Turmoil in the Church of Finland

  • Thread starter Thread starter EvangelCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Isaiah45_9 said:
[bibledrb]Matthew 7:3-5[/bibledrb]
Click to expand...
I was giving Peter a hard time, yes. However, I don’t support abortion or vote in the house and senate to increase its prevalence in the United States. Nor am I a pro-life prelate who gives the Lord’s Supper to those who do vote for it. So I am not sure how the beam and speck passage applies to this particular instance.
 
pablope said:
Well…you did not answer the last part…Should they be thrown out of the RCC? Should laity continue praying for them and their enlightenment?.
Click to expand...
Praying for them? Sure. Thrown out? As far as I know that can’t happen. Excommunication can.
And let us say, an ecclesiastical acknowledgement is done…then what?
Click to expand...
They won’t be profaning the body and blood of Christ.
Or should the church laity and clergy, or their pastor, continue counseling and praying for them?
Click to expand...
What is counseling them? Is counseling indefinite, or did Jesus actually mean something in Matthew 18?
What do you hope to accomplish by a public shaming?
Click to expand...
I don’t care if it’s public or private. Regardless, I would rather shame them publicly than Christ’s body and blood publicly.
So…just because someone chooses to not follow the church on its stand on abortion…should the church then stop or alter its stance on abortion…is this what you are proposing?
Click to expand...
No. Just for the church to act consistently with what it states it believes.
Or should the Church continue is teachings…and pray for those who do not yet follow to eventually form their consciences to the teachings of their church?
Click to expand...
And continue treating them the same as those who do follow what the church teaches?
 
steido01 said:
Easy, friend. Per Crucem was only responding in kind to a friendly “;)”.

That said, I’m not sure speck/plank applies here. The comparison is less “RCC vs. Lutherans,” and more “[insert communion] vs. dissenters.” Lutherans notice the planks (dissenters) in their own eye (church), and restrict their communion lovingly and accordingly.
Click to expand...
The point of the article is that the laity [36,000] left the Lutheran Church because a legislator [likely a Lutheran] voiced opposition to same-sex marriage and they thought the Church of Finland did not adequately respond to homophobia when the archbishop suggested that we listen to one another.

The other article is about a special Mission Bishop appointed to Sweden in order to ordain priests denied ordination because they do not accept same-sex marriage. The Mission Bishop ordained seminarians from Concordia Seminary - Fort Wayne who the Church of Sweden would not ordain until they accepted a more tolerate position on homosexuality.
 
steido01 said:
Name a Lutheran politician who has ‘gone rogue’ and voted against Christian values.

I can’t think of a single one, which is either a reflection of our fantastic job catechizing 😉 or our reluctance to take part in politics. Or both.

President (Bishop) Harrison said it best when he explained before Congress, “I’d rather not be here, frankly.”
Click to expand...
cough Illinois Democrat Andy Manar cough

Caused quite a ruckus last year.
 
Stilldreamn said:
cough Illinois Democrat Andy Manar cough

Caused quite a ruckus last year.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Stilldreamn. Great example. In that case, Pastor, District and Synod responded swiftly and publicly. I imagine it was an awkward moment for Manar when he returned to church. Wonder if he’s still LCMS?
 
EvangelCatholic said:
The point of the article is that the laity [36,000] left the Lutheran Church because a legislator [likely a Lutheran] voiced opposition to same-sex marriage and they thought the Church of Finland did not adequately respond to homophobia when the archbishop suggested that we listen to one another.
Click to expand...
The masses are greatly susceptible to heterodoxy. The tendency toward it grows as cultures secularize. What more would you expect? Good for that one legislator for standing up for the Truth that does not change with the times. Now, how does that ol’ Grundtvig hymn go…?:cool:
EvangelCatholic said:
The other article is about a special Mission Bishop appointed to Sweden in order to ordain priests denied ordination because they do not accept same-sex marriage. The Mission Bishop ordained seminarians from Concordia Seminary - Fort Wayne who the Church of Sweden would not ordain until they accepted a more tolerate position on homosexuality.
Click to expand...
When a church teaches such error, pastors ought not to seek ordination from it. That’s what Scripture and, in turn, our Confessions mean. It is not license to adapt whatever heterodoxy the Zeitgeist brings.
 
Per_Crucem said:
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. - 1 John 2:19
Click to expand...
This VERSE apply to you also Lutherans. YOU went out of the Catholic Church. Try to think about it for 5 minutes…:rolleyes:
 
steido01 said:
Easy, friend. Per Crucem was only responding in kind to a friendly “;)”.
Click to expand...
That’s me being easy :cool:
Per_Crucem said:
I was giving Peter a hard time, yes. However, I don’t support abortion or vote in the house and senate to increase its prevalence in the United States. Nor am I a pro-life prelate who gives the Lord’s Supper to those who do vote for it. So I am not sure how the beam and speck passage applies to this particular instance.
Click to expand...
Neither do I.

Having said that, I’m not in the habit of pointing to someone else’s fault when one (of several) of mine is pointed out. Which is exactly what you did, even in good humor.

IOW - if you point at the speck in my eye (Biden, Pelosi) while you have a beam in your eye (the whole OP) - How is it possible that you are not sure that it applies… :confused:
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
That’s me being easy :cool:

Neither do I.

Having said that, I’m not in the habit of pointing to someone else’s fault when one (of several) of mine is pointed out. Which is exactly what you did, even in good humor.

IOW - if you point at the speck in my eye (Biden, Pelosi) while you have a beam in your eye (the whole OP) - How is it possible that you are not sure that it applies… :confused:
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how the OP would apply, either.
 
=EvangelCatholic;11790538]The point of the article is that the laity [36,000] left the Lutheran Church because a legislator [likely a Lutheran] voiced opposition to same-sex marriage and they thought the Church of Finland did not adequately respond to homophobia when the archbishop suggested that we listen to one another.
Click to expand...
And here is their mistake. It is not “homophobia” to not accept same gender marriage. There is nothing in scripture, history, or Tradition which permits the expansion of marriage in this way.
The other article is about a special Mission Bishop appointed to Sweden in order to ordain priests denied ordination because they do not accept same-sex marriage. The Mission Bishop ordained seminarians from Concordia Seminary - Fort Wayne who the Church of Sweden would not ordain until they accepted a more tolerate position on homosexuality.
Click to expand...
It is telling that the Church of Sweden would deny ordination for being scripturally, confessionally Lutheran.

We as Christians must and should welcome those with same gender attraction, for they are God’s children, too. Having SGA is not a sin. Acting on it is a sin, just like acting on heterosexual attraction outside of marriage is equally a sin. The message must be love and grace, keeping in mind the third use of the law, and the grace of the Gospel. OTOH, God’s law does not change simply because the secular world demands it.

Jon
 
You can’t judge a denomination on the basis of the stands of politicians who happen to be members. Even if 98% of the members of a denomination support positions incompatible with Christianity, and even if church leaders are too nervous to take any action against straying members, that does not affect the orthodoxy of that denomination. Sadly, most Christians today take their moral and doctrinal formation from the Media, essentially a non-Christian religion in itself. That is not a reflection of denominations.

If the Church itself bends its teaching to fit the Media, as many have, then it is no longer orthodox. Evangelicals tend to equate “the Church” with “all the Christians” or “all the Christians in this city”. Catholics refer to “the Church” as also having an identity in itself, a guidance by what I call an invisible hand, in the Magisterium. Thus, “the Church” is always holy, even if, in a given year, every single Catholic including the pope are all scoundrels. The same is true with doctrine, even we don’t live up to it at the moment. We always come back, eventually. The Magisterium provides a fixed point, there will always be a place we can return to.

Forgive this interlude, hope to learn more from this thread on Lutheranism, and Northern Europe.
 
benjohnson said:
I’m pretty sure Nancy Pelosi isn’t welcome to the communion table in the LCMS church.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not for political reasons, but more the fact that she is officially Catholic and LCMS has a close communion.
 
commenter said:
You can’t judge a denomination on the basis of the stands of politicians who happen to be members. Even if 98% of the members of a denomination support positions incompatible with Christianity, and even if church leaders are too nervous to take any action against straying members, that does not affect the orthodoxy of that denomination. Sadly, most Christians today take their moral and doctrinal formation from the Media, essentially a non-Christian religion in itself. That is not a reflection of denominations.

If the Church itself bends its teaching to fit the Media, as many have, then it is no longer orthodox. Evangelicals tend to equate “the Church” with “all the Christians” or “all the Christians in this city”. Catholics refer to “the Church” as also having an identity in itself, a guidance by what I call an invisible hand, in the Magisterium. Thus, “the Church” is always holy, even if, in a given year, every single Catholic including the pope are all scoundrels. The same is true with doctrine, even we don’t live up to it at the moment. We always come back, eventually. The Magisterium provides a fixed point, there will always be a place we can return to.

Forgive this interlude, hope to learn more from this thread on Lutheranism, and Northern Europe.
Click to expand...
I thought the interlude was well said and well thought out. Now back to our regularly scheduled topic… LOL!
Mary.
 
andrewstx said:
Perhaps not for political reasons, but more the fact that she is officially Catholic and LCMS has a close communion.
Click to expand...
Exactly A Lutheran disagreeing with the LCMS/ Wels practices of close/closed Communion will just join the ELCA who has open Communion. Catholics can Commune there and I know some who regrettably have.

Mary.
 
andrewstx said:
Perhaps not for political reasons, but more the fact that she is officially Catholic and LCMS has a close communion.
Click to expand...
If she was LCMS, my estimate is that 80% of the pastors in the LCMS would want to withhold communion, and about 60% would actually do so.
 
benjohnson said:
If she was LCMS, my estimate is that 80% of the pastors in the LCMS would want to withhold communion, and about 60% would actually do so.
Click to expand...
Pardon my response but what you write is wildly speculative and unrealistic in today’s Church. Pastors are not denying holy Communion when the size of the parish continues to decline!
 
benjohnson said:
If she was LCMS, my estimate is that 80% of the pastors in the LCMS would want to withhold communion, and about 60% would actually do so.
Click to expand...
I am not really familiar with Miss Pelosi, is she a ‘notorious and open evil liver’? Or is it the fact that she is a Democrat alone that marks her out for special attention?

Personally I think that the opposition is not exactly the party of God except when it comes to life issues.

The Democrats, I believe have their good points as well, such as their affection for the poor. I am torn on politics since both major parties have their good and bad.

I vote for the individual, not the party. I most often vote Independent and my affiliation is Moderate Republican.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top