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

[JonNC]

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.

I’ll be going out of town for about a week, so perhaps when I return. BTW, I appreciate not only the way you dialogue, but also your obvious knowledge of our beliefs.
Jon

 

[Peter_J]

So how does that work for us Anglican types? I mean we’re not Catholic but were not protestant either. Oh whoops we are both!

Indeed.

Of course, there’s the whole debate about whether you are “catholic and protestant” or “Catholic and Protestant”, but I find that people on this forum are sensible enough to just leave that alone.

 

[Topper17]

: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.

Jon

Hi Jon,

Assuming this refers to me, I think you have missed my point. I am not attempting to show that Luther was a scoundrel, and in fact, I would not use that word to describe him. I posted a Luther quote in which he very clearly states that wives should be executed by the state if they do not submit sexually to their husbands. Of course, as usual, Luther justified that statement by quoting Scripture, in this case I Corinthians 7:4-5, which reads as follows: “For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourself to prayer: but then come together, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.”

Granted Paul says: “Do not refuse one another”, but honestly, how in the world do you go from Paul’s statement to executing the wife who refuses her husband? Luther recommends that wives be executed and Protestants go mute? As if that statement doesn’t reveal something about Luther, the man, and his credibility? Sort of like “Oh well. That’s just Good Ole Marty being Marty.”

Again, the point is not that Luther was a scoundrel, but something much more important - that he was a poor theologian and a poor Scriptural exegete. Can you imagine if some Catholic Theologian had made that recommendation? This was the man who ‘found’ Sola Scriptura and Salvation by Faith Alone in Scripture, claiming that both of those things (and many others) were extremely clear in Scripture (and yet, nobody else had ever noticed them before). Doesn’t this ‘executing of wives thing’ force us to question Luther’s ‘ability’ to the Truth written in Scripture?

I think that the recommendation that Luther made about executing wives is an indication that Luther had an extremely poor understanding of what certain aspects of Christianity was all about. In addition, it proves that he had a very poorly developed Christian conscience and also a rather weird sense and understanding of Christian morality. Remember, it wasn’t just wives that Luther recommended for execution, but Jews, Anabaptists, and peasants.

The fact is that Protestants have ‘bet the farm’ on Luther’s ability to correctly interpret Scripture and his ability to correct the doctrinal teachings of the Church of his day. Please notice that I did not question Luther’s authority to challenge the Church for its harmful practices, but his authority to, on his own authority, refute and change SO MANY doctrines. If Luther was nowhere near as good a theologian and Scriptural Exegete as his reputation would indicate, that would mean that his doctrinal innovations should be viewed with a great deal of suspicion.

If we should not see these wacky things like executing wives as damaging Luther’s reputation as a Christian Theologian, then, specifically and exactly why not?

God Bless, Topper

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Hi Jon,

Assuming this refers to me, I think you have missed my point. I am not attempting to show that Luther was a scoundrel, and in fact, I would not use that word to describe him. I posted a Luther quote in which he very clearly states that wives should be executed by the state if they do not submit sexually to their husbands. Of course, as usual, Luther justified that statement by quoting Scripture, in this case I Corinthians 7:4-5, which reads as follows: “For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourself to prayer: but then come together, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.”

Granted Paul says: “Do not refuse one another”, but honestly, how in the world do you go from Paul’s statement to executing the wife who refuses her husband? Luther recommends that wives be executed and Protestants go mute? As if that statement doesn’t reveal something about Luther, the man, and his credibility? Sort of like “Oh well. That’s just Good Ole Marty being Marty.”

Again, the point is not that Luther was a scoundrel, but something much more important - that he was a poor theologian and a poor Scriptural exegete. Can you imagine if some Catholic Theologian had made that recommendation? This was the man who ‘found’ Sola Scriptura and Salvation by Faith Alone in Scripture, claiming that both of those things (and many others) were extremely clear in Scripture (and yet, nobody else had ever noticed them before). Doesn’t this ‘executing of wives thing’ force us to question Luther’s ‘ability’ to the Truth written in Scripture?

I think that the recommendation that Luther made about executing wives is an indication that Luther had an extremely poor understanding of what certain aspects of Christianity was all about. In addition, it proves that he had a very poorly developed Christian conscience and also a rather weird sense and understanding of Christian morality. Remember, it wasn’t just wives that Luther recommended for execution, but Jews, Anabaptists, and peasants.

The fact is that Protestants have ‘bet the farm’ on Luther’s ability to correctly interpret Scripture and his ability to correct the doctrinal teachings of the Church of his day. Please notice that I did not question Luther’s authority to challenge the Church for its harmful practices, but his authority to, on his own authority, refute and change SO MANY doctrines. If Luther was nowhere near as good a theologian and Scriptural Exegete as his reputation would indicate, that would mean that his doctrinal innovations should be viewed with a great deal of suspicion.

If we should not see these wacky things like executing wives as damaging Luther’s reputation as a Christian Theologian, then, specifically and exactly why not?

God Bless, Topper

How do your reconcile your statements with the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue? It is like you are auguring against the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[esieffe]

what do you mean by the part highlighted in bold?

Its just an old Episcopalian joke.

 

[Topper17]

How do your reconcile your statements with the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue? It is like you are auguring against the Roman Catholic Church.

I can’t imagine how my statements need to be reconciled with the Lutheran Catholic dialogue? Does the dialogue sweep doctrinal issues under the rug in the hopes of some shallow agreement? Does the Lutheran Catholic dialogue address the Lutheran claim that the Pope is (somehow) the anti-Christ?

Certainly you are not suggesting that a Catholic should not address the glaring errors of Martin Luther simply because some sort of dialogue has begun. Where do you think this dialogue is going? Do you believe that the Pope will resign his office as Luther once suggested? Do you think that the Lutheran churches are going to recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome, or refute Salvation by Faith Alone? If some agreement is going to be reached, what do you think the Lutherans should be prepared to compromise on? This last question is key. Could you please tell me what you think the Lutherans should be ready to 'give up"?

Obviously I do not understand your concern. Could you please explain further.

God Bless You Evangel, Topper

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I can’t imagine how my statements need to be reconciled with the Lutheran Catholic dialogue? Does the dialogue sweep doctrinal issues under the rug in the hopes of some shallow agreement? Does the Lutheran Catholic dialogue address the Lutheran claim that the Pope is (somehow) the anti-Christ?

Certainly you are not suggesting that a Catholic should not address the glaring errors of Martin Luther simply because some sort of dialogue has begun.

Obviously I do not understand your concern. Could you please explain further.

God Bless You Evangel, Topper

Please read the Dialogue. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity speaks volumes about Martin Luther and does not take the position you are presenting.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11522300]Hi Jon,

Assuming this refers to me, I think you have missed my point. I am not attempting to show that Luther was a scoundrel, and in fact, I would not use that word to describe him.

It was not intended to you personally, as I was clear that remark was intended for both those on the Tiber and on the Elbe who hold to that approach.

I posted a Luther quote in which he very clearly states that wives should be executed by the state if they do not submit sexually to their husbands. Of course, as usual, Luther justified that statement by quoting Scripture, in this case I Corinthians 7:4-5, which reads as follows: “For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourself to prayer: but then come together, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.”

You posted a quote without providing context, specifically, the context of the era in which he lived. I will not defend comments by Luther that offend the ear. By the same token, it is not in my approach to accuse your communion regarding things that were done by it in that same era. It serves no purpose, ISTM, other than to drive edges. That may not be your intent, but it is the effect.

Granted Paul says: “Do not refuse one another”, but honestly, how in the world do you go from Paul’s statement to executing the wife who refuses her husband? Luther recommends that wives be executed and Protestants go mute? As if that statement doesn’t reveal something about Luther, the man, and his credibility? Sort of like “Oh well. That’s just Good Ole Marty being Marty.”

I don’t know what protestants have to say. I think, generally, since virtually none but Lutherans have strong ties to him, that they don’t particularly care. Lutherans, OTOH, have clearly stated what I have already stated; that we do not defend Luther’s rash comments. We don’t defend Luther’s comments that, while perhaps consistent to the era in which he lived, are not considered appropriate now.

Again, the point is not that Luther was a scoundrel, but something much more important - that he was a poor theologian and a poor Scriptural exegete. Can you imagine if some Catholic Theologian had made that recommendation?

Again, there are plenty of words and actions from the CC in the Reformation era that one can drag out. I won’t do it, because it serves no purpose. If you wish to think Luther a poor theologian, you are welcome to your opinion. The view from Catholic theologians, while disagreeing with Luther, seems to be different.

This was the man who ‘found’ Sola Scriptura and Salvation by Faith Alone in Scripture, claiming that both of those things (and many others) were extremely clear in Scripture (and yet, nobody else had ever noticed them before). Doesn’t this ‘executing of wives thing’ force us to question Luther’s ‘ability’ to the Truth written in Scripture?

I am not convinced that sola scriptura is clear in scripture, but that’s irrelevant to the conversation. As for sola fide, at least the way Lutherans understand it, it is evident. As for your question, no.

I think that the recommendation that Luther made about executing wives is an indication that Luther had an extremely poor understanding of what certain aspects of Christianity was all about. In addition, it proves that he had a very poorly developed Christian conscience and also a rather weird sense and understanding of Christian morality. Remember, it wasn’t just wives that Luther recommended for execution, but Jews, Anabaptists, and peasants.

Again, look into your own communion’s record from the time. this is what I mean by “your scoundrel is worse then ours”. I’m frankly not interested.

The fact is that Protestants have ‘bet the farm’ on Luther’s ability to correctly interpret Scripture and his ability to correct the doctrinal teachings of the Church of his day.

Again, I don’t think most protestants care. And Lutherans are bound to the Confessions, not Luther.

Please notice that I did not question Luther’s authority to challenge the Church for its harmful practices, but his authority to, on his own authority, refute and change SO MANY doctrines. If Luther was nowhere near as good a theologian and Scriptural Exegete as his reputation would indicate, that would mean that his doctrinal innovations should be viewed with a great deal of suspicion.

You’re welcome to make that challenge.

If we should not see these wacky things like executing wives as damaging Luther’s reputation as a Christian Theologian, then, specifically and exactly why not?

I suggest it is a speck and plank issue.

God Bless, Topper

His blessings also with you,
Jon

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I’ll be going out of town for about a week, so perhaps when I return. BTW, I appreciate not only the way you dialogue, but also your obvious knowledge of our beliefs.
Jon

Thanks, Jon. I am always interested in getting a Lutheran take on things. Safe travels!

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thank you for your response.

You posted a quote without providing context, specifically, the context of the era in which he lived. I will not defend comments by Luther that offend the ear. By the same token, it is not in my approach to accuse your communion regarding things that were done by it in that same era. It serves no purpose, ISTM, other than to drive edges. That may not be your intent, but it is the effect.

The context of the Luther quote about executing ‘reluctant wives’ is from the 1522 “The Estate of Marriage”. This writing was from a supposed Christian leader who was practically at the height of his influence and in which he was ‘explaining’ how the Catholic Church was wrong about practically everything regarding marriage, and of course he was right. It was a general treatise on marriage. You ask about the specific context, but I have to ask: Can you possibly imagine a context in which his statement can be viewed as being acceptable or “Christian”? I didn’t think so. Neither can anyone else. Furthermore, again, can you imagine a Catholic theologian recommending such a thing?

Jon: We don’t defend Luther’s comments that, while perhaps consistent to the era in which he lived, are not considered appropriate now.

You suggest that Luther’s comments might have been ‘appropriate’ in his time but are not considered appropriate now? Remember Jon that you said you would criticize him when ‘need be.’ I have not seen that criticism, only an attempt to evade that necessary criticism.

Jon: Again, there are plenty of words and actions from the CC in the Reformation era that one can drag out. I won’t do it, because it serves no purpose. If you wish to think Luther a poor theologian, you are welcome to your opinion. The view from Catholic theologians, while disagreeing with Luther, seems to be different.

That’s easy to say Jon. Be specific. In fact, there is nothing you can post about Catholics teaching anything 1/10th as nutty and anti-Christian as Luther’s recommendation to execute wives. If you think you can, I welcome it. In reality, as in many other areas, Luther placed himself in a ‘class’ by himself, and we have only begun to study his nutty and un-Christian teachings on marriage.

Jon: I suggest it is a speck and plank issue.

Here is the way this always seems to work. I quote Luther and it looks really bad. Lutherans then bring the Catholic Church into the conversation and say that Catholics did/taught things just as bad. I say that that is not so and challenge them to prove their point, specifically and exactly with a quote or evidence which backs up their contention. The response is silence or changing the subject. So, where is the speck or plank which shows that ANY Catholic ever said anything as horrendous about women refusing to have sexual relations with their husbands.

God Bless You Jon and Merry Christmas, I hope you have a wonderful time and look forward to continuing our dialogue.

Topper

 

[cmodrmac]

" Do you believe that the Pope will resign his office as Luther once suggested?"

of course not -Bishop of Rome is an important see

the key issue is that the Pope will not give up His authority and thus no reunification with Anglicans/ Missouri Synod Lutherans is likely

The Evangelical Lutherans and the Episcopal Church have gone too far down the path in dealing with issues of Human sexuality to be “close to the RC”

Our Rites in the Episcopal Church are similar to the RC but really our other practices are a long way apart-

I would say the PNCC as the closest

 

[Topper17]

Please read the Dialogue. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity speaks volumes about Martin Luther and does not take the position you are presenting.

Hi Evangel,

Thanks for your response and Merry Christmas to you,

Let me say that it seems easy to say that the Pontifical Council speaks volumes about Martin Luther and then not provide any specifics. I’ve looked and didn’t really find anything that would make your point. If you would like to prove your point, please provide specific quotes along with the page numbers that those quotes are from.

For the record, I fully support the goals of Catholic/Lutheran ecumenical efforts, but also believe that they must be rooted in reality. That reality includes many topics which have not yet been officially addressed, only officially avoided, seemingly because both parties recognize that there is no potential compromise on the horizon. For example, the issue of papal infallibility. In another example, there is the issue of the official Lutheran teaching about the papacy being (somehow) either the anti-Christ or (somehow) associated with the anti-Christ. The difference between the two simply cannot be bridged and would appear to be a permanent barrier to any kind of meaningful communion. Maybe the Lutheran church will be willing to withdraw and reject that teaching, or conversely, or possibly Catholic church is willing to admit to the association between the anti-Christ and the papacy (which of course it should because it is amazingly clear to absolutely everyone who has read Scripture) There can be a lot of ink and paper used to nibble around the edges, but without dealing with the really tough issues, there will not be any real progress.

I would like to be more optimistic. If you are, please explain.

Topper

 

[AbideWithMe]

Topper–

First, I’m not Lutheran. As was said earlier, you’re overestimating the importance of Luther to non-Lutherans.

Here’s another quote from Luther: “A person who does not regard music as a marvelous creation of God, must be a clodhopper indeed and does not deserve to be called a human being; he should be permitted to hear nothing but the braying of donkeys and the grunting of hogs.”

In this case you can see Luther is using hyperbole, right? Luther used hyperbole often. When he says something that really seems “nutty”, as you put it, I usually take it that Luther himself knew it was nutty enough that he was trying to use the very nuttiness for effect and memorability without expecting to be taken literally. If you can find repeated instances where he said something weird or extreme in various ways so that his meaning could not be misunderstood, then, and only then, would I assume he’s speaking solemnly.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Hi Evangel,

Thanks for your response and Merry Christmas to you,

Let me say that it seems easy to say that the Pontifical Council speaks volumes about Martin Luther and then not provide any specifics. I’ve looked and didn’t really find anything that would make your point. If you would like to prove your point, please provide specific quotes along with the page numbers that those quotes are from.

For the record, I fully support the goals of Catholic/Lutheran ecumenical efforts, but also believe that they must be rooted in reality. That reality includes many topics which have not yet been officially addressed, only officially avoided, seemingly because both parties recognize that there is no potential compromise on the horizon. For example, the issue of papal infallibility. In another example, there is the issue of the official Lutheran teaching about the papacy being (somehow) either the anti-Christ or (somehow) associated with the anti-Christ. The difference between the two simply cannot be bridged and would appear to be a permanent barrier to any kind of meaningful communion. Maybe the Lutheran church will be willing to withdraw and reject that teaching, or conversely, or possibly Catholic church is willing to admit to the association between the anti-Christ and the papacy (which of course it should because it is amazingly clear to absolutely everyone who has read Scripture) There can be a lot of ink and paper used to nibble around the edges, but without dealing with the really tough issues, there will not be any real progress.

I would like to be more optimistic. If you are, please explain.

Topper

I provide you, once again the link to your own Church’s opinion of Martin Luther as articulated in the document. Is it up to you to read or not. And while you are at it, you might also want to read Pope Francis’ comments to those who seek “idealogy”. Powerful words. Perhaps you can reconcile your statements with that of the Catholic Church?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=846769

See below:

 

[Novocastrian]

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.

Don’t you have a Vicar of Christ who approves such things? Was he acting ultra vires at the time?

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

Thank you for your response.

That is precisely what I didn’t do or say. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I’ve not seen nor heard this before. It’s old news, Topper. And I choose not to site anything the CC has done, simply because it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter, Topper. The leaders of our communions know all of this stuff, and as EC points out, they aren’t the issue of dialogue. The differences in theology and doctrine are. The other things, the things you seem to want to talk about, are apologetics stuff. So, ok, this is an apologetics forum. Knock yourself out, but I’m not playing the game. There are too many good things in our two communions, good things going on between our communions, to play the Father O’Hare/Jack Chick stuff.

God bless you as well, and a Blessed Christmas to you and yours,
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Topper–

First, I’m not Lutheran. As was said earlier, you’re overestimating the importance of Luther to non-Lutherans.

Here’s another quote from Luther: “A person who does not regard music as a marvelous creation of God, must be a clodhopper indeed and does not deserve to be called a human being; he should be permitted to hear nothing but the braying of donkeys and the grunting of hogs.”

In this case you can see Luther is using hyperbole, right? Luther used hyperbole often. When he says something that really seems “nutty”, as you put it, I usually take it that Luther himself knew it was nutty enough that he was trying to use the very nuttiness for effect and memorability without expecting to be taken literally. If you can find repeated instances where he said something weird or extreme in various ways so that his meaning could not be misunderstood, then, and only then, would I assume he’s speaking solemnly.

You are exactly right on all counts. It is also true that the nutty stuff, the outrageous stuff, didn’t make it into the Lutheran confessions. Why? For the reasons you mentioned. Usually it is hyperbole, or sarcasm, often done out of frustration or anger (as was the case with his boasting regarding translation). The nutty and outrageous stuff isn’t particularly important to us as Lutherans, and I suspect much of the doctrinal stuff isn’t particularly important to non-Lutheran protestants.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11528218]Hi Evangel,

Thanks for your response and Merry Christmas to you,

Let me say that it seems easy to say that the Pontifical Council speaks volumes about Martin Luther and then not provide any specifics. I’ve looked and didn’t really find anything that would make your point. If you would like to prove your point, please provide specific quotes along with the page numbers that those quotes are from.

For the record, I fully support the goals of Catholic/Lutheran ecumenical efforts, but also believe that they must be rooted in reality.

This is good, and I wholeheartedly agree. A false unity would be more damaging than the current division, ISTM.

That reality includes many topics which have not yet been officially addressed, only officially avoided, seemingly because both parties recognize that there is no potential compromise on the horizon.

I would contend that this view undervalues the progress made thus far between our communions in the last 50 years, and limits the role of the Spirit in these talks. Pope Benedict made clear that unity must come from God, when he spoke at the Lutheran Church in Rome in 2010.

For example, the issue of papal infallibility. In another example, there is the issue of the official Lutheran teaching about the papacy being (somehow) either the anti-Christ or (somehow) associated with the anti-Christ. The difference between the two simply cannot be bridged and would appear to be a permanent barrier to any kind of meaningful communion. Maybe the Lutheran church will be willing to withdraw and reject that teaching, or conversely, or possibly Catholic church is willing to admit to the association between the anti-Christ and the papacy (which of course it should because it is amazingly clear to absolutely everyone who has read Scripture) There can be a lot of ink and paper used to nibble around the edges, but without dealing with the really tough issues, there will not be any real progress.

While I have no documentation on dialogue regarding papal infallibility, there has been dialogue regarding papal primacy and the role of the papacy if/when reconciliation happens.
The Lutheran confessions make clear that a change in understanding and actions surrounding the papacy can indeed lead to a withdrawal of the language “anti-Christ”, just as I am sure that the term heretical in regards our communion would be withdrawn by Rome.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/attitudes-papal-primacy.cfm

I would like to be more optimistic. If you are, please explain.

I am, and I hope my post here has that initial effect.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

The Lutheran confessions make clear that a change in understanding and actions surrounding the papacy can indeed lead to a withdrawal of the language “anti-Christ”, just as I am sure that the term heretical in regards our communion would be withdrawn by Rome.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/attitudes-papal-primacy.cfm

Yes, hopefully. Of course, I imagine a slow process in both cases, not a you-can’t-say-antichrist-it’s-not-PC kind of thing.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, hopefully. Of course, I imagine a slow process in both cases, not a you-can’t-say-antichrist-it’s-not-PC kind of thing.

True, but the fact is that in catechesis, and for the average Lutheran in the pew, the term is rarely heard, certainly not from the pulpit. The problem is the term has taken on new meaning in the last 100 - 150 years that the Reformers probably did not intend.

Jon