Which Church??

[Randy_Carson]

Patrick Ohare in book “facts about Luther” I believe talks of “excessive language and emotion” on both sides of the issue that distort the truth.

That’s true, Ben.

But the excessive language from the Catholic side was NOT coming from its founder nor, do I believe, does it continue to play a role in Catholic thinking today.

In contrast, the LUTHERAN polemic was put forth by the movement’s founder who recorded the soundtrack for the whole show, and it could not help but soak into the grain. The stain is still visible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Denifle, Grisar, Chochlaeus, O’Hare are all quite biased in vilifying Luther. Seems like the internet and Tan publishing house are rivaling what Chick publications are criticized for : biased propaganda ,not to mention some poor scholarship with some lack of references. Others are saying this, even some Catholic scholars (Adolph Herti, Jared Wicks, Joseph Lortz). Even the Catholic encyclopedia says Grisars work not as balanced as can be.

Tan rival Chick? You must not be terribly well-acquainted with either.

I’m reading Here I Stand by Bainton at the recommendation of the Lutherans in this forum whom I asked for suggestions. Even this obvious “puff piece” doesn’t or can’t hide all of Luther’s vitriol.

And what can we conclude from Luther’s own words? Jesus said:

Matthew 12:34
34 You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

 

[benhur]

That’s true, Ben.

But the excessive language from the Catholic side was NOT coming from its founder nor, do I believe, does it continue to play a role in Catholic thinking today.

In contrast, the LUTHERAN polemic was put forth by the movement’s founder who recorded the soundtrack for the whole show, and it could not help but soak into the grain. The stain is still visible.

So the excessive language came not from Jesus just his Catholic adherents? It does continue to play a role today as witnessed here on CAF and other biased books still in publication. The stain is still visible, just as Abraham was a liar, Isaac and Jacob connivers, the 12 sons performing some despicable acts, David, not the son of a murderer(as “chicknish” folk say about Luther) but an adulterer many times over and a murderer…all there in the “soundtrack”. I get the picture, however slowly and more thoroughly, thanks to many here and elsewhere. Thankfully many have toned down the language as you say, on both sides, just that we use older folks vitriol as as stand alone"facts" for biased purposes? So in the end it continues for some.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So the excessive language came not from Jesus just his Catholic adherents?

And Protestants and Orthodox, yes. Is this not obvious?

It does continue to play a role today as witnessed here on CAF and other biased books still in publication.

CAF is just a forum for folks of all faiths to chat. The material previously presented was drawn from the official Lutheran website. It is still official Lutheran doctrine.

For an apples to apples comparison, please quote directly from the Catechism of the Vatican website. When quoting an anathema from Trent or another council, be sure to specify which of those, if any, STILL apply and which have been lifted and/or apologized for by Pope John Paul II or another Roman Pontiff.

Thanks.

 

[benhur]

Tan rival Chick? You must not be terribly well-acquainted with either.

I’m reading Here I Stand by Bainton at the recommendation of the Lutherans in this forum whom I asked for suggestions. Even this obvious “puff piece” doesn’t or can’t hide all of Luther’s vitriol.

And what can we conclude from Luther’s own words? Jesus said:

Matthew 12:34
34 You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

Actually know little about Tan except for the Luther vitriolic, though attempting not to be,like do as I say not as I write irony from the author, book by O,Hhare. I reviewed it has source listing much to be desired,but hey, it sells…So much trouble over one man…Reminds me of so much trouble over a tiny piece land called Israel.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12621418]
I note here Jon that you do not actually dispute Carroll’s assessment of the events, and nor do you refute my opinion that the Augsburg Confessions was not an honest representation of Lutheran teaching. If you would like to challenge Carroll’s credentials then please do so specifically. If you would like suggest that his assessment is based on a bias, then you should be able to provide at least one (other) issue on which he has shown that bias. Please feel free to provide the Carroll text that makes that point if you think so. Do you know enough about Carroll to criticize him or make generalizations?

Hi Topper,
If you’ll remember, my intent was to stay positive. I have no idea where you get the idea that I intended to challenge Dr. Carroll’s credentials. In fact, please take note, it is I who refer to him with his title of “Doctor”.

Jon, are you going to say that Melanchthon did NOT dissimulate in his writing of the Augsburg Confession, that he did not ‘conceal the truth’?

But I went past that when I said that Melanchthon lied at Augsburg. He said that:

**“We have no dogmas which differ from the Roman Church……We reverence the authority of the Pope of Rome, and are prepared to remain in allegiance to the Church if only the Pope does not repudiate us,” **

The fact is you are wrong. Melanchthon throughout his career worked for reconciliation, with Rome, with the South Germans (Bucer), with the Swiss (Calvin), with Orthodoxy.
Melanchthon was not duplicitous here. He arrived at Augsburg (without Luther who remained in Coburg), only to find out that more was needed than simply a refuting of the abuses within the Church at the time with the Torgau articles.

Some papal scribblers had disseminated pasquinades at the diet which reviled our churches with horrible lies, charging that they taught many condemned errors, and were like the Anabaptists, erring and rebellious. Answer had to be made to his imperial majesty and in order to refute the pasquinades, it was decided to include all articles of Christian doctrine in proper succession, that everyone might see how unjustly our churches were slandered in the lying papal writings.

Melanchthon here is speaking of Eck. Melanchthon truly believed that what he wrote was consistent with historic Christian doctrine.

Further, throughout his career, as Dave Armstrong writes about, Melanchthon honestly wanted reconciliation with Rome, and was not so willing to give up on it as Luther was.

For this reason I have often shown that if a few things were kept in the background, these divisions could be healed. In my opinion it would contribute very much to the quiet of the Church and to the dignity of the Roman See, to make peace on the conditions which I have mentioned. For also our priests should in turn render obedience to the bishops. Thus the Church would unite again in one body, and the Roman See would have its own honour, so that, if anything wrong remains in the churches, it can gradually be corrected by the care of the bishops. It is also our earnest desire to be freed from these contentions, that we may give our whole attention to the diligent improvement of doctrine. And unless this be done, wise men can easily foresee what, amid so many sects, will come upon posterity. And in this matter it is easy to see how indifferent those are whom you now oppose to us. Yesterday the Confutation of our Confession was read. If it shall be published, condemning us, believe me it will not have great admiration among judicious men, and will irritate the minds of ours. Thus there is danger that by the renewal of this whole tragedy, greater commotion than ever will ensue. Hence I desire that these evils of the Church be not increased in virulence. Therefore I beg you to indicate to me in a few words, whether you have spoken with your Reverend Master about those conditions, and what hope he will hold out. If I can obtain anything favourable I will take care that the Roman See may not repent its kindness. The feelings and desires of many good men are united in this matter, who will do all they can to enlarge the authority of the bishops and to establish the peace of the Church.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/11/philip-melanchthon-in-1530-longs-for.html

wlsessays.net/node/873

I disagree with your conclusion about Melanchthon, but won’t participate in your attempts to expand this into something it is not. Dr. Carroll’s credentials are not in dispute here.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

AN OPEN QUESTION:

In the past, the Catholic Church has anathematized or excommunicated various specific groups and certain named individuals.

How many of these are still in effect?
How many have been lifted or removed?
How many have been the subject of public apologies offered by a Pope?

I am not thinking of general anathemas using the form: “If anyone…let him be anathema”.

I’m looking for specific groups and individuals who are currently excommunicated and/or anathematized.

Thanks.

 

[benhur]

And Protestants and Orthodox, yes. Is this not obvious?

CAF is just a forum for folks of all faiths to chat. The material previously presented was drawn from the official Lutheran website. It is still official Lutheran doctrine.

For an apples to apples comparison, please quote directly from the Catechism of the Vatican website. When quoting an anathema from Trent or another council, be sure to specify which of those, if any, STILL apply and which have been lifted and/or apologized for by Pope John Paul II or another Roman Pontiff.

Thanks.

Then shouldn’t’ Catholics be following the purity of their founder? By your paradigm at least we are not hypocrites or poor disciples and doing exactly as our founder(Luther) when we are “excessive”.

Much material is not from Lutheran website but old “Chickish” rehash from centuries old biased “historians”.

Agree Randy, let’s us do as you say and fairly give apples for apples, as our Founder perfectly did.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12621424]If you would like to suggest that it doesn’t matter whether Melanchthon or Augsburg was honest, or that honestly or character matter, then please so state. If you would like to challenge Carroll on the facts, and show where the pg. 102 statement is false, then please do that.

Of course not, but as I said, I was trying to keep things positive.

Much is usually made of a 40 something year old inconsequential statement by Ratzinger, but in very non-specific generalized terms of course. As you well know, absolutely NOTHING came of that single sentence, which by the way, you did not bother to post.

It is only inconsequential because it does not conform to any particular anti-Lutheran polemic. Clearly, Cardinal Ratzinger backs off of this later, but the fact that he ponders this aloud (Ratzinger cannot be accused of rashness, or of ignorance of things Luther and Lutheran), is indeicadive of the fact that your understanding and POV on the CA is not universal within Catholicism.

BTW Jon, if you would like to make me the subject of posts that are not even to me, please feel free.

I didn’t ask the question. Randy did. The question was specific, and I answered it. So again, please don’t try to expand this into issues that are non-existent

We both have seen testimonies here on these threads from converts who have stated that at least one of the factors in their conversion was learning the truth about Luther and the early Reformation. Therefore I am compelled to correct the misunderstandings and misrepresentations that I see here, which could and do give people the wrong impression, such as about things like the Augsburg Confessions. After all, the 500 year history of Protestantism proves that it is not exactly forthcoming about the ‘less than stellar aspects’ of it’s history, including those involving it’s leaders.

You yourself provided the statement from Russell Staltzman’s regarding his transfer of membership to communion with the Bishop of Rome. There he says:

What I have always sought - since seminary on - is to be in a church that finally gives expression to the catholicity of the Augsburg Confession. There is no Lutheran expression doing that. Most of my 17 years as editor of Forum Letter was spent, so it seems, showing Lutherans how far we have fallen from the practice of parish life described in our own confession.

One must wonder how he could consider Augsburg as having Catholicity. One must wonder further how he could have ever come to his decision without your enlightenment about the evils of Martin Luther and the Reformation.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Then shouldn’t’ Catholics be following the purity of their founder?

Sure.

By your paradigm at least we are not hypocrites or poor disciples and doing exactly as our founder(Luther) when we are “excessive”.

Catholics aren’t “hypocrites” when they fail to be holy. Hypocrites are those who reserve for themselves the right to do what they declare to be wrong in others.

However, as far as being poor disciples…sure. You’ll get no objection from almost any Catholic here that we could all be better disciples.

Now, as to whether you are being better disciples of Luther by being excessive, as compared to Catholics…well, that’s a rather peculiar argument.

What are we to distill from this assertion you’ve made that you are a good disciple by being excessive?

 

[benhur]

AN OPEN QUESTION:

In the past, the Catholic Church has anathematized or excommunicated various specific groups and certain named individuals.

How many of these are still in effect?
How many have been lifted or removed?
How many have been the subject of public apologies offered by a Pope?

I am not thinking of general anathemas using the form: “If anyone…let him be anathema”.

I’m looking for specific groups and individuals who are currently excommunicated and/or anathematized.

Thanks.

Is the Generosity of vat 2 towards “others” outside full fellowship something new, even a doctrinal change (salvation outside her but still from her) or something always present?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Then shouldn’t’ Catholics be following the purity of their founder?

Of course. Who could argue with that?

By your paradigm at least we are not hypocrites or poor disciples and doing exactly as our founder(Luther) when we are “excessive”.

No, you are not. However, that’s small comfort, isn’t it?

Much material is not from Lutheran website but old “Chickish” rehash from centuries old biased “historians”.

Not in my posts.

Agree Randy, let’s us do as you say and fairly give apples for apples, as our Founder perfectly did.

Lead the way.

 

[benhur]

Sure.

Catholics aren’t “hypocrites” when they fail to be holy. Hypocrites are those who reserve for themselves the right to do what they declare to be wrong in others.

However, as far as being poor disciples…sure. You’ll get no objection from almost any Catholic here that we could all be better disciples.

Now, as to whether you are being better disciples of Luther by being excessive, as compared to Catholics…well, that’s a rather peculiar argument.

What are we to distill from this assertion you’ve made that you are a good disciple by being excessive?

Hi PR. Hypocrites are also those that don’t do what they preach( I think).

I have read reviews on OHares book that he says how to be “fair” then is not, and uses quotes that others definitely wrote " unfairly ". But he does beautifully state how to be fair,or the need thereof.

No, the assertion by others is that we follow Luther, and can be excessive( for sure some do and are though rarely here on CAF). For sure we (me) have from time to time not given apples to apples and been poor disciples (of anyone good, I mean The Lord) and have had to be properly escorted to the truth chambers ( oh it is painful to admit when one is wrong but oh so cleansing).

 

[benhur]

Of course. Who could argue with that?

No, you are not. However, that’s small comfort, isn’t it?

Not in my posts.

Lead the way.

Amen. HappyNewYear Randy and all posters…I have to go skate with the grand kids now…yahoo!

 

[JustaServant]

How about Sylvester Prieras master of sacred palace of Rome, on Luther wrote,“leper, loathsome, false libeled, calumniator, a dog and a son of a b____, born to bite and snap at the sky with his dogfish mouth having a brain of brass and a nose of iron” 1519

I shouldn’t be laughing at that, but IS funny.

 

[JonNC]

This has always been my understanding.

Did Lutherans think Catholics believed we are actually re-sacrificing Christ in the mass?

scecclesia.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/a-lutheran-on-the-sacrifice-of-the-mass/

Hi Randy
The link does a great job on the issue, and why there is hope. I enjoy David Schutz and Pr. Weedon so much

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR. Hypocrites are also those that don’t do what they preach( I think).

I don’t think so.

A preacher may proclaim, “Do not get drunk. It is wrong to get drunk!” and then he goes home, and in a moment of weakness, gets drunk. He knows it’s wrong. But he is a sinner and succumbs.

That makes him weak. Not a hypocrite.

Even if he didn’t do what he preached.

 

[Topper17]

Hi PR

The above is simply confirmation that it is a great absurdity to claim the name “Catholic” for the Lutheran communion.

There is no such thing as Catholics who are loyal to the office of the papacy, and another subgroup of “Catholics” who view the power and primacy of the papacy as fulfillment of the prophecies of the anti-Christ.

That would be like saying there are Catholics who view the Eucharist as the Body/Blood/Soul and Divinity of Christ, and another subgroup of “Catholics” who view the Eucharist as idol-worship. But both groups can still be called “Catholic”.

That’s nonsense.

Exactly. To me though it is the Capital “C” in “Catholic” that I find offensive. Little ‘c’ as in ‘catholic’ indicates ALL of Christianity. The use of the Capital ‘C’ infers some kind of formal association or belonging to the Church that has ALWAYS been represented by the Capital ‘C’.

To me the Capitol “C” when undeserved is kind of a ‘wannabe thing’.

I must say that I am astonished to see that statement on an official Lutheran website.

Prior to this thread I would have scoffed at any anti-Lutheran poster who had made the claim that the Lutheran church views the office of the papacy as the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Antichrist…so I am simply aghast to see it in print.

In previous threads where the ‘antichrist’ issues in the Lutheran Confessions came up, there were some people who were FURIOUS. They were former Lutherans (now Catholics) and they had never been taught about the whole antichrist thing - even though they were doctrinally held to its teachings when they were Lutheran.

My guess is that there would be a lot of defections from Lutheranism if all Lutherans were to read the actual language of their Confessions in regards to the ‘identity’ of the Pope.

God Bless You PR, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi PR

The above is simply confirmation that it is a great absurdity to claim the name “Catholic” for the Lutheran communion.

There is no such thing as Catholics who are loyal to the office of the papacy, and another subgroup of “Catholics” who view the power and primacy of the papacy as fulfillment of the prophecies of the anti-Christ.

That would be like saying there are Catholics who view the Eucharist as the Body/Blood/Soul and Divinity of Christ, and another subgroup of “Catholics” who view the Eucharist as idol-worship. But both groups can still be called “Catholic”.

That’s nonsense.

Exactly. To me though it is the Capital “C” in “Catholic” that I find offensive. Little ‘c’ as in ‘catholic’ indicates ALL of Christianity. The use of the Capital ‘C’ infers some kind of formal association or belonging to the Church that has ALWAYS been represented by the Capital ‘C’.

To me the Capitol “C” when undeserving is kind of a ‘wannabe thing’.

I must say that I am astonished to see that statement on an official Lutheran website.

Prior to this thread I would have scoffed at any anti-Lutheran poster who had made the claim that the Lutheran church views the office of the papacy as the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Antichrist…so I am simply aghast to see it in print.

In previous threads where the ‘antichrist’ issues in the Lutheran Confessions came up, there were some people who were FURIOUS. They were former Lutherans (now Catholics) and they had never been taught about the whole antichrist thing - even though they were doctrinally held to its teachings.

My guess is that there would be a lot of defections from Lutheranism if all Lutherans were to read the actual language of their Confessions in regards to the ‘identity’ of the Pope.

The above is simply confirmation that it is a great absurdity to claim the name “Catholic” for the Lutheran communion.

There is no such thing as Catholics who are loyal to the office of the papacy, and another subgroup of “Catholics” who view the power and primacy of the papacy as fulfillment of the prophecies of the anti-Christ.

That would be like saying there are Catholics who view the Eucharist as the Body/Blood/Soul and Divinity of Christ, and another subgroup of “Catholics” who view the Eucharist as idol-worship. But both groups can still be called “Catholic”.

That’s nonsense.

Personally, I am not in favor of ‘watering down’ the term “Catholic” to the point where it includes people who are not actually Catholic, with a capitol “C”, meaning member of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, I never saw Lutherans refer to themselves as “Evangelical Catholics” until I joined CA a little over a year ago. Also, I have never seen the term used by an official Lutheran source, only by individual Lutherans. Lutheran Professor James Kittelson comments on the subject:

“Luther and Modern Church History”, by James Kittelson, Lutheran Professor of Church History, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN, all quotes from pages 259-60, in “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”,

“There are at least two respects in which this subject (Luther and modern church history) can easily conceal more than it elucidates. **The more obvious of these is the all too-tempting impetus to ascribe to Luther everything in contemporary Christianity of which the author approves. This tendency is most obvious in the pictures of Luther that derive from German Protestants and Lutherans in particular………” **

Here Kittleson describes a form of what I call the “Legend of Luther”.

 

[Topper17]

Lutheran Professor Kittleson continues:

**"From the perspective of those who seek the most precise and unvarnished truth about Luther possible, the currently most guilty party on this score is the ecumenical movement as it has been pursued in many quarters since Vatican II. ****Those among them who seek the formal reuniting of separated churches and at the same time carry the label “Lutheran” are particularly prone to seek in him elements that might be used to service their agenda of contemporary institutional ecumenism……One group (which is very prone to ‘find the good’ in Luther), **North Americans all, pursue one version or another of the argument that in his heart of hearts Luther wanted to reform the Church of Rome and deeply regretted the division that nonetheless followed and remains characteristic to this day. Roughly speaking, this party, which calls itself ‘evangelical catholics’, divides into two groups.”

It is worth noting that Kittelson does not refer to these two groups as ‘Evangelical Catholics’ with a capitol ‘C’. The one group according to Kittelson “is very prone to ‘find the good’ in Luther.” I appreciate this statement because I DO love a good understatement. We see a lot of evidence for this phenomenon here on CA along with a lot of ‘under-reporting the negative aspects of Luther while over-reporting the positive aspects.

Interestingly, Kittelson says that this is strictly a North American phenomenon, which means that it is not a larger Lutheran phenomenon.

“One seeks accommodations between evangelical and Roman Catholic teaching on the central subjects of justification, faith, grace, and the like, while the other gives up on the core of Luther’s theology and turns directly to his (allegedly) undeveloped understanding of ‘the church’ as both spiritual and this-worldly reality.” Kittelson

I have always said that one of the things I appreciate about Lutherans is that they are extremely doctrinal, meaning that they understand the importance of doctrine, and are willing to defend what they believe against what they ‘know’ to be wrong. However, Kittleson states that the two different types of ‘Lutheran Evangelical Catholics’ are much more willing to cave in on doctrinal matters in hopes of reaching accommodation with Rome. The one group is willing to back down on even justification, while the other is willing to redefine (at least for Lutherans) the definition of ‘the church’ as being more in line with a Catholic understanding.

As you know, we have seen a lot of evidence of what Kittelson describes here on CA.

“Some of course take both avenues toward their goal, which is, quite simply, full reunion with the Church of Rome. In each case, the historical record blocks their path of seeking support from Luther for their fondest undertaking, unless they falsify, distort, or minimize it.” James M. Kittelson, Lutheran Professor of Church History, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN, in “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”, pg. 260

This last passage from Kittelson is the money quote (as if the first few weren’t). He admits that the history of Lutheranism itself is an obstacle to reunion with Rome, and in fact Luther himself is an impediment to the unity desired by ‘Evangelical Catholics’, that is, ‘unless they falsify, distort, or minimize it’. I would suggest that the Lutheran Confessions are part of the ‘historical record’ which reduces the possibility of reunification.

God Bless You PR, Topper