The ELCA claims to, though they are involved in some things that cause other confessional Lutherans to question the claim. On some points primarily of polity and ecumenism, I have challenged the LCMS’s claim to the confessions. The ALC is part of the ELCA. The other major Lutheran body is the Wisconsin Synod (WELS), and I would say they are rather confessional, though the issues I have with LCMS are greater with WELS.
Why? If you are using Apostolic Succession as a benchmark, many of the writers, at least the initial ones, were at one time Catholic priests. Be that as it may, I question the authority of Rome on similar grounds. Separated from the other patriarchs, where does the Bishop of Rome, patriarch of the west, find authority to find himself infallible in faith in morals when teaching ex cathedra? Clearly, this is extra-biblical, and we have established that nothing in Holy Tradition contradicts scripture. So, this decision is even outside Holy Tradition.I don’t want to get all circular, but that begs the question as to who wrote the Lutheran Confessions and where did they get that authority i.e. by what authority are/were they (the authors and the Confessions themselves) given that authority to construct and be the standard for Lutherans.
That’s where I lose understanding of the Lutheran understanding of authority. It would seem that such authority given to those writers would not be scriptural; if it is, then there would have to be an admission to the legitimacy of an extra-biblical authority in scripture, which seems contrary to Lutheran theology.
Joe, I think we already established that, based on your portrayal of its teaching, Holy Cross Lutheran is not a confessional Lutheran parish. I do not recall if you identified which synod it is a part of, but were I a member I would either seek synodical (name removed by moderator)ut, or move to another parish.
Because, well after Luther, Protestant communions took the step of excluding the D-C’s since they were not considered canon. It must be pointed out that the Lutheran Confessions did not close the canon.If Luther did not remove books, and Trent did not add books, why does my sisters church have fewer OT books?Either way, I respect either position, but only embrace one.
Yes, I speak of the western Church as inclusive of reformation and protestant communions, since their roots (whether they like it or notCC within the west??? Could you expound? I am aware of the 23 particular churches, but they are in full communion with the Pope.
) are in the Catholic Church.No. We have scripture, and the early councils and ECF’s. IOW, the Apostle’s Creed is truth.
Yes. I am saying that the early councils should be under scrutiny, but I am also saying that the fact that they are from the undivided Catholic Church, agreed upon by both east and west, hold far greater claim of infallibility than later councils, such as Trent, which lack the unity of all the patriarchs.
Transubstantiation. Purgatory. Original Sin. The Blessed Virgin’s IC. But notice what I have written; much of this is since the Schism. Much of the differences we have are about teachings the CC has “developed” since the Schism. What you say in the first sentence could also be applied to us: Authority (that has been the primary thrust of this discussion), terminology ( we both believe in the real presence, but express it differently), etc.You mentioned that to me a while ago. Authority is a divisive factor, as well as the filioque, and the terminology used to explicate certain doctrines believed by both, but they pretty much share the same beliefs, as we have discussed before. Since then I have talked to my EO priest and he concurs. Throw some stuff at me and I will tell you what he said!
Don’t need to prove it to me, as I agree. But the point is, no matter what the nature of the disagreements, Rome is not in communion with Orthodoxy.
Were Orthodox Christians allowed to receive in your CC, and all the patriarchs were again in communion, I would see no justification (sorry for the pun) to stay divided.
Well, if we are to take the Catholic/Orthodox position that truth is found in Holy Tradition, passed down from the Apostles themselves through the teachers (Bishops) in succession, then until there is reconciliation between Orthodoxy and Rome, I cannot know which is Truth. Therefore, I believe that the Lutheran Confessions have as much claim to Truth as either. It certainly wouldn’t make sense to convert if one can’t be sure which other communion has Truth.
Since they came at a times when the Church was united, then the likelihood of the councils being wrong are quite slim.
First, through Christ, all things are possible. If Christ thought that the Church could not err, then the warnings against false teachings would not appear as often as the do in the Bible. That said, the greatest chance of the Church teaching with the minimal amount of error would be through unity. I know that sounds circular, but I think that is what Christ intended. And therefore, all of us have an obligation to seek unity.
Thanks for your thougfhtful response.
I’d need to find the exact Convention Resolution, but I know that The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod in Convention has affirmed a pro-life, anti- abortion on demand position several times. Of course, that’s not an issue of doctrine (much less dogma), but it is a case of an official position. If you need the exact resolution number, date and place of adoption - I can google that for you. My point was: simply because one (or even a majority) of individuals who happen to be registered in congregations legally affiliated with The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (or any other Lutheran denomination) hold to a position, it does not for that reason become the official position of the denomination. I don’t know why that has become such a difficult concept for the Catholics here - it’s the same in The Catholic Church. The majority of American Catholics voted for Obama, thinking him the best. That doesn’t mean The Catholic Church has a dogma of “Obama Is The Choice For President.” There is a very precise policy for such in The Catholic Church and in every other denomination known to me.
I think that we tend to get into the trap of looking for what’s wrong in a given denomination vs. stepping back and looking at what’s right.
Talk to you guys tomorrow, if I get the chance.
Quick question: Jesus NEVER founded the Catholic Church or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; Jesus never founded any of the PC’s in the world today; where is the church founded by Jesus Christ, in the world today?
Mind if I pipe up here, Joe? Our Lutheran stance is not that they are not wrong when they disagree. In fact, they are wrong when their teachings contradict the Confessions as that which rightly reflects scripture. Therefore:
Actually, no, it does not help.
Hold on a minute, Jon. Let’s please get back to what Lutherans believe. I’m not interested in discussing how Catholics and Lutherans view authority, just how Lutherans view authority. So I’m not using Apostolic succession as a benchmark for Lutheran Authority.
OK.
I don’t believe the reformers would have viewed their role as extra-biblical, but more in line with the same authority handed down to the apostles. For example, as you know we recognize that confession to a pastor/confessor is confessing to God, as Christ bestowed the power to bind and loose. Maybe it would be better to say that we recognize and claim the same directives and authority as Rome does, from Pentecost.
Certainly, the reformers with whom Luther and Melanchton worked with were far more than average Joe’s. Neither were Cajetan and Ecke, and other Catholic thinkers of the time. The reformers wrote the confessions under the influence of the early councils and ECF’s, and we would not consider them innovations.
You are asking a very Catholic question - from the perspective and mileau of Catholicism. It doesn’t work. It’s not the central issue anywhere but in The Catholic Church.
Where it’s always been and always will be: where there is faith revealed in love.
I will accept that answer only if you exclude the CC, (and you do) - the EOC and the myriad PC’s, as churches built by Jesus Christ! You said that the CC was not founded by Jesus; I said that all of the PC’s were not founded by Jesus, and I can give you the name of the man who founded each church, including the CC.
Jon, chime in whenever you want.
So your stance is that they are wrong when their teachings contradict the Confessions, which were written by men such as Martin Luther and his successors? Understood! And if a member rejects the Augsburg Confession, that member can no longer be a member of the Lutheran church? That certainly makes sense, as is the case with the CC. So clearly, to belong to the CC or the LC, the same criteria is employed, yet Josiah insists that ONLY the CC (as opposed to any protestant church) - is guilty of the following:
Agreed, however, if a Lutheran was to reject a core doctrine such as the following, they would no doubt forfeit their membership, as would be the case if a catholic rejected a core doctrine:
Good point. My point was to illustrate to Josiah, that the LC and the CC have an authoritative system in place, and that that is not exclusive to just the CC. Every Protestant church has the same thing, and I don’t believe that any of theses churches are attempting to “lord it over” anyone. Agreed?
The same goes for the CC, as you know. Individual interpretation via the bible as the Christians sole authority does exist, but not in your church or my church, and I can’t seem to get Josiah to believe me.
Sure, both of us are free to interpret the bible as long as it agrees with either the Catechism of the Catholic church or the Augsburg Lutheran Confessions.Nor was I…
However, many, many churches were established by men, on this very premise, and that is why there are so many of them. Do you agree?Catholics believe the CCC is right, but not that it, or our leaders, are infallible. All people are sinners and all people are fallible. Ask a catholic bishop or priest if he’s infallible and he will no doubt chuckle…
Jon, chime in whenever you want.
Exactly. That’s because denominations cannot have faith and cannot reveal such in love; You AGREED that the church is where faith revealed in love is. As far as I know, only PEOPLE can have faith and only PEOPLE can be Christians - thus the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers (the church) would be - let’s see, people? It’s not a denomination - never has been, still isn’t, never will be. Not The Catholic Church, not The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, not The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Jesus founded none of those - at least that can be substantiated. The founder of my denomination is generally regarded to be Rev. Dr. C.F.W. Walther - not Jesus. Now, I know of two denominations that CLAIM that Jesus founded a denomination (each insisting Jesus founded itself, those two being The Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), both have ZERO substantiation for such but in each case, it is foundational to the denomination has each one insists that there is one (self exclusively) that is the SOLE Authority, infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error (well, actually, the LDS dropped the latter two claims about a century ago).
You are mixing issues. As far as I know (and you will note if I’m wrong), of the 300 or so Lutheran denominations in the world, NONE claims that self is infallible/unaccountable. None claims that self is the sole authority or sole interpreter or sole arbiter. None requires that all just accept whatever self alone says “with docility” as Jesus Himself speaking (that demand of self for self is limited to just one denomination - The Catholic Church, the LDS having dropped it some time ago; it’s universal in all the cults but we’re limiting this discussion to Christians and their institutions).
Thank you. That is more of the explanation I was looking for; the authority in application of Lutheran teachings.