonishes those who refuse to accept the authority given to the Church and warns what will happen to them if they refuse in Rom 13:1-2, “Let everyone be subject to the higher authorities…”
5. Jesus Christ Himself is the head of the Church He founded, the “Head of His Body”, Eph 1:22. That is about as authoritative as can be attained.
6. Jesus’ church is called the “House of the living GOD”, and the “Pillar of Truth”, “…how to conduct yourself in the House of GOD, which is the Church of the living GOD, the pillar and mainstay of the truth,” 1Tim 3:15.
7. Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.
8. GOD has said He will be with His Church forever, “I will never leave you, neither will I forsake you,” Heb 13:5. In Mt 28:20, Jesus said, “I am with you all days, even until the end of the world.” That means He will be with His Church every day in every century until the end of time. Which Church was His Church when these verses were uttered?

The Orthodox Church

I half-kid when I make that remark, but underneath my kidding is a serious question - how does a Lutheran who has issues with Lutheranism decide between Rome and Orthodoxy? What I was trying to get at with my repeated use of the word “mandatory”, so if I ever get to the point where I feel I have to leave Lutheranism for one or the other, at this point, I have a greater affinity for the Orthodox because while the Catholic Church has declared all kinds of things to be mandatory dogma, the Orthodox Church has been wiser to leave some things alone as either an undefinable mystery or something that is better left within the realm of opinion as opposed to dogma.

 

[joe370]

Continued…

Quote:
Surely the same applies to all of the Protestant churches as well? Until all of the protestant churches are on the same page regarding the interpretation of the bible, I cannot know which one is right, or where truth can be found? Surely the one stands in stark contrast to the other.

The problem with this argument is the false idea that Protestantism is or was some single Church, at one time united and now splintered. This is not the case. For example, Baptists generally come out of the anabaptist movement, condemned in the earliest Lutheran writings. If anything, most of the early noncatholic western Churches splintered directly from Rome, not from each other. IOW, virtually none of them splintered off of Lutheranism.

That is my point! The reformation never gave way to a new and improved reformed church built by Jesus. Jesus built just one church circa AD 33, and the 16th century reformation spawned many divided man-made churches, right from the outset, which lead to the myriad divided Protestant churches we see in the world today. Jon, I thought that all of the early non-catholic Churches splintered directly from Rome? I agree with you: virtually none of them splintered off of Lutheranism. I think that there is still a chance for the CC and the EOC to reconcile, but I don’t see how this would be possible in the protestant world; I could be wrong though. I hope I am wrong!

Quote:
The CC and the EOC are truly united when it comes to belief with one exception, and that is because they both embrace Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

Regularly here at CAF, this appears not to be the case. There seem many differences.

Could you give me some examples, excluding the filique and indulgences?

Quote:
By the time Jesus’ one church split, (thanks to the sin of fallible humans) - giving way to the CC and the EOC, matters of doctrine were settled.

And then unsettled since, because of what the Orthodox call Rome’s innovations.

Rome’s innovations??? Are you saying that doctrinally speaking, the 2 churches are not in agreement? If so could you shed some light on these disagreements; I’d be much obliged?

Who should I believe?

The question I use to ask myself when I asked myself that very question was: If I lived in one of the centuries leading up to the great 11th century schism, to which church would I have belonged? And the answer is: the CC, which means that Jesus built the CC. Or, perhaps Jesus built another church, which is the true church, which traversed the centuries alongside the CC, until the protestant reformation. Is that a possibility?

---

“There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow.”
Luther
Reply With Quote

 

[IowaJay]

But, if the Catholic church came first, wouldnt they have precedence? And the catholic church MUST have come first, because the first Lutheran, Martin Luther was a catholic.

And when you say ‘early church’ … I think of the couple of hundred of years or so before the bible was compiled, when the christians were working off of traditions, verbal, etc…

BUT- if all that was word of mouth, and not documented anywhere, and the first documentation of a set ‘ways’ we have is the bible…that the catholic church put together, than how could you have any evidence of them adding anything to it?

You know what I mean? I’m not having the most articulate moment here…

***pleeeease … if you have any compassion for my sanity keep your answers short and to the point…when people reply with posts that are an ENTIRE page long i just get lost and usually dont bother reading the rest…i know…its terrible…so please bear with me!

See my response to joe370 and please note again my use of the word “mandatory.” I’m not saying that these things don’t have anecdotal support in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. My problem with what Rome is done is that they have defined these things as dogma binding on all the faithful unlike what the Orthodox have done.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6037703]Hey Jon, I talked to my niece’s husband about the true presence in the Eucharist and he says that your church is misinformed. Is it stated anywhere in the Augsburg Confessions that the bread and wine truly become Jesus flesh and blood? If it did, he would have to believe, I would think.

My Church is the Lutheran Church. It seems he is misinformed about what Augsburg says.
Augsburg Confession

Article X: Of the Lord’s Supper.

1] Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.

If the body and blood are present, and are distributed, then the bread and wine are the body and blood, the distinction between Transub. and Sacramental Union notwithstanding.

The definition of transubstantiation: "the whole substance of the bread and the wine changes into the substance of the body and blood of Christ when consecrated in the Eucharist. Isn’t this what you believe?

As a human explanation, I have no problem with it, but in fact there is no way of knowing if it is simply the accidents that remain. It is the body and blood of Christ. How this happens, Christ did not explain. He simply said, “this is my body”.

Jon, who has the right to interpret sacred scripture, if not the individual?

I rely on the Church.

Regarding sola fida, I agree with you, but most Protestants don’t. Other than indulgences and the filique, the CC and the EOC do teach the same thing. If I am wrong please correct me.

They reject Transub., their views of the marian doctrinesare different, as well as purgatory, among others, not the least of which is papal infallibility and supremacy.

Both the EOC and the CC can trace their lineage all the way back to the Apostles, so yes, they both have apostolic succession, and yes, they are not in communion, yet. They have made tremendous strides in the last few decades, and I pray that they will once again reunite. Like you said, that would probably inspire quite a few people. Regarding the question: which Tradition should be believed, could you please cite the different traditions so I can make an informed decision?

What I meant by tradition was which communion, Orthodoxy or Rome.

If I believe that the teaching office of the CC is my final authority, then it would be kind of silly for me to say that the Magisterium and pope can and possibly do contradict scripture. If they do contradict the bible, could you please identify these contradictions?

A good answer. The comment wasn’t intended to say they did, just to point out the similarity we have as viewing scripture as authority.

More later. I’m enjoying the dialogue.
Jon

 

[bluelake]

Very much. Thank you!

ELCA stands outside of the teachings of the other two.
Question, Do you believe practicing homosexuals should receive Holy Communion?

bluelake

.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Hey Jay, before we get to who added and who subtracted, let me ask you a question regarding the following:

Luther removed James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation from their normal places and relegated them to the end of the New Testament, as not being entitled to the same status as other biblical books. In his New Testament table of contents, he numbered books 1-23 and then placed the four rejected ones without numbers.

Was he wrong or right to diminish the value of these sacred writings?
I agree he was wrong. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed on this issue. As others have stated, Lutherans do not follow everything Luther did.

Why don’t Lutherans follow everything Luther did, if his work/beliefs are so reliable? If ML was wrong about these NT books, and, as you have stated: Lutherans do not follow everything Luther did, then surely there is the possibility that he could have been wrong about the 7 OT books??? Maybe!

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe370 View Post

Gabriel covered the IC issue.
Gabriel did not address my problem with IC. My problem is not with IC itself. My problem is that IC it has been declared by Rome as a dogma that all must believe in - that’s why I used the word “mandatory.” Luther himself and the Eastern Orthodox believe in the sinlessness of Mary. They just didn’t proclaim to to be universally binding on all the faithful. So, I agree that Rome did not “add” IC itself, they added the “mandatory” part.
Quote:

So, you don’t like the idea of the CC telling you what you must believe if you want to be a member of the CC? I’m gonna give my CCC a once over to see if the word mandatory, regarding the IC is in there, in just a minute. The EOC (rightfully so) - definitely requires you (mandatory) - to believe in the true presence in the Eucharist, but I don’t think you don’t have a problem with that - why is that?

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post

Where does the CC state that indulgences are mandatory? I have been a Catholic for a quite a while now and no one has ever made that claim.
Note that I said that a belief in indulgences is mandatory, not that it is mandatory that everyone obtain an indulgence. Indulgences are mentioned in the CC - paragraph 1471. A Catholic is obligated to believe in all of the Catechism, including paragraph 1471, so as I said, before, a belief in indulgences is mandatory.

INDULGENCES - “1471 The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of Penance.”

It simply says that indulgences are closely linked to confession. It doesn’t say that it is mandatory, if we want to belong to the CC. Every church regardless of denomination, has a fixed charter to which the flock are to follow. I can’t find the word mandatory anywhere in the CCC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe370 View Post

Regarding the mandatory belief in the universal jurisdiction of the church built by Jesus, The CC received its authority from its founder, Jesus Christ:

1. “You are Peter, (Kepha) - and upon this Rock (kepha) - I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, Mt 16:18. Jesus built his Church on solid rock. He will be the ‘cornerstone’ Psa 118:22 and Eph 2:20-22, the foundation (cornerstone) 1Cor 3:11, and the ‘rock’ 1Cor 10:4. The ‘Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it,’ means, He will defend it from within and from without, against all adversaries for all time…7. Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

The Orthodox Church

I half-kid when I make that remark, but underneath my kidding is a serious question - how does a Lutheran who has issues with Lutheranism decide between Rome and Orthodoxy?

It wouldn’t be too tough of a decision. The sacraments are recognized by both churches. If I couldn’t make it to my CC I could always attend my bosses EOC and the Mass would be just as valid.

What I was trying to get at with my repeated use of the word “mandatory”, so if I ever get to the point where I feel I have to leave Lutheranism for one or the other, at this point, I have a greater affinity for the Orthodox because while the Catholic Church has declared all kinds of things to be mandatory dogma, the Orthodox Church has been wiser to leave some things alone as either an undefinable mystery or something that is better left within the realm of opinion as opposed to dogma.

Like purgatory for example… They believe in it, as does the CC, (as well as praying for the dead) - but leave it undefined. I think that you would be good to go in either church. If you search with your heart, mind and soul and it leads you to the EOC, then you are home. I love the EOC. I don’t know if anyone here has ever followed the apparitions of Damascus, but they are truly miraculous, and part of the message of Jesus is the reunification of the CC and the EOC.

God bless Jay…

 

[IowaJay]

God bless Jay…

And may God bless you Joe!

 

[gcnuss]

So, whats the difference? If you believe all the same things as catholics- believe in Jesus Christ and that He is the only source of salvation, then why the divide? Where is it that you differ? And how do you reconcile that- with the fact that you are not supposed to ‘subtract’ from Christ’s teachings?

Hi Charlotte,

Sorry to be slow in getting back to you.

It is true that there is much – and I would venture to say the most important things – that we agree on. All that is stated in the creeds is a very good start.

Yet, there are differences that will require some (perhaps, a lot) of effort to overcome. For instance, the dogmatic teaching about the Assumption of Mary is a stumbling block for many non-Catholics. If I were to become a Catholic, I would have to accept that teaching as revealed truth. The best I could do would be to say that I don’t know how the Blessed Virgin arrived in heaven but I’m certain that she is there.

Similarly, the requirement that the doctrine of transubstantiation be accepted as the only explanation for how Christ is present in the Eucharist is also a problem. While it may serve as way of explaining the Real Presence, the metaphysical categories of substance and accidents don’t hold a candle to Christ’s words, “this is my body…” The Real Presence is a mystery – one that defies human understanding. Of course, we are like Adam and Eve in that we are not content to “not know” all that God knows.

Just a couple of thoughts.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6037955]

It wouldn’t be too tough of a decision. The sacraments are recognized by both churches. If I couldn’t make it to my CC I could always attend my bosses EOC and the Mass would be just as valid.

Joe and Jay,
I hope you don’t mind the butt-in.
It is a tough decision, Joe, if one wants to make sure that the move they make is to the “one true Church”. Why move if there is a chance you are moving to another Church that isn’t the one true Church? Catholics say their’s is the one true Church. Orthodox say their’s is. Both can’t be right. Both can’t be the “one true Church”.
Apostolic Succession is irrelevent.
BTW, do the Orthodox recognize Catholic sacraments?

Jon

Jon

 

[joe370]

Joe and Jay,

I hope you don’t mind the butt-in.
It is a tough decision, Joe, if one wants to make sure that the move they make is to the “one true Church”. Why move if there is a chance you are moving to another Church that isn’t the one true Church? Catholics say their’s is the one true Church. Orthodox say their’s is. Both can’t be right. Both can’t be the “one true Church”.
Apostolic Succession is irrelevent.
BTW, do the Orthodox recognize Catholic sacraments?

Hey Jon, how’s it going…

Yup! They recognize the Catholic sacraments.

Regarding Jay, what I meant was: since there is no difference between the EOC and the CC, sacramentally speaking, the decision shouldn’t be that difficult.

Why move if there is a chance you are moving to another Church that isn’t the one true Church? They can’t all be right! The can’t all be the “one true Church”

Now that is the 64000 dollar question. Which churches in the world today, do not qualify as the true church?

The true church…hmmm… We know that Jesus only built one church ("I will build MY church, as opposed to churches) - ; the question is: where can His one church be found, in the world today? The typical Protestant response (as was mine, once upon a time) - is: all Christian churches comprise the one catholic (universal) - church, small c, built by Jesus Christ on pentecost, which never made any sense to me! Followed up with: (something I did not believe as a former Lutheran) - the man-made RCC apostatized in the 4th century, ruling that church out all together, as part of Jesus’ Mystical Body to which He is the head and Savior. If that were in fact the case then that would mean that the world is still without the church built by God.

The EOC is an offshoot of the CC, (or vica versa, depending on one’s perspective) - and all PC’s are offshoots of the CC. That means, somewhere out there, in the world today, is the true church built by Jesus, on Pentecost, which traversed the first 4 centuries of Christianity, at which point the reputed man-made RCC came onto the scene, and Jesus’ true church continued to traverse the centuries alongside the reputed apostate RCC, until the Protestant reformation, at which point Jesus’ true church continued to traverse the centuries alongside the Protestant maelstrom, caused by, in my opinion, sola scriptura via anyone’s interpretation, and the sin of man. The question is: where is that true church built by Jesus, that ran parallel to first the CC then the CC and EOC and finally the CC, EOC and the myriad PC’s?

The other possibility is that Jesus either waited 1000 years, at which point He provided the human race with the true church (EOC) - or 1500 years, at which point He provided the human race with the true church (one of the many PC’s) - and if that were the case, then which PC?

Apostolic succession was very important to the NT writers and to the early church. The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which church was the true Church built by Christ. The litmus test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants. Apostolic succession, (as everyone knows) - is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in the myriad Protestant denominations, not to, in any way, detract anything from their ministries, of course.

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. For example, to make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after their demise, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” 2 Tim. 2:2 - In this passage Paul refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach. Clearly Paul was establishing a paradigm which was to remain intact, to ensure the continuity and protection of the deposit of faith, regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat; clear to me to me anyway.

The early church fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on sacred scripture. Sound familiar, e.g. - the bread and wine are mere symbols? Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

The early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, wrote: “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it.”

Continued…

 

[joe370]

ECF’s regarding Apostolic succession:

Clement I

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Hegesippus

“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).

“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (ibid., 3:3:4).

“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?” (ibid., 3:4:1).

“*t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2).

“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (ibid., 4:33:8).*

 

[joe370]

Continued…

Tertullian

“[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).

“But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” (ibid., 32).

“Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith” (ibid.).

Cyprian of Carthage

“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).

Jerome

“Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians” (Letters 14:8 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine

“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

 

[bluelake]

I have noticed a trend on the forums - people do not seem to understand what Lutherans believe. So I wanted to make a thread to consolidate any questions or comments you might have about Lutheranism. It could be about our doctrine, our history, the differences between our Synods, what to expect in a Lutheran liturgy, etc. Anything you can think of! I (and I’m sure my fellow Lutherans) would be happy to explain our beliefs and teach about our faith.

Nom,
Yes, that seems to be true. Along the same line, most christians do not understand Catholic doctrine either.
LCMS and Wels are conservative. ELCA , not in the same teaching at all.
they allow practicing homosexuals to receive Holy Communion.
It is my understanding that not all ELCA churches go along with this liberalism.

bluelake

 

[joe370]

Jon, you said:

My Church is the Lutheran Church. It seems he is misinformed about what Augsburg says.
Augsburg Confession
Quote:
Article X: Of the Lord’s Supper.

1] Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.
If the body and blood are present, and are distributed, then the bread and wine are the body and blood, the distinction between Transub. and Sacramental Union notwithstanding.

I will pass that on to him. I will be curious to hear what he has to say. I don’t see how any Christian belonging to the Lutheran church could reject the Augsburg Confession and still call themselves Lutheran.

Quote:
The definition of transubstantiation: "the whole substance of the bread and the wine changes into the substance of the body and blood of Christ when consecrated in the Eucharist. Isn’t this what you believe?

As a human explanation, I have no problem with it, but in fact there is no way of knowing if it is simply the accidents that remain. It is the body and blood of Christ. How this happens, Christ did not explain. He simply said, “this is my body”.

What do you mean when you say: the accidents that remain; I’m kind of tired so bear with me. LOL… The CC has no idea how this sacramental miracle happens either, nor do they claim to know. The doctrine of transubstantiation is all about what has changed, not about how the change occurs. You are right; Jesus never explained how the transformation occurs, no doubt because the Apostles probably wouldn’t have understood.

Quote:
Jon, who has the right to interpret sacred scripture, if not the individual?

I rely on the Church.

Wow, you are the first non-Catholic to just speak directly, regarding this question. Zero double talk!

Quote:
Regarding sola fida, I agree with you, but most Protestants don’t. Other than indulgences and the filique, the CC and the EOC do teach the same thing. If I am wrong please correct me.
They reject Transub., their views of the marian doctrines are different, as well as purgatory, among others, not the least of which is papal infallibility and supremacy.

They reject the label not the CC’s Eucharistic beliefs - right? Which marian doctrines? It is believed bythe EOC that Mary was and remained a virgin before and after Christ’s birth. The tradition of the EOC holds that Mary (Theotokos) remained free of personal sin, a belief shared with some reformers such as Martin Luther. However, they do not believe that Mary was exempt at birth, from original sin. The EOC believes that Mary died a natural death, (dormition) - that her soul was received by Christ upon death, and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her death and that she was taken up into heaven bodily in anticipation of the general resurrection. They seem the same to me.

They definitely believe in purgatory and praying for the dead, however they simply don’t define it!

Among others…???

Not much of a difference when it comes to infallibility. The EOC believes, as does the CC, that the bishops are responsible for preserving the faith, the dogmatic truths and traditions. This does not equate however to them being individually infallible (same goes with the CC) - but that, in consensus, they are charged with the Universal faith. Therefore, the EOC, even though they may not use the same terminology as the CC, would generally accept the Catholic views of the infallibility of bishops in an ecumenical council.

Quote:
Both the EOC and the CC can trace their lineage all the way back to the Apostles, so yes, they both have apostolic succession, and yes, they are not in communion, yet. They have made tremendous strides in the last few decades, and I pray that they will once again reunite. Like you said, that would probably inspire quite a few people. Regarding the question: which Tradition should be believed, could you please cite the different traditions so I can make an informed decision?

What I meant by tradition was which communion, Orthodoxy or Rome.

Well, for the most part, they share the same Apostolic Traditions, but sometimes they employ different language to delineate said traditions/doctrines. I think I would be fine with either one. It’s not so much about the differences in doctrine/tradition as it is the difference of opinion, regarding authority. The fact that there are 2 separate systems of authority, welling up from the same divine fountain, with, for the most part, the same belief system, is a testament to the guidance of the holy spirit, in my humble opinion.

Quote:
If I believe that the teaching office of the CC is my final authority, then it would be kind of silly for me to say that the Magisterium and pope can and possibly do contradict scripture. If they do contradict the bible, could you please identify these contradictions?

A good answer. The comment wasn’t intended to say they did, just to point out the similarity we have as viewing scripture as authority.

More later. I’m enjoying the dialogue.

Jon

Me too… I absolutely view sacred scripture as authoritative, after all, it’s the very Word of God, however, I do not view sacred scripture/sacred tradition as my final authority. Due to the fact that the Bible lends itself to numerous interpretations, I rely on the church when it comes to the interpretation of sacred scripture, just as you do! We really don’t need the church leadership to interpret the bible when it comes to clear cut stuff, but when it comes to doctrinal differences I will always defer to the church for clarification, just as you do.