T
- Status
T
Tomster
Guest
steido01,
The fact remains, steido, the Lutherans you “consider” (translated: private judgment) heterodox might well consider your branch of Lutheranism heterodox as well interpreting the Confessions differently than you.
No authority, no unity. It always comes down to this doesn’t it?
And, if I might add, one mark of the true Catholic Church is unity.
Indeed! And the Old Catholics will consider the Vatican as heterodox because the CC has claimed for itself an infallibility never before approved by the whole Church.
So, this mark of the true Catholic Church is missing. It is missing because of schism, because of division. The western patriarchate is not in unity with the other patriarchates. It is not in unity with other western Christians. Disunity is a shared sin, and the CC has its full measure, with the rest of us, in this sin. Pray for unity.
T
Tomster
Guest
Jon,
Sorry Jon,
I suspect you know the truth of the matter regarding Old Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, etc., etc. in regards to their relationship with the Catholic Church. The truth of the matter is that throughtout the last 2,000 years the Catholic Church has authoritatively safeguarded the flock by pointing out the errors of all of these disgruntled groups, Lutherans included.
Are individual Catholics sinful? Yes we are. Is the Catholic Church sinful? Absolutely not.
The reason the Catholic Church is not sinful is that it is the full, literal extension of the Incarnation, Christ’s Mystical Body on earth extended in the Catholic Church to the end of time. This is a sublime fact that is proclaimed by St. Paul himself in his epistles. To call the Catholic Church sinful is the exact same thing as calling Christ sinful.
Lutheran theology has never been able to authoritatively address the fact that the true Church of Christ is his Mystical Body on earth. With no one within worldwide Lutheranism to proclaim this doctrine authoritatively it is absolutely clear to any Catholic who knows his faith that Lutheranism, with all of its competing divisions, is absolutely not the correct continuation of the Catholic Church. And why is this so you may ask? The answer is simple, the Protestant dogma of “Private Judgment”.
And, in the future Jon, please don’t ask for a “link” to substantiate any of this. For if you do, I will just refer you to the dialog we have just shared on this thread. The sad divisions within Lutheranism which you and others have outlined have confirmed everything I have mentioned. Worldwide Lutheranism is all over the place theologically with no one in authority to straighten it all out. Sadly, it can be no other way for Lutherans. It is inherent in your theology.
S
steido01
Guest
And the many groups that call themselves Catholic claim the very authority of God and yet still have no unity.
I have not asked you to defend the innumerable groups that claim to be Catholic, or that have broken from Rome (Though perhaps I should - have you fixed that Lutheran/Anglican/Calvinist/Congregationalist/Anabaptist/Methodist/Pietist/Pentacostal/Unitarian/etc. issue yet?). From the forum rules and guidelines on Interfaith Dialogue:
We cannot be held responsible for groups that no longer profess the Lutheran Confessions in their original intention no more than you can be held responsible for the existence of non-Roman Catholics.
And to say that another’s church body has no authority is rather presumptive and Romocentric (some would even take offensive); our authority over our communion’s affairs are not dependent upon Rome. You know that we Lutherans consider ourselves to be a proper continuation of the Western church. The LCMS has authority over our own affairs, and Rome has authority over its own.
The church catholic is much greater than any single denomination or communion; I would not limit God to man-made constructs (Matt. 18:20, Mark 10:27). Even your own communion, while stating the truth that there is no salvation outside the Church, acknowledges that “the Church” encompasses more than just those in communion with Rome (you know, those of us who remain “invincibly ignorant”).
See, Tomster, I don’t know or necessarily accept this as fact, since there is no real way of knowing if the communion you are in is, by itself, authoritative for the whole Church Catholic.
If you are speaking of the institutional Catholic Church, that communion specifically of the Bishop of Rome, I would respectfully disagree. So, lets be clear, the Church Militant, since it is made of sinful human beings, has the appearance of sin, though by its connection to the Church Triumphant, the Communion of Saints, guided by the Holy Spirit, could be said to be above the sin of human beings. I think it’s a walk that isn’t necessary to take, but there it is.
I don’t think we deny this at all, but I think I’ve asked before, where is this Protestant dogma written down? Since there is no such thing as a Protestant Church, who does this dogma cover?
I think you would find that, doctrinally, true Lutherans are not all over, but of one mind, that found and confessed in the Lutheran confessions. There are, of course, groups who call themselves Lutheran but do not tie themselves confessionally to that confession.
And if we wish to extend this, regardless of an authoritative bishop, the Catholic Church seen schism and division for a thousand years. Even an authoritative human leadership is not immune from sin, and the divisions it has caused.
Jon
M
manualman
Guest
For some reason the word “consensus” in one of my exchanged posts above sticks with me here. Can we agree that there has NEVER been “consensus” among believers? I think we have to! If you look deeply into any era of the church, you will find controversies, excommunications, schisms and bar fights… Humans are a fractious bunch.
Perhaps, the better argument for Catholicism is NOT that we’ve claimed the title “catholic” and thus own the trademark, but that our understanding of revelation is that Jesus established a visible and knowable authority (apostolic office in general and Petrine office in particular) to deal with the predictable human fractiousness he HAD to have known was coming. Every other group seems to claim that other principles are the unifying authority in Christianity, but all those groups lack the recognition that such an approach unavoidably leads to insoluble conflicts over the interpretation of those principles. I just can’t get past the fact that those approaches to authority innately imply that God is rather naïve! I don’t think He is.
The purpose of apostolic authority is demonstrably NOT to prevent divisions. As Jon has noted, if that were the case, history has proven Jesus’ plan to have failed (or catholics to be wrong). But that’s not how Catholicism understands apostolic authority. Rather the purpose of apostolic authority was to provide a visible unifying presence for those who understand it and are humble enough to submit to it. Jesus didn’t leave us with a book and vague well wishes, or the assurance of the guidance of the Holy Spirit (if that were the case, history would be testimony to the impotence of the Holy Spirit!). He gave us a home to gather in. It’s damaged by divisions, but still recognizable.
Perhaps, the better argument for Catholicism is NOT that we’ve claimed the title “catholic” and thus own the trademark, but that our understanding of revelation is that Jesus established a visible and knowable authority (apostolic office in general and Petrine office in particular) to deal with the predictable human fractiousness he HAD to have known was coming. Every other group seems to claim that other principles are the unifying authority in Christianity, but all those groups lack the recognition that such an approach unavoidably leads to insoluble conflicts over the interpretation of those principles. I just can’t get past the fact that those approaches to authority innately imply that God is rather naïve! I don’t think He is.
The purpose of apostolic authority is demonstrably NOT to prevent divisions. As Jon has noted, if that were the case, history has proven Jesus’ plan to have failed (or catholics to be wrong). But that’s not how Catholicism understands apostolic authority. Rather the purpose of apostolic authority was to provide a visible unifying presence for those who understand it and are humble enough to submit to it. Jesus didn’t leave us with a book and vague well wishes, or the assurance of the guidance of the Holy Spirit (if that were the case, history would be testimony to the impotence of the Holy Spirit!). He gave us a home to gather in. It’s damaged by divisions, but still recognizable.
I think that’s reasonable, Manual. The question now is does that apostolic / Petrine office hold the authority it once did, now that its divided?
Jon
M
manualman
Guest
Good question that I think has been wrestled with within Catholicism pretty thoroughly. To argue that division dissipates apostolic and Petrine authority is to negate the idea of authority entirely. It can’t be an authority if it dissolves in the face of the first conflict.
And we have a pretty clear record of controversies that go further back than today’s seemingly intractable division of east/west and Rome/protestant. If one asserts that authority vanishes in the face of significant disagreement, then we need to go back and re-examine disputes like the Arian controversy. After all, it was the assertion of authoritative judgment that finally put the nails in that coffin. If those nails don’t exist, then Arianism will come right back out like a vampire!
It’s also why there have been such rigorous discussions on the nature and process of apostolic succession. Some protestants presume that Rome capriciously declare rebels and dissenters to be cut off, but this isn’t the case. Groups like the Eastern Orthodox churches or Polish National Catholic Church (the first two words are serious misnomers!) are still considered churches though not fully in communion since they retain apostolic succession, but not unity with the pope. Lutherans are considered to be “ecclesial communities” since (IIRC) they repudiated the Sacrament of Holy Orders as received by the Church. Anglicanism is also considered to not have Holy Orders even though they have restored the theology of it since it was determined that there was a faulty theology long enough in the early years for the valid bishops to die out. These aren’t capricious dismissals, but honest attempts to apply reason to revelation and apply it via the judgment of the pope.
I realize you likely have a different view, but wasn’t sure if you’d heard the catholic side of it before.
- Status