Which protestant denomination is most close in doctrine to the catholic church?

[AbideWithMe]

And a faithful little monk in Germany didn’t found The Evangelical Catholic Church of the Augsburg Confession, Christ did. Where Luther is correct in doctrine, we will admit our closeness to him. Where he is not, we will disown him. He was human, as are all of His people.

There is a line of faulty reasoning that some Roman Catholics follow, and I think it stems from an uninformed perspective. It centers upon painting Luther as some magnificently important “prophet” to Lutherans (which is absurd, as Lutherans are bound to the Augsburg Confession - we do not follow any man), then engaging in ad hominem attacks on the man as a means to discredit the entire Evangelical Catholic movement (typically by taking this or that particular quote out of context, misinterpreting his favorite rhetorical device, hyperbole, or taking offense at the earthiness of the times). If one were to actually learn something about Lutherans, they would find their witch-hunt rather silly. Here’s a nice place to start: bookofconcord.org/

Well said from JonNC and Steido.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

And a faithful little monk in Germany didn’t found The Evangelical Catholic Church of the Augsburg Confession, Christ did.

I’m afraid you’d have a very difficult time showing that Christ appeared and instructed him to start a new “church”; that the one that He started 1500 years earlier had been abandoned.

Making rash claims is easy; backing them up not so easy.

Where Luther is correct in doctrine, we will admit our closeness to him. Where he is not, we will disown him. He was human, as are all of His people.

Who determines when he’s “correct in doctrine?”
If Christ informed Luther that he should start a new church as you claim above, then who are you to overrule him?

Can’t you see how protestantism makes each individual their own “pope?”

Being Catholic requires a modicum of humility, that Christ’s promise to guide the Church must prevail even over our initial understanding of scripture.

And, you know what? The Church’s doctrines always, after extensive study and prayer, prove to be correct.

 

[Lochias]

It kinda makes me scratch my head a bit when a member of the Lutheran church says “Well, he was just a guy and he did what he thought was right, but Christ started our church.”

If it was Christ that started the Lutheran church, why call it “Lutheran” at all?

These kind of statements are the kind that really can’t be avoided or explained very well. Just my two cents.

 

[steido01]

I’m afraid you’d have a very difficult time showing that Christ appeared and instructed him to start a new “church”; that the one that He started 1500 years earlier had been abandoned.

Why would I ever defend such a silly thing? Lutherans don’t claim that any “Great Apostasy” took place. Rome is as much a part of Christ’s OHCAC as is Wittenberg. Once again, I’m seeing an uniformed understanding of Lutheranism.

Who determines when he’s “correct in doctrine?”

The Church, in general. Typically through truly Ecumenical Councils.

If Christ informed Luther that he should start a new church as you claim above, then who are you to overrule him?

I NEVER claimed this. No Lutheran would.

Can’t you see how protestantism makes each individual their own “pope?”

If an individual seeks to replace one pope with another, yes. But Lutheranism does not do this. Look at Orthodoxy if you want proof that a given communion doesn’t require an absolute human monarch.

Being Catholic requires a modicum of humility, that Christ’s promise to guide the Church must prevail even over our initial understanding of scripture.

And, you know what? The Church’s doctrines always, after extensive study and prayer, prove to be correct.

Amen.

It kinda makes me scratch my head a bit when a member of the Lutheran church says “Well, he was just a guy and he did what he thought was right, but Christ started our church.”

See above.

If it was Christ that started the Lutheran church, why call it “Lutheran” at all?

It is only called “Lutheran” in English, for the sake of easy understanding. In Germany, churches of the Augsburg Confession are called “Evangelical,” which carries a different meaning than that words does in the US. “Lutheran” is the name given to us by Roman Catholics, in an attempt to tie us to a “heretic.” Over time, we’ve just accepted the moniker for ease of use.

These kind of statements are the kind that really can’t be avoided or explained very well. Just my two cents.

When we actually listen to what we hear, we often find there is no need for explanation. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that neither of you has ever read the Confessio Augustana, Confutatio Augustana, or the Apologia Augustana…

 

[JonNC]

How’s that ironic? The Inquisition didn’t found the Catholic Church, Christ did. Regardless of what you want to say about your distance from Luther, the fact of the matter is that the reason you’re not Catholic is because of Luther’s apostasy. And therefore, for your position to be tenable, Luther has to be right about something.

How’s it ironic? I thought the plank and speck reference fairly well implied it.

First, even under a Catholic definition, Luther was not apostate. There are a huge number of things that Lutherans and Catholics agree on. But if you want to make the polemical statement that “…Luther had to be right about something”, perhaps a bit of research would help you.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Why would I ever defend such a silly thing?

To claim that Jesus started protenstantism would take some evidence.

Rome is as much a part of Christ’s OHCAC as is Wittenberg. Once again, I’m seeing an uniformed understanding of Lutheranism.

Perhaps I just don’t understand it, much the same way that I don’t understand “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

The Church, in general. Typically through truly Ecumenical Councils.

Trent found that Luther was wrong.
You’ll have to point out which councils you believe would have clarified those doctrines.
If not, you have no basis for determining when he’s correct or incorrect in his teachings, and your statement is meaningless.

I NEVER claimed this. No Lutheran would.

Great. So, your statement was nothing more than a farce?

If an individual seeks to replace one pope with another, yes. But Lutheranism does not do this. Look at Orthodoxy if you want proof that a given communion doesn’t require an absolute human monarch.

I have, and this is one of its greatest weaknesses.
If you claim to share the greatest weaknesses and NOT share the greatest strengths, then how is your faith community superior?

Originally Posted by FathersKnowBest
Being Catholic requires a modicum of humility, that Christ’s promise to guide the Church must prevail even over our initial understanding of scripture.

And, you know what? The Church’s doctrines always, after extensive study and prayer, prove to be correct.

Amen.

I’m glad you agree.
Are you saying that, in the spirit of this humility (and accepting the faith as a little child) you are going to follow the Church?

 

[Protestor]

Mine is closer to universal doctrine then the RCC.

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;11518105]To claim that Jesus started protenstantism would take some evidence.

Who said that?

Perhaps I just don’t understand it, much the same way that I don’t understand “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

Can’t help you with the Deplorable Care Act reference. Our bishops and yours sit on the same side of that table.

Trent found that Luther was wrong.
You’ll have to point out which councils you believe would have clarified those doctrines.
If not, you have no basis for determining when he’s correct or incorrect in his teachings, and your statement is meaningless.

Virtually none of the things we disagree with Rome on come from the 7 early councils - the truly ecumenical ones.

Great. So, your statement was nothing more than a farce?

He never made the statement that you consider a farce. :whacky:

I have, and this is one of its greatest weaknesses.
If you claim to share the greatest weaknesses and NOT share the greatest strengths, then how is your faith community superior?

Eastern Orthodoxy is anything but weak.

I’m glad you agree.
Are you saying that, in the spirit of this humility (and accepting the faith as a little child) you are going to follow the Church?

I would say, we already do.
Jon

 

[steido01]

…

 

[steido01]

To claim that Jesus started protenstantism would take some evidence.

Perhaps I just don’t understand it, much the same way that I don’t understand “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

Trent found that Luther was wrong.
You’ll have to point out which councils you believe would have clarified those doctrines.
If not, you have no basis for determining when he’s correct or incorrect in his teachings, and your statement is meaningless.

Great. So, your statement was nothing more than a farce?

I have, and this is one of its greatest weaknesses.
If you claim to share the greatest weaknesses and NOT share the greatest strengths, then how is your faith community superior?

I’m glad you agree.
Are you saying that, in the spirit of this humility (and accepting the faith as a little child) you are going to follow the Church?

I responded in an attempt to clarify, not argue. You have demonstrated your unwillingness to understand -or even read about- Lutheranism. Such ignorance is tremendously off-putting. I have nothing to contribute to a conversation with a Roman triumphalist. I’ll let cooler heads answer from this side.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I responded in an attempt to clarify, not argue. You have demonstrated your unwillingness to understand -or even read about- Lutheranism. Such ignorance is tremendously off-putting. I have nothing to contribute to a conversation with a Roman triumphalist. I’ll let cooler heads answer from this side.

Thanks. Love you, too.
If you’re not going to contribute, why respond? Just to insult?

Just to let you know, I was involved in a Lutheran Bible study (cell group) for, oh, about 6 or 7 years. They even gave us our own “mailbox” along with members of their church. Two of them are actually involved in the synod in Mo. We’re still incredibly good friends and get together for dinner at least a couple of times a year.

So, no, I don’t think I “have demonstrated [an] unwillingness to understand -or even read about- Lutheranism”.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

FathersKnowBest:
To claim that Jesus started protenstantism would take some evidence.

Originally Posted by steido01
And a faithful little monk in Germany didn’t found The Evangelical Catholic Church of the Augsburg Confession, Christ did.

Eastern Orthodoxy is anything but weak.

Never claimed it was. Just that it has weaknesses.

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;11518218]
Originally Posted by steido01
And a faithful little monk in Germany didn’t found The Evangelical Catholic Church of the Augsburg Confession, Christ did.

As part of the Catholic Church, we recognize that Christ founded His Church at Pentecost. That Church Catholic does not consist of only and exclusively those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, though they and he are certainly a significant part of it. So, that Augustinian friar did not found a church, nor did he found The Church. Christ did.

Never claimed it was. Just that it has weaknesses.

I would humbly contend that without them, the Catholic Church is weaker for the division, as is the rest of the Western Church, ourselves included.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

As part of the Catholic Church, we recognize that Christ founded His Church at Pentecost. That Church Catholic does not consist of only and exclusively those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, though they and he are certainly a significant part of it. So, that Augustinian friar did not found a church, nor did he found The Church. Christ did.

… and he broke away from that Church; something that is clearly sinful based on scripture.

I would humbly contend that without them, the Catholic Church is weaker for the division, as is the rest of the Western Church, ourselves included.

Any division weakens the Church. That’s why Christ prayed for unity; that’s why St. Paul denounced divisions.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

… and he broke away from that Church; something that is clearly sinful based on scripture.

Any division weakens the Church. That’s why Christ prayed for unity; that’s why St. Paul denounced divisions.

Such passion for Church unity will be nicely satisfied by reading the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue/ ‘From Conflict to Communion’. If interested, I recommend starting with the quote/ link below.

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;11518560]… and he broke away from that Church; something that is clearly sinful based on scripture.

It takes two to tango. He was, after all excommunicated. One could say he was pushed away, but the fact is the Catholic Catechism is right on this - men on both sides were to blame.

Any division weakens the Church. That’s why Christ prayed for unity; that’s why St. Paul denounced divisions.

Agreed, on all three counts.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

I will get back to your previous post this weekend. As for this:

I am, and have been most willing to criticize Luther when need be. And there are plenty of opportunities for that. I am just thankful that I don’t have as voluminous a paper trail to be quoted, twisted, misconstrued, and spun every which way.

When Luther looks foolish, Luther looks foolish, jusdt like when Ecke looks foolish, or Pope Leo looks foolish, they look foolish.

Jon

Hi Jon,

I am glad to hear that you are unbiased enough to criticize Luther “when need be”. Given that he very clearly recommended that wives be executed for refusing to submit to their husbands sexually, I would think that this is one of those times when Luther ‘needs’ to be criticized. I am looking forward to your comments on Luther’s recommendation.

You mention Eck and Leo, along with Luther, claiming I think that when those individuals look foolish, they simply look foolish as individuals. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither Leo nor Eck were innovators. Neither of them took off on their own accord and developed a brand new version of Christianity (as Luther did). Neither Leo nor Eck charged off on their own self-professed authority and challenged/changed dozens of well-established Christian doctrines. Luther did and as a result, Luther the man, the individual, must be scrutinized to a far greater degree than Leo or Eck.

Luther took far more responsibility upon his shoulders than any Pope or Catholic theologian ever has. In fact, Luther proclaimed, for himself, far, far more authority to change or create doctrine than any dozen Popes combined. Again, as such, it is extremely important that we investigate Luther, the man himself and his teachings, to determine if that authority that he took for himself was valid.

When we see things like recommending that reluctant wives be executed (and there are many, many more) this man Luther does not look like a man who was doing God’s will in his teaching. You can claim him where you agree with him (personally) and then dismiss him where you disagree with him (personally), but you cannot claim that you have no association with him. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You identify yourself as a Lutheran, using his last name. When Luther looks foolish, it impacts the credibility of Protestantism generally, and Lutheranism specifically. In this case, where he recommended the death of wives, he looks more than foolish, he looks like he cannot understand simple Christian truths. In addition, he looks like a horrible Exegete of Scripture and also like a man who incorrectly thought he was teaching what God wanted him to teach. One has to wonder how many more issues there are like this one and how many it would take to cause people to actually consider the possibility (as remote as it might be) that Luther’s teachings were invalid in God’s eyes.

Again, I look forward to your thoughts on the execution of the wives thing. Hopefully, they will show that we can look forward to a productive, honest, and respectful dialogue.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I am not one to dismiss Protestantism simply on the basis of Luther’s words or character. That is really neither here nor there. However, I do strongly disagree with the notion that Lutheranism (or Evangelicalism) can be treated as anything but a radical departure from the faith of the Catholic Church and the Fathers. The Augsburg Confession speaks vaguely, perhaps deliberately, the real matters of controversy. It constanty strawmans Catholic teaching (“we condemn those that…”, implying that Catholics believe works “merit grace” and so on). It condemns valid customs such as clerical celibacy, private masses and communion under one kinds. It directly contradicts matters of faith, when it actually ventures into specifics, such as its denial of the intercession of the saints. Most significantly, if its statements can mostly be read in line with Catholic doctrine, it presents a distorted view of Christianity (such as that justifying faith consists in believing that one’s sins are forgiven), and the principal error running underneath the text is that since customs do not have to be uniform in all places, the faithful have the right to despise the lawful authority and sunder the unity of the Church.

This is, of course, just the Augsburg Confession. There are other parts of the Book of Concord which go much further. Do Lutherans regard their other confessions with less authority than the Augsburg Confession, or is the whole BOC a definitive statement of Lutheran belief?

 

[JonNC]

:clapping: This is the kind of dialogue Lutherans and Catholics should be having. Frankly, our communions are now well past the "whose Church has the bigger scoundrels phase, though some members in each still seem to focus on it.

I am not one to dismiss Protestantism simply on the basis of Luther’s words or character. That is really neither here nor there. However, I do strongly disagree with the notion that Lutheranism (or Evangelicalism) can be treated as anything but a radical departure from the faith of the Catholic Church and the Fathers. The Augsburg Confession speaks vaguely, perhaps deliberately, the real matters of controversy. It constanty strawmans Catholic teaching (“we condemn those that…”, implying that Catholics believe works “merit grace” and so on). It condemns valid customs such as clerical celibacy, private masses and communion under one kinds. It directly contradicts matters of faith, when it actually ventures into specifics, such as its denial of the intercession of the saints. Most significantly, if its statements can mostly be read in line with Catholic doctrine, it presents a distorted view of Christianity (such as that justifying faith consists in believing that one’s sins are forgiven), and the principal error running underneath the text is that since customs do not have to be uniform in all places, the faithful have the right to despise the lawful authority and sunder the unity of the Church.

I would like to respond to some of these, but perhaps a separate thread is in order for that, or perhaps here with the OP’s approval.

This is, of course, just the Augsburg Confession. There are other parts of the Book of Concord which go much further. Do Lutherans regard their other confessions with less authority than the Augsburg Confession, or is the whole BOC a definitive statement of Lutheran belief?

There are basically two points of view on this. This a quote from a website, and expresses the two views:

The word ‘quia’ is simply Latin for ‘because’. A quia subscription to the Lutheran Confessions indicates that one holds to their teaching because it is in full agreement with Holy Scripture. This is in contrast to a ‘quatenus subscription’, ‘quatenus’ being Latin for ‘insofar as’–that is, “I hold to the Lutheran Confessions 'insofar as (I see them to) agree with Scripture.”

The writer’s POV is: “To say that one subscribes ‘quatenus’ is to say that one does not really subscribe at all.”

All that said, the two central documents (after the three ancient creeds, of course), are the Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism.

cat41.org/Defs/Quia.htm
Jon

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Thanks, John. The Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism are, as far as I remember, the least un-Catholic of the Lutheran confessional documents. Nevertheless, I still stand by what I said about the Augsburg Confession, and the Small Catechism also rejects the authority of the pope and the bishops to exercise disciplinary authority over the laity as if disagreement with the lawful authority were grounds for schism. I would be happy to participate in a thread on the Augsburg Confession if you made one.