In essntials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity
Actually it was from Peter Medeirlin, a Lutheran pastor of the 17th Century.
Some historians admire the irenic attitude of Medeirlin. That saying of his seems so wise to me. In Concordia land specially in the US, there are only two poles you can be in, either you be in polemics or you be in apologetics, irenics is not that well known.
Irenics came into my mind while I was reading a blog by an LC-MS member who happened to be so critical (even severe) of the way the said Synod is heading. Right now, there are so many folk un-happy about their Synod president, about their Synod's programs and so forth. It seems that their Synod officials can never do anything right, either they have become Seeker Sensitive or has sold out to Church Growth Agenda etc. etc.
I am not LC-MS (perhaps I should be happy I am not) and looking at these bloggers, I wonder if I were in the US how I would feel about this, that is, if I were a member of LC-MS. I have a policy that I do not discuss Synod matters, because in my belief, the real action that concerns me is what happens in my local church. Because if I were handling a congregation, I would rather worry about my flock and my doctrine, I'd rather nose around my business that that of others.
I have no concern for Synod ideals or un-ideals. Whatever they may be, they do not necessarily translate down to where my pew is. At any rate, the way these angry bloggers (angry at their Synod officials) are carrying on, you can not help but wonder of if the LC-MS has become, the LC-M-ess.
113 comments:
Though I agree that the majority of blogging and skepticism should be about the happenings of the local church if you're a pastor, there is still room for addressing synod issues.
Having said that, the first priority is the local Church for lay people and clergy alike.
As an aside, I sent an email a while back, did you get it? Used the address you posted on my blog.
God bless,
Matthew Delves
Dear Big Bro. Lito,
The LCMS is in a mess because they have betrayed the cause of the Reformation, principles of the Lutheran confessions, ideals of Wather and Preus, etc. Fools in the SSP who duck-walk in the steps of Piepkorn think that the answer is a high church Lutheranism with an ecumenical bent suffused with a Romanticist version of church history. They are wolves in sheeps' clothing, worse than the CGM. The real threat is also from the so-called evangelical catholics too, as they look up to the pope and the Roman Catholic Church as a focal point of Christian unity. Bloody deluded suckers!
Luther and the Reformers to a man denounced the papacy as the seat of the Antichrist. Why do they want to go against Luther and stil claim to be Lutherans?
The answer to the LC-Mess is neither CGM nor popery, but the repristination of Luther and the Confessions and the principles of the Protestant Reformation.
We need more of the Holy Scripture, and less of ecumenical tradition. The LCMS has been "infiltrated" by fools who fancy themselves as the next Newman. What is there to admire of Newman? He's in hell, "paying" for his treachery of the Church of England as a Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical Church of the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church.
No, the time has come for people to stand up for the truth, not tradition, but the truth, pure, unadulterated, pristine truth.
And the truth is this, justification by faith alone is the central article of the Church, and the heart of the Gospel. This is why Rome, EO, etc. are enemies of the Gospel.
Matt,
Sorry I did not get your email for some reason.
There are of course somethings that you can not tolerate your leaders do in the Synod. I guess when that happens, you saturate your Synod with your absence.
Email me again, I will look out for it.
LPC
LP,
This comment is out of place here, but would you join the conversation I am having with an atheist on my blog. He and I are both exceedingly detail-oriented, and we are beating ourselves to death with detail.
Your concise, but highly intelligent and winsome comments would be appreciated.
http://jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com/2008/04/intelligent-design.html
http://jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com/2008/04/expelled-you-should-see-this-film.html
http://jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com/2007/08/nine-reasons-why-christianity-is-only_17.html
I’m not being self-serving here, I just need some help.
JK
LP,
This comment is out of place here, but would you join the conversation I am having with an atheist on my blog. He and I are both exceedingly detail-oriented, and we are beating ourselves to death with detail.
Your concise, but highly intelligent and winsome comments would be appreciated.
http://jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com/2008/04/intelligent-design.html
http://jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com/2008/04/expelled-you-should-see-this-film.html
http://jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com/2007/08/nine-reasons-why-christianity-is-only_17.html
I’m not being self-serving here, I just need some help.
JK
JK,
Will be glad to, bro. Expect a comment. I need interaction in this area anyway, being a former atheist (myself) in my uni days.
LPC
suffused with a Romanticist version of church history. They are wolves in sheeps' clothing, worse than the CGM.
You know what A.S. you and another blogger I read said the same verdict, the former is more dangerous than the latter, because in the latter we know who the enemy, the former is wolf in sheep's clothing. Most clothing is in vestments too!
LPC
Who is the other blogger, Big Bro. Lito? Sure hope is Pastor Greg of Ichabod fame!
I can only say you guys haven't got a clue about what SSP is all about - for it is all about preserving and living in our parishes a life shaped by the Gospel of the sinner's free justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. I'm saddened by the attacks on SSP, so grounded in falsehood.
Someone anonymously wrote:
"Fools in the SSP who duck-walk in the steps of Piepkorn think that the answer is a high church Lutheranism with an ecumenical bent suffused with a Romanticist version of church history. They are wolves in sheeps' clothing, worse than the CGM."
I think this person is making the original point of this blog post:
"Irenics, so few and far between."
Since we have embraced the "fifth sola" in the LCMS (Sola Doctrina) and have added a Seventh Chief Part to the Catechism ("The Office of Always Being Right"), we don't even know how to disagree with other Christians, with other Lutherans, with other Missouri Synod Lutherans, with other conservative and confessional Lutherans, (and in some cases, with both brain hemispheres) without polemics and bombast. We all want to be Martin Luther in an Ann Coulter miniskirt (while imitating Rush and Sean) with a little Howard Stern tossed in. And the level of theological discourse has gone into the toilet accordingly.
It is really sad, for it reduces what could be fruitful discussion to name-calling and huffing and puffing - and at the end of the day, accomplishing nothing but looking silly.
If anyone wants to *really* learn about the Society of St. Polycarp without the saber-rattling and the third-grade playground version of theology, please feel free to e-mail me at larrybeane at gmail dot com. I know a little something about the SSP, since I'm the Society's current dean.
Ask for yourself, and don't rely on a guy who can't come up with something better than "duckwalking" and subjective attempts at hysteria to explain his charge that we are "wolves in sheep's clothing." The man (or woman) has never heard me preach, been to my church's Divine Service, attended one of my Bible classes, or even met me - but he feels comfortable equating me with the devil because he disagrees with me.
"Irenics, so few and far between."
Pr. Will,
Let us just say that I disagree with the movement and I consider it superflous, my opinion, that is.
You and I can disagree without prejudice I hope because should I tell you more about myself, I am sure there will things you will disgaree with my life and doctrine.
We do not get born into this world already mature, the same I think in the Christian faith. I still see things darkly, through a glass, I guess you too.
Please feel free to explain where the SSP is being misunderstood but consider that it might be challenged, yet Truth has nothing to fear. Correct?
LPC
Lito,
Of course we can disagree without prejudice. But I hope we can also disagree without heaping scorn. I'm certain where we each come from shapes a great deal of how we approach and think about these matters.
First, SSP is misunderstood if it is thought of as a movement. It is no such thing. Rather, it is a society for the mutual support and comfort of those who seek to live out the faith as confessed in the Lutheran Symbols. It's big goals are to encourage prayer through the daily office (as the Lutheran Churches kept it - with special focus on praying the psalms and reading the Scriptures each day); to encourage the wonderful gift of the private absolution; to restore the Eucharist to its crown jewel status (as witnessed again in our Symbols) as the great gift that it is - the very body and blood of the Savior which He reaches us as our forgiveness, our justification, our righteousness.
There's not a point in the Rule (a wretched name, I know, but what these things tend to be called) that contradicts the Lutheran Symbols, but throughout the Rule the Symbols are upheld and rejoiced in. Not because they couldn't err (of course they could!), but because we believe they didn't. And that's why we're Lutherans.
Because we confess the Symbols, is justification by faith alone the center? You betcha! It's the beating heart behind all we seek to do: joying, as you do, in the extra nos-ness of our salvation in Christ.
Hope that helps. I just don't think that Pr. Jackson is fair in his critiques, and I think that's influenced you a bit.
Fr. Bollywood,
I am quite honored you wondered off in these parts. Welcome. I must have done something aweful that you should spend your time here.
Unlike the way you treated me when you banned me from your blog, I will do you courtesy an allow you to speak your mind here as much as you wish.
I do not ban people who disagree with me, even those who challenge me. My archives will attest to that. The only time I will delete comments and edit them is when there are profanities, but I may even keep them as a testimony of their behavior.
Lest you think we have not read the statements of the SSP, do realize this is the internet world, we can read. I disagree with the movement and consider it superflous, a remake of what has already been done, that is my opinion, feel free to change it if you like. I do see it as another romanizing Lutheran movement. Now you can work of that, be my guest, you can tell me why you are not.
You are right in that in Lutheranism, there are people who like to live during Luther's time and they like to be a pseudo-quasi Luther themselves. They have a romantic view of him making him a hero and an idol. There are many things that Luther said that were wise but there we those things that were stupid too, and some people like to repeat the stupid things,such as this...
As Luther's remarks have been paraphrased: "I'd rather drink only the blood of Christ with the pope than drink only wine with Zwingli."
Remember who said that?
Personally I would neither drink the blood of Christ with the Pope neither with Zwingli. That might be Luther, but I am not Luther.
I detect that you argee with the lack of irenics in the LC-MS when you said we don't even know how to disagree with other Christians. This is true, you guys don't, in fact you guys probably consider my synod not as confessional as your, you probably think we are liberals.
The problem is that LC-MS Storm Troopers critcize the evangelicals/pentecostals the Reformed, the misguided Seeker Sensitive leaning pastors etc etc and yet, Jesus said - why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye but do not see the log in your own eye. And you know what Jesus said after that so I won't repeat it. Criticizing the dirt in other denominations while you have a pile of garbage in your own garden does not speak well of you guys-- that truly makes one's opinion irrelevant.
Acts 20:27-30. That is warning for those who are in, rather than to watch out for those who are out.
LPC
"As Luther's remarks have been paraphrased: "I'd rather drink only the blood of Christ with the pope than drink only wine with Zwingli."
Hollywood wannabe who fancies himself the next Newman, you are dead wrong. No scholar worth his salt will take that quote seriously. I challenge you to back that quote up, or get it "certified".
Remember Luther never participated but stayed on the sidelines throughout the Regensburg Colloquy, and when the final draft was presented to him, he commented that it was a scissors cut and paste job.
The SSP is a damnable movement imitating the liturgical phenomenon in the Roman Church. Why? Because they yearn to look like, talk like, smell like the papists.
Hollywood jester and Weedon and Co. must have been so unnerved by my statement. They might as well be, because it is true. Lex semper accusat.
The day when you cannot take it any longer will be the day when you cross over, thinking o holy mother church of Rome is home sweet home. At last ... no, deluded fools, only Christ is the end of Law to everyone who believes. To enter Rome is to be in bondage. Why is it so hard for you all to understand?
Why does not the SSP condemn, denounce the pope as Antichrist? Why do they yearn for the approval of the pope? He doesn't give a damn about you. Who the hell is the SSP? What is your credentials, standing, status? Yes, suckers, prestige matters in the eyes of Rome. It's pathetic that you guys have degenerated into fantasising about the so-called bishop of the Atlantic District greeting the pope as the representative (?) of the LCMS. David Benke has not repented of his syncretism! Talk about confessional Lutheranism. Why, because he is a bishop and he met up with the pope? Pathetic, boys!
You say you believe in justification by faith alone. Well, I have got news for you, Rome does not. So, what are you going to do about it?
Like I told off Paul McCain, you don't even know how to distinguish Law and Gospel. The Law says we are to love our enemies. In the same breath, the Gospel says we are hate error. The official policy of the Church is no fellowship with the Roman Church. No compromise whatsoever. No approvals, approbation, etc. But at the social level, you want to hang out and discuss theology that is your business. I don't care a snap. But get this one thing very clear, you say you profess to subscribe to the BoC, you say you are confessional, you say you are minister which means you have been authorised to execute the public ministry. Then do it!
This is what I actually wrote to Mccain:
"The comment was deliberate and meant to highlight the foolishness of those who think they are obeying the Law and reflecting the Gospel by being nice to the pope and the Roman Church. Sadly, folks do not know how to distinguish between "official policy" of the church (Gospel) and "social proclivity" of the Christian (Law) when dealing with ecumenical issues. There can be no compromise whatsoever at the ecclesial level. None whatsover. To do so is simply a matter of betrayal. Period. It's funny Muslims see this much more clearly than Christians."
The solution to the present woes of the LCMS is not ecumenism. The solution is repristination in the tradition of Walther, Pieper, Preus, etc. etc.
But no, you don't love these true blue LCMS giants; you hanker after something else, some rarified, fantasty romanticist, etc. notion of church unity. You prefer to be seduced by Rome rather than inspired by the true-blue LCMS giants. What does this show? it shows no love for the truth. Period.
Here's the real quote, the real deal, the real McCoy, not the bullshit that Hollywood wannabe and Co. talks about ...
"... Concerning Christ's Supper (1528), Luther reaffirm what he had said in the Babylonian Captivity:
This bothers me very little, for I have often enough asserted that I do not argue whether the wine remains or not. It is is enough for that Christ's blood is present. Let it be with the wine as God wills. Sooner that I have mere wine with the fanatics, I would AGREE with the pope that there is ONLY blood.
Quoted from Faith, Philosophy, and the Nominalist Background to Luther's Defense of the Real Presence, Thomas Osborne (Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies), Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 63, No. 1, January
2002, pp 63-82.
So, there, what's the context? Drinking with the pope? Bullshit of the lowest grade! The context is agreement, consent, in a hyopthetical setting.
Begone with your lies and deceit!
No, my friend, Luther's words before also give context:
"Against this someone will object once more, 'But you yourself declare that wine remains in the new Supper. These words of yours make you a good papist who believes that no there is no wine in the Supper.' I reply..."
Luther's point is the same in his Confession Concerning Christ's Supper as in the Smalcald Articles: "We care nothing about the sophistic cunning by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance so that only the appearance and color of bread remain, and not true bread." He disagrees with the theory of transubstantiation, as do all Lutherans, but judges it not as damnable heresy, but as sophistic cunning - trying to explain too much, in other words.
Meanwhile, I'd invite your consideration of these words of Krauth, the great 19th century American Lutheran theologian:
"Not only so, but, as earnest Evangelical Protestants, we may admit, that deep and vital as are the points in which we differ with the Romanists, they are not so vital as those in which we agree with them, and that Evangelical Protestants are not so remote from Romanists as they are from false and heretical Protestants." pp. 341,342 *The Conservative Reformation* CPH
It is a very Lutheran approach to recognize a true kinship with Rome when it comes to the Eucharist that we do not share with the Reformed; at least Rome still HAS the Supper.
Pr. Will,
Thank you for your post, I am at work right now and am just taking my break.
SSP with its devotional emphases is well and good, I do not object to that. It is the at least the apparent re-union program stated in the web page that makes it look suspicious in its motives. If SSP is going to be irenic, then it has to be irenic accross the board. It tilt its angle towards Rome and Constantinople in its ecumenical statements. I find that lopsided.
BTW, I was a Calvinist before though I was never a formal member of a Presbyterian congregation, the pastor there who probably also read me since I stop fellowshipping with them, does repeat the word of institution without comment. So my point is that we have to be fair in making the Reformed always the bogeyman. Not all Reformed are the same. I have other issues with them but serves no good when they are misrepresented.
I am now in the 21st century, there are no controversy where I am with the Reformed that I need to carry through as if I am still in the 16th c. They have now been put in their place.
Which is what I am going to say, US Lutherans should tone down their bogeymania and always pointing the Reformed as the bad guy. That is why sometimes I have stopped reading blos because when Lutherans paint the Reformed, they do it with misrepresentation and it is always the papistic that we have affinity with. In fact the Reformed respects Luther more than the Romans do, just try it. You hear them quote Luther positively, the reverse is true with the Papists. Just survey the internet.
Anyway, back to SSP, I think that statement of re-union or whatever it is, is the cause. Here is what I see - seems to me when uniting with the Reformed - that is unionism that is bad, but when re-uniting with Rome, boy, that is being Lutheran, that is good. Huh?
Please explain.
LPC
Pastor Weedon,
The CONTEXT is precisely what I shared above. Did Luther actually had to choose between drinking mere wine with the Anabaptists and agreeing with pope on transubstantiation? No.
Fact remains that Luther NEVER said he rather drink blood with the pope. The fact remains that Luther denounced the pope as the Antichrist.
Rome has the Supper, but the fact remains Rome has DISTORTED the Supper, DESTROYED its gift character, PERVERTED it into a work that the Church must do. What she gives on one hand, she takes back with the other ...
The Sacrifice of the Mass is ABOMINATION. Therefore, there can be no kinship with the pope on this. Recognition that the pope continues to "preserve" the Real Presence however distorted(!!!)does NOT mean kinship. Kinship in this matter means compromise. Compromise the Gospel. There is therefore no agreement between the Lutheran and the Roman on the Gospel as proclaimed in Word and Sacrament.
Gentlemen:
The paraphrase of Luther was used many times by a non-member of the SSP: Dr. Dean Wenthe, president of the Fort Wayne Seminary, both in the classroom and in the pulpit.
If this is a problem, you should take it up with him. I have not always agreed with Dr. Wenthe, but I can't say I would ever call him a "wolf in sheep's clothing."
Boy, you guys are really angry. Why not allow the force of your arguments to win the day instead of writing in all capital letters,stringing exclamation points, using profanity, and hurling invective?
I have explained this before, but here goes again: I believe the Rule of the SSP seeks an eventual reunion with Rome and Constantinople because that is where we came from. That is our past, our ecclesiastical heritage. The Zwinglian/Calvinist reformation came afterward, and it further splintered into a thousand pieces. We have much more in common with the 2 older branches of the Church Catholic than the thousands of more recent ones.
For the record, I fully recognize the Reformed and other Trinitarian Protestants to be Christians - including my sainted mother who was a Baptist. Again, for the record, I don't believe my mother is in hell. I hope this helps to ease your concerns.
Thanks for allowing me to speak. The only time I have ever deleted posts to my blog is when they have been vulgar, rude, or obnoxious. I hope that I have been a well-behaved guest here.
But Dean Wenthe is wrong. And it's not a paraphrase.
Luther would NEVER drink blood with the papist. Luther abhorred the SACRIFICE of the Mass.
If people want to quote Luther, they should let Luther speak for himself. They should'nt MIS-quote him.
How about quoting Luther denouncing the papacy as the seat of the Antichrist, for a start?
Rev. Fr. Beane,
You seem to drop names as if you are arguing by authority. Why should I take it up with Dr. Wente when in fact I am challenging you on what you have repeated? It was you repeating his rediculous position so you are it too. Please no passing the buck, be your own man, you are an adult now, take responsibility for your own position.
Wente nor Luther is not the Pope. You only go on that mode of thinking, i.e. arguing by authority when you are already submitted a mindset that is the way theology works ala Romana, i.e. Solo Magisterium, i.e. arguing by authority is typically Roman mindset, I was a Roman boy I ought to know.
believe the Rule of the SSP seeks an eventual reunion with Rome and Constantinople because that is where we came from
Bingo.
What kind of reasoning is that? If I was a child of Hitler should I pay homage to him because he was my ancestor? I should denounce him, the same way parents can denounce their children. Either he repents or I repent.
At the end of the day, truth is outside us, if we are wrong it does not make a hill of beans how polite we are, and it does not change anything, not the truth anyway. In fact, it is more serious with ordained ministers as per James 5:1 because ministers take some prisoners with them.
I see SSP as another one of those cycles, it has been done before, unification or re-union with Rome or Constantinople has been done before. LC-MS I am sure participate with the Catholic-Lutheran dialogs, what is SSP doing that LC-MS on the upper level not doing as far as representations are concerned?
Feel free to dedicate your life to whatever movement you want and enjoin others, that is your responsibility and no one is your judge but Christ. Only don't be so sensitive when others just don't plain believe you. Fair enough?
LPC
This article is very very timely and a precious one at that ...
The Pope is very Antichrist, cried Luther!
[http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/WrightAntichrist.PDF]
The SSP is nothing but a bunch of traitors intend on being sucked into the pit known as the Whore of Babylon.
Catholic? the SSP is no Catholic organisation! It is a pseudo-Catholic organisation claiming to be Catholic. This is why true Catholcis are angry.
Let me repeat, you're no Catholics. Worse, you do not realise you, your wife, children, etc. have been EX-communicated from the Roman obedience by virtue of being Lutherans and not Romans! Luther remains ex-communicated till today. This is the true meaning of "separated brethren". YOU are separated from mother church, not you and mother church.
Piepkorn was dead wrong on a lot of things. In all his supposedly intellectual charisma, he could not see that it was papal apostasy which finally led to the ex-communication of Martin Luther and the birth of the Reformation. Pipekorn could not see the plain fact that it was Roman apostasy necessitated the break in the first place. The Roman Church ever since Trent is apostate. A-P-O-S-T-A-T-E. Only bloody fools like those in the SSP do not know the meaning of apostasy. The Reformation was not a tragedy but a glorious necessity to reform the Catholic Church.
The ROMAN Church is not Catholic, anymore than the EO is Orthodox. For when the Gospel is corrupted or distorted, Catholicity and orthodoxy is likewise corrupted or distorted.
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel — which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ."
So, let the pope who claims to be the Successor of St. Peter be condemned!
Anger? I do not think I am but let us grant that since exaggerations are not appreciated neither mis-representations, specially from an ordained minister. I can only surmise that in Fr. Hollywood's zeal he over stated his case in that repetition.
The actual quote is so far from the paraphrase to suggest that Luther would rather communion with the Pope than with the Anabaptist, the quote does not suggest any of that. I believe he would have done neither.
This to me is bogeymania -- pointing again to the Reformed as if they are more evil than the Pope. Luther entertained the inquiries of Calvin via Melanchton. Sure Calvin is to my assesment far and inexperienced pastorally than Luther, he had a tendency to fix what is not broken and to be rather maverick. But what I see coming out in the way the Reformed/evangelicals etc are criticised is not Lutheran Orthodoxy but rather Lutheran Fundamentalism.
Instead of becoming a big brother lovingly correcting those younger ones, or assiting those so that they may have a better grasp at the Scripture and the Christian life, the Fundamentalists shout ...away with them, but let us be friendly with the Popers, we can commune with them, and drink blood.
I have been in both camps and they are more closer to us than the Romans are specially the continental Reformed ones. Sure they are, because they dip into our theology most of the time, they follow our cue.
LPC
Big Bro. Lito, what is tragic is that these people are sinning with their eyes open ... what is tragic is they refuse to face up to reality, preferring to live in their own fantasy world. I am angry because of that, Big Bro. It's like the Pharisees hardening their hearts at Jesus.
Like the people over at Reformed Catholicism and Evangelical Catholicity - the usual suspects - they try to be wiser than our forefathers.
At the end of the day, despite a lot of talk on theology, there is very little evidence of loving the truth.
Loving the truth is important because this is what being a Lutheran, Reformed, etc. is all about. Justification by faith alone is not an opinion of the Reformation, however valid. It is the truth itself.
So, this means that the papacy msut submit to sola fide, and not we to him, as the SSP fancies. If the pope does not submit to sola fide, then the papacy is endorsing falsehood which is precisely what is happening until today.
So, for the SSP to deliberately ignore this fact is a travesty of justice, to be on the side of falsehood, to oppose the truth. It's like saying that 2+2 is not exactly four but five or four and a half. Or the moon is made of cheese, black is white, and white is black.
This twisting of the conscience is a most terrible thing. Which is why we are saying to the SSP, all of you, don't play with fire as if is something to be proud of.
Just to clarify: as a Lutheran Christian I do believe that the office of the papacy is the antichrist, and as such the single greatest barrier to unity in the Church. When SSP speaks of seeking Unity above all with Rome and the East, it is NOT proposing seeking unity at the expense of the truth - the truth of the Gospel, the truth that is enshrined in the Lutheran Symbols. It is about asking if Rome is ready to talk to us now, instead of just offering us, shall we say, a little fire?
And no one said that the Reformed are more "evil" than Rome. Krauth said that as much as we object to the very real errors of Rome, we still find ourselves closer to Rome despite her errors as Lutherans than to our fellow Protestants despite their truths. Sasse has argued that that's of the very nature of the Church of the Augsburg Confession herself. And it is simply is historical fact that Lutherans came from Rome, but the other Protestants did not come from Lutherans. I think Rome recognizes this, too, since the JDDJ is the only such document of its kind (and of course, is not without its problems!).
So a plea: do not hear the SSP's focus on the ecumenical task as a slight against the Reformed. It's not. There is so much that we rejoice that we share with them! One thinks of the Reformation solas above all. But we are not ultimately responsible for THAT break; we are responsible for the break with Rome and we hold it was a just break and a needed one. To seek unity with Rome therefore does not mean Lutherans dump the Reformation insights; it means engaging Rome in whether she is ready to revise her harsh and wrong-headed condemnations in those day and actually LISTEN to what we were saying. Signs are good that she MIGHT be willing to do so. But it remains in the hands of God.
Pr. Will,
Once there is unity in the faith there will of course be unity, so if I were running the show, I will first ask the Pope to repent and believe the Gospel. What re-union language do I have to use and why should I use such a language when belief in the fact that we are saved alone through faith alone in Christ alone is not even agreed on. How can there be talk of union or re-union when in fact the fundamentals have not even gone to first base?
Signs are good that she MIGHT be willing to do so
Sorry Pr. Will, you are a good man but wrong, you just do not know Rome. She is a chameleon, learn from Past Elder who called her the whore of Babylon, but it seems he is not getting through. They kept on changing their tune on him.
BTW, re: Dr. Jackson aka The Ichabod, he and I do not communicate and I doubt if we have more in common than the theory that UOJ leads to Romanizing and Church Growthing in Concordialand, aside from that, we have no mutual communication.
I have been trained to listen to those who are on the fringe because often they have something useful to say, that is the scholarship training I got from the unis here. Dr. Ichabod featured my post a couple of times as I referred to his but we are independent of each other, in fact I am more closer to you than to him.
Which brings me to another point as a friend. May I may give a thought or two? Pr. Will, it does not help your position and reputation when Shuetzy tells you to swim the Tiber and kiss the Pope's ring, i.e. to convert to Rome. It means you have not made your position clear, there is mixed messages coming from your camp. It means you are seen to be on the edge and just need a little nudging. Think about it, I say this because such suggestion should not even come your way.
FWIW,
LPC
Lito,
Bless David's heart, he wants EVERYONE to come home to mama Rome. Surely, he's invited you back a time or two? Suggested you need to return?
I don't think you have a thing to worry about about this boy ending up in Rome. But that doesn't mean that I don't care deeply about what Rome does (and, I confess, mostly because it seems to hit us the between the eyes - "Rome catches a cold; Lutherans sneeze"). I keep up with her, but precisely because I do there's no chance of ignoring or glossing over where she's just plain wrong. And there's no place she's more wrong than in teaching that humility requires doubt about salvation, that the humble person can't be certain that God's promises in Christ are true for them, that He alone IS our righteousness. For as much as I enjoy and love the writings of Pope Benedict, I've not at all been convinced that the central place of Romans 4:16 has penetrated that brilliant mind of his. I pray, though, that it might!
Of course Rome is Babylon. One thinks of the atrocity that occurred at Assisi under John the Superstar. Unbelievable. Such things are not overlooked at all. And they are why the talk of unity with Rome doesn't mean Rome making room in her ever widening Tent for a few Lutheran ideologues, but Rome actually coming to hear what it does in spiritual warfare when a person cannot rest full on the promise received by faith alone.
Pax Christi!
In my Christian Doctrine class that quote was attributed to Zinzindorf.
Pr. Will,
Surely, he's invited you back a time or two? Suggested you need to return?
Actually, no, he has never suggested that to me personally and thus far. And if he does, I will consider it an insult, quite frankly speaking.
We are just different sentiments, you are must kinder and gentler man than I am, that is why I still esteem you highly though we are on a different fence on this issue, namely - as to how to deal with the real bogeyman - the Pope/Papacy.
LPC
Ritewinger,
Thanks for the proper credits to Zinzendorf.
It is so unlike Luther to say that he would rather drink blood with the Pope.
----
Pr. Will,
If you guys in the SSP can get B16 to sign the BoC I shall be thoroughly impressed and would be glad to eat my words.
LPC
Well, it is rumored that when he was a Cardinal, Ratzinger proposed that perhaps what needed to happen was to acknowledge that the AC is truly a Catholic document. That wouldn't have been everything, but it would have been a start - much better than its original reception!
I've also heard that an LCMS missionary was asked by an RC missionary in south asian country for copies of the Small Catechism to use, because he thought it taught the faith so well.
So from the man who now is Pastor of St. John's Lateran and from a missionary out in the field, word that the Lutherans may not quite be so wacky are coming in. You know the old joke don't you? What do you call a Catholic who reads his Bible? A LUTHERAN! ;)
God bless you, Lito! I learn from you even when I disagree with you - and truthfully the disagreement is not that often. Pax!
Count Zinzerdorf, the Pietist? Well, no surprise there ... Puritanism, Pietism's view of sanctification is notm uch different from Rome's.
Anyway, Weedon and Co. ain't listening to the FACTS. Trent has pronounced anathema on JFBA. The Roman Church is irreformable. Semper eadem, NOT semper reformanda. Vatican 1 AND 2 re-affirms the irreformability of Rome. Vatican 2 is about PASTORAL approach towards Protestants and EO. The theology is the same. The tactics have changed. Hence, aggiornamento. Rome IS apostate.
When you pervert to Rome, Rome receives you as an ex-communicated member from a Protestant denomination. This is the true meaning of "separated brethren". It is you who have left the Church. The Church IS Rome, not some abstract idealist, vague idea of a Catholic Church. The CHURCH is Rome. Period.
This means for there to be re-union, Rome must be completely destroyed by the Law only to be raised up again the power of the Gospel. As I have shared not too long ago, it will NOT take place on this side of the eschaton. In other words, she can only be destroyed by the power of the Gospel at the coming of Jesus, and that's that. After this, is the fearful death from which there is no resurrection.
THAT is the REALITY.
Dear Big Bro. Lito, it appears that Weedon and Co. are more deluded than ever. It is good that they do not mis-represent Rome, something which Fundamentalists are prone to do. It is good that they are in contact with many Roman Catholics.
But it is bad if they think that Rome is changing and will continue to change. She cannot and will not give up the Sacrifice of the Mass. She cannot and will not give up the idea of synergism of which Mary is exemplar par excellence. She cannot and will not give up papal infallibility.
So what about the AC? What about the other confessional documents like the FoC? How about lifting the ex-communication on Luther? How about revoking the bulls on Luther? How about recognising the dogmatic status of Roman theologians and scholars who recognised Luther's insights into JFBA as authentically Pauline and biblical?
I have got friends from the Roman Church whom I have much empathy too. I visit the Catholic Resource Centre at Peel Road, next to St. Stephen's Church in Pudu, Kuala Lumpur, the Diocese of Kuala Lumpur. When I was in Penang, I borrowed books from General College, which is the "premiere" Southeast Asian seminary. I like to read Roman sacramental, liturgical and philosophical theologies. Likewise EO too. I like to discuss theology with Roman Catholics too, and express common ground where relevant.
I keep a crucifix in my room. Placed on top of my BoC and Prayer-books and other stacked Lutheran. I have a small crucifix and an EO-style cross too. I keep a rosary in my car. I'm planning to get more crucifixes in the near future. From a Roman Catholic shop no less. I cross myself as part my private devotions.
But at the end of the day, the Roman Church is the Church of the Antichrist. The agreements between us and them CANNOT overcome the unbridgeable divide of JFBA. That's the whole point.
What Weedon and Co. have been talking is pure cosmetics. It doesn't get to the heart of the issue. It does not deal with reality. It only deals with appearances. It's superficial ...
This is dangerous ... we look at a lady and we get enthralled by her ... she is beautiful ... some bloody goons will start numbering her ... she's a 10. This is the world outside the church. The world gets enamoured by such women. Then some of the decent ones, i.e. (*human* righteousness viewpoint) will start to rationalise about her. But you see, that precisely what the SSP is doing towards the Whore of Babylon!!! You judge her not from her doctrine as you MUST, especially as CONFESSIONAL LUTHERAN MINISTERS, but from some outward acts. This type of judgment is thought by the SSP and the ecumenical world as LOVE. It is NOT love. It is not biblical. It is not Reformational, it is not Lutheran.
Which is why, as ministers, you ARE deluded. There is NO convergence, and there will never be. It is YOU who must change, not Rome. Rome is who she says she is.
Do not be superficial, do not delude yourself, do not rationalise about Rome. Rome is Rome, despite her alluring appeal to some. Rome is THE Catholic CHURCH. Ratzinger flatout tells the Protestant denoms that you are but ecclesial communities.
So, I say to you Weedon and Co. GET REAL AND GET A LIFE. YOU ARE LUTHERAN MINISTER. AND YOUR JOB IS FEED YOUR SHEEP, AND THAT INCLUDES WARNING THEM ABOUT THE ERRORS OF ROME, INSISTING ON OUR SEPARATION FROM ROME AND EXHORTING ALL LUTHERANS TO KEEP THE FAITH, BE FAITHFUL TO THE WORD OF GOD AND THE CONFESSIONS. THAT'S YOUR JOB. AND RUN AROUND BEING THE POSTER BOY FOR B16. HE IS AFTER ALL THE POPE. BUT REMEMBER THIS, HE IS NOT YOUR POPE. HE IS NOT YOUR HOLY FATHER. HE IS THE ANTICHRIST.
CHOOSE YOU THIS DAY WHOM YOU WILL SERVE. AS FOR ME AND MY BRETHREN, WE SHALL SERVE JESUS AND HIM ALONE. AMEN.
Learn from Past Elder? Get your facts straight?
Here's a fact you can get straight. "Separated brethren" and excommunication have nothing whatever to do with each other. Unless the person was baptised Catholic once, there is not even a theoretical possibility of a Protestant or any other non-Catholic being excommunicated. Where there is no communion, there is no excommunication. Luther was excommunicated, but he was not only a Catholic but a priest. Further, there is no lifting of bans of excommunication in the reception of converts to the RCC, not even in the Tridentine Rite. What there is, which is no longer used, is an Abjuration of Heresy.
Here is what you can learn from Past Elder, a former not crypto Papist but the full blown thing, nothing crypto about it: the Roman Church is more lost and adrift than it has ever been in its history, now not only disconnected from the right preaching of the Gospel and the proper administration of the sacraments, but disconnected even from Roman Catholicism itself, and as such represents a greater danger to souls than ever before, yet, these tirades, which would be as woefully misinformed even if it were the sixteenth rather than the twenty-first century and the pope were Julius II rather than Benedict XVI, evidence not a clue as to the nature and extent of the problem.
Instead, there appears to be a crypto-Protestantism offered as an antidote for a supposed crypto-Papism, while meanwhile the pseudo-evangelical growthers proceed apace and the great whore changes her clothes and walks the streets.
Learn from PE? No, if PE gets his facts wrong!
Without further ado, the following is taken from the Reception of Converts (Roman Ritual, 1962), using the short form ...
The Heretic:
"I, N.N., reared in the PROTESTANT religion but now by the grace of God brought to the knowledge of the truth, sincerely and solemnly declare that I firmly believe and profess all that the holy, Catholic, apostolic, and Roman Church believes and teaches, and I reject and condemn whatever she rejects and condemns."
The Priest:
"By the authority of the Holy See which I exercise here, I release you from the bond of EXCOMMUNICATION which you have (perhaps) incurred; and I RESTORE you to communion and union with the faithful, as well as to the holy sacraments of the Church; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."
So, “separated brethren” means precisely THAT!
Secondly, PE, the issue is not Missale Romanum versus Novus Ordo, not Traditional Catholicism versus Vatican 2, etc.
The issue is JFBA. Vatican 2 is an extension of Vatican 1, NOT a repudiation. Vatican 1 was about CONSOLIDATION of papal errors. Vatican 2 is about PROPAGATION of papal errors. Hence, aggiornamento. The PASTORAL approach have changed, but the THEOLOGICAL status remains. TRENT has never been repudiated. Never will.
Problem with PE and the SSP is that you all do not listen to FACTS. But prefer to engage "side issues" of no RELEVANCE to the people of God! Except to satisfy one's liturgical proclivity, curiosity, lust, etc. etc.
The issue is JFBA and Rome has never departed from its damnable understanding of justification.
That is the ISSUE which Luther rightly so and engaged in.
Justification by faith alone is the central article by which the Church stands or fall.
Abjuration of HERESY is precisely an abjuration by heretics WITHIN the Catholic Church which is Rome. Muhammad and Muhammedans are not heretics. Hindus are not heretics. Buddhists are not heretics.
Only Protestants are.
Protestants are heretics by virtue of tracing their lineage to the Reformers who came out of the Roman Catholic Church. And so Protestants are ex-communicated because they are members of ex-communicated ecclesial communities, existing OUTSIDE the CHURCH.
Why are Protestant denoms considered as ecclesial communities?
Because they essentially and specifically lack the intent to celebrate the Eucharist.
Why?
Because they lack the sacrificing priesthood.
Why?
Because Protestant denoms are outside the Catholic Church.
Why? Because they are heretics who have been ex-communicated through their lineage from the Reformers.
"Separated brethren" means ex-communication precisely because Rome is the Catholic Church. Prots are outside the Catholic Church. Therefore, Prots are the ones who are separated from the Roman Church.
Pr. Will,
What do you call a Catholic who reads his Bible? A LUTHERAN!
What do you call a Lutheran who does not read his Bible? a lazy bum.
(LOL) I am glad we can laugh.
Anyway as with Augustinian Successor, I am absolutely skeptical and absolutely pessimistic with Mother Church. She will make you change your steps to hers, she will dance to your tune but pretty soon, she will take the lead.
LPC
Exactly!
It's a ONE way street in all the talk about "separated brethren".
So that it's NOT a RE-UNION. It's a myth - the myth of re-union.
It's SUBMISSION, CAPITULATION, etc. etc.
The word reunion is used to 'beguile", confuse, distract, etc. people from the real issue which is that Rome in the end expects submission to her. How can there be reunion when WITHIN the Church she is what she is, e.g. in her canon laws which demands implicit faith and submission of will and intellect to the Magisterium, when the dogma of the Church is not dependent on theologians and scholars and exegetes, etc. but solely on the Magisterium. SHE has the LAST word on dogma.
FACTS, facts, facts ... the inability to face with reality.
P.E.
The Vatican II seems to be lighter towards the non born RCs than ex-RCs like ourselves, this is true.
That is why we children of Mother Church accordingly are more damned than the Prots out there so - you, Luther and me plus the host of others who were reared by Mother Church are anathema.
However, I did see in similar form, the documentation that A.S. has provided.
Hence, we know that Mother Church speaks with both sides of its mouth, she is a master equivocator and master sophist so that is why you can not always take one and pit it on another.
The conclusion is that do not trust some one who is capable of contradicting herself without, shall we say, shame?
LPC
Perhaps you would care to examine your sources a little more carefully.
Then again, perhaps not.
Before the reception of a convert from another Christian body, the validity of his Baptism must be determined. This will result in three possibilities: the Baptism was not valid, the Baptism was valid, it cannot be determined.
If the Baptism is not valid, then there is no Abjuration. If the Baptism is valid, there is the Abjuration alone. If it cannot be determined, there is the Abjuration, a conditional Baptism and Confession.
You may wish to note the word "perhaps", or "perchance" in older translations of the rite, the one you quote promulgated 20 July 1859. The Absolution From Censures does not state that the convert was excommunicated and that is now lifted, but that if -- if -- the convert had incurred excommunication, it is now lifted.
You may also wish to review the difference between excommunication ferendae sententiae and latae sententiae, the former being easy to determine but the latter not, it taking more than the performance of an act to incur automatic excommunication.
Finally, the phrase is ecclesial unions. While (in Roman belief) they are not in the visible boundaries of the Church because they deny essential elements Christ gave to his Church, nevertheless they remain connected, though invisibly and imperfectly, with the Roman Catholic Church but whatever elements of its truth they do not deny. Hence the term "separated brethren", separated the adjective, brethren the noun.
Read the black. What's actually going on is a good deal worse than what you think is going on. And a good deal of what you think is going on, isn't.
Think again, a person is heretic only if his baptism is valid. A person is a schismatic only if his baptism valid.
No Trinitarian baptism, no heresy. Validity says nothing about orthodoxy. Validity only speaks about correct formula and ritual.
Remember, the unconditional baptism spoken of is precisely the unconditional baptism performed by the ROMAN priest himself, i.e. in his capacity as receiving the CONVERT. So, no PRIOR baptism, no HERESY.
Validity of Baptism requires abjuration of heresy.
So, what you think the form of ritual says is NOT what is actually says and so. This is not straight thinking.
Therefore, ex-communication is not what you think it is. If you, PE return to Mother Church, you will be outwardly RESTORED by having your ex-communication LIFTED. Period. So says the Roman Ritual, which you made its appeareance in the sme year as Vatican 2. There!
P.E.
Mother Church is so cunning she confuses herself and her observers.
I think arguing of heresy versus ex-communication illustrates that.
If you, PE return to Mother Church, you will be outwardly RESTORED by having your ex-communication LIFTED
Isn't A.S. quite correct here? Remember Francis Beckwith, the ETS president who was born Roman, became an Evangelical and then Roman again? What was he required to do?
Only that he goes to confession and everything is fine and dandy. Which this man did. Now all is sweet again.
This is the reason I try not to figure out Rome or analyze her or long for her repentance etc etc.
In logic we have an axiom (I forgot the Latin) : From a contradiction, you can prove anything.
This is the case, Rome has contradictory speech that she can run rings around you (but I know you know this) and the SSP. Why? Because she can prove anything that reason requires!
LPC
The Baptism spoken of is conditional, not unconditional.
1859 was not the same year as Vatican II (which ran several years, none of them 1859).
Although I cannot see how I could be miss being latae sententiae, such Roman authorities as have opined think I am not, so a good confession would suffice, nothing lifted.
Really, seriously, read the black. Seriously.
You are confusing yourself again. Read the black yourself, and think straight.
Conditional Baptism STILL requires abjuration of heresy. It's only in the case of UNCONDITIONAL Baptism that such a condition is waived.
So, I repeat, in your case, if you return, you have to be RESTORED by having the sentence of EX-COMMUNICATION lifted from you.
Better, read the whole thing. And BTW, do not confuse yourself again.
"Ritewinger,
Thanks for the proper credits to Zinzendorf.
It is so unlike Luther to say that he would rather drink blood with the Pope."
Sorry, LP, I didn't realize I was coming into a seperate conversation, the quote I referred to was the original quote in your post, the "unity, liberty, charity" quote. Thats the one I had attributed to Zinzindorf.
Gentlemen:
Some very interesting points.
Speaking of interesting, we had an interesting situation in my parish. My organist's (who is a female layman) daughter had a baby that was in danger of death. There was no pastor of any stripe available. She (the organist, who was herself baptized as an infant in a Lutheran church and has always been a Lutheran) performed an emergency baptism.
The baby was whisked away by helicopter to another hospital.
The little girl survived! Since her father is a Roman Catholic, she is being raised as a Roman Catholic (her mother is a Lutheran, and one of my parishioners).
So, we have a Roman Catholic recognition of a Lutheran baptism carried out by a Lutheran lay person. There was no renunciation of heresy and no conditional baptism.
And regardless of differences of opinion within and without the LCMS, we can all rejoice with the saints and angels that this little girl has been baptized not as a Lutheran, not as a Roman Catholic, but rather as a Catholic Christian. She is being raised in a church that indeed confesses the 3 ecumenical creeds, which in spite of her serious theological flaws and false doctrines, is still part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (even as some of our former parishioners have left and joined the local non-denominational church).
It's a good thing the Lord is more merciful than we are. I know if it were up to me, I would define "Christian" as only those who agree with me on everything. Everybody else is obviously a child of the devil. It's a darn good thing it ain't up to me, isn't it? ;-)
If the Roman Church is *not* part of the OHCA Church, then the church ceased to exist for centuries until [satire indicator on] Pastor Luther restarted the Church, offered communion in individual shot glasses every other Sunday, abolished private confession, changed the creeds to say "Christian" instead of "Catholic," and replaced the crucifix with a plain cross. [satire indicator off].
The early Lutherans never claimed the church ceased to exist while under the "Babylonian Captivity" of papal tyranny. They never rebaptized (or even re-ordained) any former Romanists, nor insisted that Roman absolutions, Masses, marriages, ordinations, or any other churchly acts were invalid. In fact, unlike his recognition of Roman sacraments and membership in the Church, Luther refused to recognize the Reformed as even being Christian because of their denial of the Real Presence (and I disagree with the Blessed Reformer on that score).
You can (and do) find the sacraments of Holy Absolution and Holy Communion among the Romanists, but you can't find them among most Protestants. But this is not to say our Protestant "separated brethren" are not Christians.
I do think we have to be careful that we don't become like the Mormons in insisting that the Christian Church ceased to exist until our guys re-started it (hooray for our team!) That kind of "restorationism" is a quintessentially American phenomenon, and not only gave birth to the Mormons, but a whole host of 19th century American sects claiming to be the true heirs to the early church that ceased to exist (e.g. the Campbellites, the Church of God, the Church of Christ, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Christian Scientists, and even the Jehovah's Witnesses). I think we need to guard against it, as it is in our cultural bloodstream.
The Augsburg Confession draws an ecclesiastical boundary between the Lutherans and the Reformed/Anabaptists that it doesn't draw between the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics. In fact, the Reformers claim the mantle not only of Catholicism, but even Roman Catholicism!
They were reformers, not revolutionaries.
All you said about the baby is well and good, lucky for the baby. The baby for obvious reason can not deny RC herself. We rejoice she was baptized but if you are rejoicing that she will be taught that the sacraments will give her merits ex opera operato, you are mistaken and you should be sad.
If you think baptism is the ticket and the baby does not have to believe, I do not know what to say about you.
Luther refused to recognize the Reformed as even being Christian because of their denial of the Real Presence (and I disagree with the Blessed Reformer on that score).
I think you are playing fast and loose on this and again over stating the case.. Luther had dealings with Calvin through Melanchton. To say that he did not recognize the Reformed is a bit of a stretch. He tolerated differences of opinion with them. He did not like the Anabaptist but the Anabaptist are not the Reformed which you always interchange. This is sad because you are talking about what you do not know.
No one here is saying that the church never existed and only then when Luther came along that the church came about. Fr. Hollywood, we are not schoolies. What we are saying along with the Reformers is that she the Roman Church is corrupt and an apostate. It is the same as in the time of Elijah.
In fact, the Reformers claim the mantle not only of Catholicism, but even Roman Catholicism!
Kindly slow dowm, you should follow the advice you gave me, first engage your mind, then engage your mouth or the keyboard.
That is propaganda and I think you have this in your head. You are being taken over by your excitement.
If you consider Walther a reformer which is one of your LCMS fathers, Walther did not even like the word Catholic or catholic.
I do not think you are taking seriously the Smalcald articles. The Roman Catholic church is not the individual member,s the RC when properly spoken of is The Magisterium. You obviously do not appreciate how the word 'catholic' is played up in RC theology and dogma and how it has double meanings.
Sorry, I just don't believe you.
LPC
Ritewinger,
The quote is from Meidelin according to Philip Schaff, the Church Historian in his 3 Volume Work. This quote was picked up by the Puritan - Richard Baxter.
LPC
Dear Mr. Cruz:
That's interesting about Walther - I never knew that!
But, of course, the word "Catholic" is all over the Book of Concord (13 times, not counting those times it appears in the Ecumenical Creeds). Interestingly, the words "Protestant" and "Lutheran" never appear in the BOC.
As the interlude between articles 21 and 22 in the Augsburg Confession reads (from the Latin text, as translated in the Concordia Triglotta): "This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers."
I did want to comment regarding Wenthe's paraphrase from the Confession Concerning Christ's Supper, here is the quote (as has been discussed) from the American Edition of Luther's Works: "It is enough for me that Christ’s blood is present; let it be with the wine as God wills. Sooner than have mere wine with the fanatics, I would agree with the pope that there is only blood" (AE 37:317). But note how Paul Althaus, in his book The Theology of Martin Luther, renders the last sentence: "Before I would drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts, I would rather have pure blood with the Pope." This may be the translation Wenthe was working with. Which is closer to Luther's original from the Weimar Edition? I don't know, do you?
As far as your statement: "I think you are playing fast and loose on this and again over stating the case.. Luther had dealings with Calvin through Melanchton. To say that he did not recognize the Reformed is a bit of a stretch. He tolerated differences of opinion with them. He did not like the Anabaptist but the Anabaptist are not the Reformed which you always interchange. This is sad because you are talking about what you do not know."
Let's let the good doctor speak for himself:
In the Brief Confession Concerning the Holy Sacrament, Luther calls Zwingli, Karlstadt, Oecolampadius, and Schwenkfeld (all of whom hold a Reformed view of the Sacrament): "fanatics and enemies of the sacrament" (AE 38:287), guilty of "blasphemies and deceitful heresy" (288), "loathsome fanatics" (291), "murderers of souls" (296), who "possess a bedeviled, thoroughly bedeviled, hyper-bedeviled heart and lying tongue" (296), and who "have incurred their penalty and are committing 'sin which is mortal'," (296), "blasphemers and enemies of Christ" (302), and "God's and our condemned enemies" (316).
He complains: "Zwingli, Karlstadt, Oecolampadius...called him a baked God, a God made of bread, a God made of wine, a roasted God, etc. They called us cannibals, blood-drinkers, man-eaters... even the papists have never taught such things, as they clearly know... For this is... how it was accepted in the true, ancient Christian church of fifteen hundred years ago... When you receive the bread from the altar,... you are receiving the entire body of the Lord."
According to Luther, Zwingli is a "full-blown heathen" (290), and added: "I am certain that Zwingli, as his last book testifies, died in a great many sins and in blasphemy of God" (302-303).
All of these men whom Luther called "Fanatics" were Reformed, not Anabaptist. And I agree that it is, as you say, propaganda - but it is Luther's propaganda.
Father Hollywood's story rings true. The Roman church, pre or post council, has always recognised that anyone may baptise, and if it is done with water, in the name of each person of the Trinity, and with the intent to do what the church does (even if one is not exactly clear on what that is), the baptism is valid. Meaning not just ritually correct, sacramentally valid. Matter, form and intent. That is why the RCC at no time would consider the girl in need of baptism. She's baptised. Priest not required.
Which is also why marriages between Protestants are valid too. The minister of the sacrament of marriage is the couple themselves, not the priest. He is the church's and the state's witness. So marriage is not redone either for converts.
As to what would happen should I return to the RCC, for someone to insist the RCC will do what it sees no need to do is simply absurd. Amazing! Is Wolsey ghost-writing this too? Talk about more Catholic than the Pope! And the post was about irenics? Judas H Priest, I myself joked on another blog, What's a guy gotta do to get excommunicated anyway these days.
Father Hollywood is quite correct re the AC. What an irony that in the decision in which we first were referred to as "protestant", most of what is now "Protestant" was accorded no standing whatever by either side. And IMHO, rightly so.
I think what is happening here is an hallucination of crypto-Papism brought on by crypto-Protestantism. We are not Baptists with sacraments. We are not Reformed with liturgy.
Rev. Beane,
This interesting conversation.
, Luther calls Zwingli, Karlstadt, Oecolampadius, and Schwenkfeld (all of whom hold a Reformed view of the Sacrament): "fanatics and enemies of the sacrament" (AE 38:287), guilty of "blasphemies and deceitful heresy" (288), "loathsome fanatics" (291), "murderers of souls" (296), who "possess a bedeviled, thoroughly bedeviled, hyper-bedeviled heart and lying tongue" (296), and who "have incurred their penalty and are committing 'sin which is mortal'," (296), "blasphemers and enemies of Christ" (302), and "God's and our condemned enemies" (316).
The problem with you quote is you do not distinguish the nuances between Zwingli and Calvin's view of the Supper. And when the word Reformed is dropped, it is not Zwingli who comes into play, it is Calvin!!!
Your colapsing them together and not respecting the nuances and I find this rather amusing if not a joke.
One more thing, Karlstadt anticipated many Anabaptist viewpoints, I again say to you that you are collapsing the Anabaptist with the Reformed and that is not good, that is double insulting the Reformed.
Whereas Calvin and Zwingli were related, Calvin was more leaning towards Luther, he was still wrong on the Supper but to say that Luther condemned the Reformed in the Marburg Colloquy is not accurate. You seem to be confusing the Formula of Concord with Luther. Luther condemned the Zwinglians, this is what you should say, why? because the Reformed are not exactly Zwinglians!
As I said, history showed that Luther was in conversation with Calvin through Melanchton. Luther was sensible to distinguish Calvin from Zwingli, you do not seem to have that sense my friend. Your Pro-Romana has clouded your judgement (seems to me).
All of these men whom Luther called "Fanatics" were Reformed, not Anabaptist. And I agree that it is, as you say, propaganda - but it is Luther's propaganda.
There were exactly speaking no formal Reformed group so how can they be called by Luther as such. The BoC indeed anathemize the Calvinists, but Calvinist are not Zwinglians. Luther rejected the Zwinglians, he had no time to reject the Calvinists (the truly Reformed as opposed to the Anabaptist) because there were no known Calvinists yet during his time.
BTW No, I was not referring to his (Luther's) propaganda, I was referring to yours when you said this hype...
In fact, the Reformers claim the mantle not only of Catholicism, but even Roman Catholicism!
LPC
P.E.
There is no argument on baptism etc etc.
As to what would happen should I return to the RCC, for someone to insist the RCC will do what it sees no need to do is simply absurd.
You are quite right, she may not ask you to recant, but this is the point, you do not know either what she will ask you to do too!
Why? Because she has these rules and it all depends on the local priest as to what he wants to do to you.
For all you know you can simply swing back, and just join in the worship, do the confession, eat the eucharist etc etc. and back to normal. You do not need to tell the priest you were practicing Lutheranism if you like. Unless you consider it something you need to confess and be sorry of in which case he may or may not ask you to do things formally.
Francis Beckwith is a classic point. The head of Evangelical Theological Society, he was Roman then evangelical and then Roman again.
It all depends on the priest and how savvy he happens to be.
And oh btw bro, I am no crypto-protestant.... I AM PROTESTANT (and of the original kind)! there is nothing crypto about my position.
I do not fight about vestments or liturgy etc etc, because you can get these right but if you get JBFA wrong you are still in a pile of b.s. The thing is that people think that they got JBFA already in the bag and such discussion can now be put aside.
Also no, there is no hallucination, the suspicion that SSP is another Romanizing Lutheran group is no wild imagination. Romanizing Lutherans have been around, it is not new, so it can not be paranoia.
Irenics? If you study those who come here, you will find Christians of all sorts. You have seen their comments and where they come from, both Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist and Catholic wonder and comment in this part. If your readership does not have that, you are not into irenics, you are into pep talk rallying the troops like preaching to the choir.
To paraphrase a blogger I read - there is a reason why Leviticus forbids incest. Inbreeding leads to bizarre body formations.
This is true in the realm of theology too. Theological inbreeding breeds cults some of them are also Lutheran cults/fundamentalists and fanatics at that.
LPC
Paul Althaus is generally not regarded as a Luther scholar. He may have said that Luther preferred to drink blood with the pope, but he also said that Luther taught consubtantiation! No Lutheran theologian or scholar worth his salt will defend that thesis. The International Congress for Luther Research do not pay much attention to Althaus' works on Luther.
Yes, Zwingli was no brethren in the sight of Luther. But so was the Romanist. The conservative Reformation was precisely fighting against two fronts: Rome and the Anabaptists. Luther can hardly be faulted for his stance, since to deny the bodily presence of Jesus in the Supper is to deny the Gospel itself.
Just like LPC has said, why do you point the finger at the Anabaptists but totally ignore the Romanist? It's so blatant - the double-standards, that is!
In other words, no reputable Luther scholar including those in the gospel reductionist camp (!) take Paul Althaus seriously as a Luther scholar.
Dean Wenthe has evidently made a mistake. He was one of the those who in the 1970s fought against those who were against the inerrancy of the Bible. He rightly saw the destructive implication of such a denial. Paul Althaus is hardly a conservative theologian. So, Dean Wenthe should have got his quote DIRECTLY from the Luther's Works!
Was Luther right in condemning Zwingli and the Zwinglians? You betcha, just as he was right in denouncing the Romanists.
But notice Luther was willing to talk with them to come around to a CONSENSUS or understanding for unity.
Luther NEVER discussed theology with papists for the sake of unity. With them, it is always for the sake of POLEMICS.
There is a difference.
Are Roman Baptisms valid? Of course they are. Are Roman Baptisms sacramentally efficacious? No, they are not. Efficacy is grounded directly in the power of the Gospel. The power of the Gospel is exhibited first and foremost in the proclamation of the Word. The proclamation of the Word is in turn grounded in the true understanding of the Cross.
Roman Baptism clams that concupiscence is removed. Lutheran Baptism teaches that sin is exposed and covered simultaneously.
The question is, how different can you get?
Likewise, the Sacrifice of the Mass is a work to be performed. But the Supper is a gift to be received.
Likewise, the Lutheran Cross is a Cross which offers an alien righteousness and sinners are justified by faith.
The Roman Cross is a cross which makes reparation so that justification comes by infusion.
The question is, how different is that?
TWO DIFFERENT CROSS; TWO DIFFERENT GOSPELS; TWO DIFFERENT BAPTISMS.
"Yes, Zwingli was no brethren in the sight of Luther. But so was the Romanist. The conservative Reformation was precisely fighting against two fronts: Rome and the Anabaptists. Luther can hardly be faulted for his stance, since to deny the bodily presence of Jesus in the Supper is to deny the Gospel itself."
Having said that, who can doubt that there is more of the Gospel, i.e. the Gospel is preserved in Zwinglianism, in contrast to Romanism where the Gospel is completely obscured.
Zwingli believed in JFBA.
The pope did not believe in JFBA.
So, the net result is that Zwingli upheld the Gospel, but the pope did not.
So, in contrast to Rome, Luther's division with the Anabaptists was NOT DIRECTLY over the Gospel. It was over the Supper.
Luther's protestations against Rome was PRECISELY OVER THE GOSPEL ITSELF!
"As to what would happen should I return to the RCC, for someone to insist the RCC will do what it sees no need to do is simply absurd."
Again, living in the fantasy world, a world of precisely MAKE BELIEVE. A worldview which belies a ladder scheme outlook, a works righteousness, the legal system, etc. instead of a DOWN-TO-EARTH reality! In other words, the fact that the SSP and its supporters are living in a fantasy world betrays their own atittude towards the Law and Gospel. Only those who are intent on following the ladder scheme for salvation live in the fantasy world. Both clicks because both belongs together!
Even if Rome accepts your claim that you are not a Protestant, it does not mean no adjuration of heresy. You're still a heretic until and unless you renounce the heresy of JFBA, definitive presence in the Supper, etc. etc.
Unless you are saying I never believed in them. Well, that would speak volumes wouldn't it?
Well A.S.
What can I say? I can not agree more with the points you raised. Luther's quarrel is with the Gospel with Rome. Seems to me when Luther says something which can even be remotely be used to paint Rome in the good light, Mr. Beane and Co would use it, but when Luther speaks something against Mother Church, they are pretty quiet.
So, wanna do another Regensberg around the block? If the masters failed, in my book, it is pretty arrogant to think they can succeed.
Speaking of hallucinogens, the reader can decide who amongst us is living in lalala land.
We have a saying, hitting your head on the wall the first time may be an accident, hitting your head on the wall the second time is no longer an accident, it is being stupid.
I like to say it is being dumb but that is too nice a word.
LPC
AS wrote:
"But notice Luther was willing to talk with them to come around to a CONSENSUS or understanding for unity.
Luther NEVER discussed theology with papists for the sake of unity. With them, it is always for the sake of POLEMICS.
There is a difference."
I guess non-Lutherans like yourself may not realize it, but we Lutherans don't subscribe to all of Luther's documents, and there are other documents that Luther did not write to which we do subscribe. The name "Lutheran" was put on us by our opponents, and in many ways, it's an unfortunate epithet that does cause some confusion (like I said, in our confessions, the terms "Lutheran" and "Protestant" are scrupulously avoided, unlike "Catholic" which is embraced).
As far as "discussing theology with the papists" and being "willing to talk with them to come around to a CONSENSUS or understanding for unity" goes, the Augsburg Confession (which is the foundational document for us Lutherans) is precisely that. It is very irenic and seeks reconciliation - not based on a quick coat of paint and compromise, but rather reconciliation by a mutual confession of the holy gospel (which is exactly what the SSP Rule does!).
Now, you can argue that Luther didn't write the AC, which is true. But 1) Again, Lutherans are not Luther-worshipers, and 2) Luther consulted with Melanchthon in the writing of the confession.
The Augsburg Confession is the beating heart of the Book of Concord, and the Augsburg Confession's twofold purpose was to clearly articulate and confess the Gospel and to seek reconciliation with Rome by the correction of a very specific enumeration of abuses.
It is a very different approach than the Reformed confessions. Our forbears were still hoping for a general council to address our concerns as Roman Catholics who had been mistreated by our own hierarchy - not terribly unlike the way confessional Lutherans in the LCMS are struggling to remain faithful to the gospel against our own bureaucracy at times.
I hope this helps.
P.E.
We are on the divide here, that means we are really friends, we are not a gang, unlike those I observe who are into Lutheran cultic clique.
This criticism directed over at the SSP will stop if they have the guts to simply come out in the open and admit - yes, we are Romanizing Lutherans.
And for you bro, to admit you are a Lutheranizing Roman.
I say this because I do admit I am a Protestant of the original kind. Absolutely I am.
So I am ok if you guys call me a Protestant Lutheran. I am ok with that. The label sounds funny and comical but I am ok with that because I am.
LPC
Rev. Beane,
Again, Lutherans are not Luther-worshipers,
Now you retreat when in fact you were so audacious to quote a Luther quote attributed to Luther to bolster your position of being Pro-Romana contra Reformed.
I will say something on a personal level.
You remind me of a certain individual, of a Lutheran who became Roman. I read his web and exposition on how Roman Catholic Lutheran happens to be. I think his name is Darel Paul. This gentleman loves to quote the Augsburg Confession. Just like you. He even had an exposition on Lutheran way of praying the rosary.
The thing is that the Lutherans do not only subscribe to the Augsburg Confession and that was it. They also subscribe to the Apology, the Smalcald Articles and their attack on Roman Papacy in the Power and Primacy of the Pope.
I admire Darel Paul' honesty, he became what he had always been inside - a Roman Catholic. He had the courage to follow his conviction to where it leads.
I believe if ever you should talk, I will be surprised if he did not enjoin you to follow in his footstep.
LPC
PS. Augustinian Successor is worshiping in a Lutheran church in Malaysia. And I just posted for you my recent post on what Walther said about Catholic/catholic.
I wanted to add maybe to you the heart of the BoC is the Augsburg Confession. That is anachronistic. History of Lutherans have gone beyond that, there is the Apology and the Formula of Concord.
In my opinion it is the Apology if there such a thing as a heart of the BoC.
The other parts of the BoC would not have been written if the Augsburg Confession alone had been sufficient to stop all controversies of those breaking away from Rome, because of the Evangel.
But we are straying off topic as such, you still have my ears to convince any concerned readers of this blog (and should you think it is worth it) that your SSP is not a Romanizing Lutheran group.
LPC
I am an Anglican, Reformed and Lutheran.
I am a member of the Church of England (Continuing). Numbers: 250-300 (including scattered members like myself). My parish church in south London meets in an old folks' home. Half of the communicants are old people. Nearly all are in wheelchairs.
I am also a member of the Lutheran Church in Malaysia and Singapore (LCMS). My parish church is the most liturgical congregation around. Lord's Supper is observed every Sunday. There are only, at the most, three to four young adults there. The other congregations with their Church Growth agenda is full of YAs.
As as Reformation Christian, I'm duty-bound to oppose the papacy as the Antichrist, including the present pope.
Why? Because the papacy teaches false doctrine. False doctrine must be opposed, not glossed over.
Why is it so hard to understand?
"Roman Baptism claims that concupiscence is removed."
Correction: I just realised my mistake.
Roman Baptism claims that original sin is removed. Concupiscence is not sin, but merely an tendency to sin.
Lutherans say concupiscence IS sin.
Summary: Romanists deny total depravity aka bondage of the will.
Lutherans uphold total depravity aka bondage of the will.
Well, if Roman Baptisms are not sacramentally valid, then why have I not been re-baptised?
Because there is no Lutheran reason whatever for a person baptised according to the rite of baptism of the RCC to be re-baptised. Never has been, as Father Hollywood pointed out.
You may perhaps recall my post about the ELCA service broadcast every Sunday on a local access channel of our cable TV provider -- traditional church, all vested, organ, choir and hymns only, liturgy by the book (the Vatican II For Lutherans book), and heterodox as all hell from a Lutheran standpoint.
Confessional Lutherans -- there is no other kind -- do not adhere to the traditional liturgy of the church because they have forgotten JBFA or replaced it with praxis, it is exactly because they adhere to JBFA that they (we) zealously guard and defend the Mass.
Not exactly a king needing a divorce and creating a church to give him one. Which reminds me, AS still identifies himself on his blog as an Anglican, apparently understood as a Reformed phenomenon specifically and Protestant generally, Luther and Knox tossed in. Now there's an ink blot for you, as good as any of Rome's! There is no such thing as an Anglican, Reformed Lutheran.
Hier steh ich -- oder hier, oder hier!
Why is it that you weren't rebaptised?
Because Baptism is a once-for-all event. The Lord's Supper is a regular fare.
As long as your Baptism is sacramentally valid, there is no need for repetition. But it does not mean that it was sacramentally efficacious. In other words, it was an empty sign.
Trouble is you do not understand Lutheran Baptism. It is not just an initiation rite. It is the whole of the Christian life. It is the Holy Spirit who ties faith and Sacrament together. What is lacking in Baptism then is made up for by faith later.
Even Romans make a distinction between validity and efficacy, no?
And yes, Lutherans, Anglicans and the Reformed belong to the Protestant Reformation. Romanists don't. Which is why the statement that the Reformation was a tragedy is plain assinine.
Which brings me to this point: to say that Vatican 2 is different from previous councils is more than an ink blot for you! Nay, a thousand ink blots, I'd say! There you go ...
Kebodohan mu seribu sekali pun tak tamat!
Yes, Baptism is not ex opere operato. Lutherans do not collapse sign into reality. Both maintain their integrity. The sign remains even when the reality is present. What is lacking in the sign is made up for by faith later, for Baptism the whole Christian life. It is intensely eschatological. The sign is not one time only, it is once for all. The reality is not one time only, it is once for all.
Hence, Baptism can be sacramentally valid being sacramentally efficacious.
Reformation Christians believe in the bondage of the will.
Who are the Reformation Christians?
Lutherans, Anglicans and Reformed.
Reformation Christians believe in JFBA.
Reformation Christians believe in monergism.
In short, Reformation Christians believe in the Gospel.
Rome deny every single tenet above. Rome does not believe in the Gospel.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand?
Hence, Baptism can be sacramentally valid without being sacramentally efficacious.
Rome professes the Apostles' Creed, baptises in the name of the Trinity, etc. Hence, she appears to be orthodox.
But appearances can be deceiving.
The Father did not declare righteousness;
The Son did not bear imputed sin;
The Holy Spirit does not kill to make alive.
This is not the triune God of the Gospel.
Faith is precisely the FLIGHT from the hidden God of wrath to the revealed God of love - from faith to faith.
Rome teaches from faith to obedience and from obedience to growth.
Lutherans, Anglicans and Reformed teach the sovereignty of God in the act of salvation.
Rome teaches cooperation of God and man in the act of salvation.
Different God, different Jesus, different Holy Spirit.
There's nothing difficult to understand at all in the whole Anglican/Reformed/Lutheran = Reformation Christian mindset.
It's what allows all those non Lutheran Protestant churches to have "Reformation Sunday" every year while upholding things the Lutheran Confessions condemn equally with Rome's errors -- things to which Luther denied the term Christian.
Point is, we are not Anglican and we are not Reformed any more than we are Roman, and your inability to see the latter derives from not seeing the former.
IOW, you mistake the faith of the BOC for crypto Papism because you mistake the faith of the BOC for Protestantism -- a meaningless term lumping to-gether things as opposed to each other as they are to Rome.
It is interesting for an Anglican/Reformed/Lutheran, I would say A.S. gets the BoC more precisely than some so called 'confessing' Lutherans that I know.
you mistake the faith of the BOC for crypto Papism
I find it hard to believe that the BoC can be misconstrued as papism.
In fact A.S. is being faithful to the Smalcald Articles.
It is rather that SSP folk is trying to make the BoC look as if it is papistic friendly.
I am not the only one who is not impressed with them. I believe there are many others who are but are not just speaking.
LPC
The BOC is not misconstrued as papism.
I was using a literary device. Here are two other versions of what I was trying to say.
Confessional Lutheranism, ie the faith of the Lutheran Confessions, is mistaken for crypto-papism because Protestantism, ie "Reformation Christianity" or some Anglican/Reformed/Lutheran identity, is mistaken for the faith of the Lutheran Confessions.
Since you mistake some sort of Lutheran/Reformed/Anglican identity with the faith of the Lutheran Confessions, you mistake the faith itself of the Lutheran confessions for crypto-papism.
What the hell, here's another: the reason you think confessional Lutherans are trying to make the church Roman Catholic is because you are trying to make the church Protestant.
There is no such thing as an Anglican Reformed Lutheran.
As the Blessed Dr. Marquart used to say: "Against Rome, we confess grace, against the Reformed, we confess the means of grace."
(Father M. was not only a brilliant theologian, but the very soul of charity and courtliness - may his soul rest in peace).
We are neither of Trent nor of Geneva. Rather Lutherans are a sort of "via media" between Rome and the Reformed.
We could just as easily say:
The historic Catholic Churches (Rome, Constantinople, and the faithful confessors in Augsburg and Canturbury) confess the Real Presence, the sacramental nature ordination and the office of the holy ministry, baptismal regeneration, and the efficacy of the Sacrament of Absolution over and against the Protestant Churches (e.g. Reformed and Anabaptist) which deny Christ is physically present in the Lord's Supper, that Baptism saves, that the office of the ministry is of divine origin, and that pastors have the authority to forgive sins in Christ's name.
The point is, we are not Reformed. We began as a confessing movement within the Roman Church, truly seeking internal reform, but we were forced to place fidelity to the Gospel and the Catholic Faith over and against fidelity to a tyrannical papacy. The Wittenberg reformers were excommunicated. They did not quit Rome.
Interestingly, the one and only reference to Calvinism in the confessions is quite harsh:
"...a disagreement has arisen between between the authentic theologians of the Augsburg Confession and the Calvinists (who have misled some other theologians also) concerning the person of Christ, the two natures in Christ, and their properties." (FC Ep VIII;1)
Ouch!
If you don't get Christ right, the other doctrines fall away. Though the FC doesn't go so far as to say the Calvinists are extra ecclesiam, it puts them right on the edge.
You can beat the "Gospel" drum from now until Tuesday, but if you screw up your christology, well, let's just say the Lutheran reformers were not keen on their daughters bringing the local Presbyterian boy home for dinner.
In fact, if you read the Catalog of Testimonies (which were not cited against either Rome or the Anabaptists, but solely against the reformed), there is a very real implication that the Calvinists were toying with Nestorianism.
There was a sense that Melanchthon had gone to the "dark side" and began to spiritualize the sacrament in his later revisions of the AC in playing patty cake with the Reformed - which is why the Formula of Concord points its barrel at Geneva more than it does Rome.
I'm always amused when Reformed theologians want to tell us Lutherans what we believe regarding the Supper (consubstantiation, which we most certainly don't) that we are Reformed (we most certainly are not), and then try to claim the mantle of Luther (he would consider worship with you to be unionism at best). It's just plain historic anachronism.
And when you run into real Lutherans who don't dance to your tune and conform to your image, you insult them and accuse them of not being "real" Lutherans, that they have some nefarious goal or hidden doctrine. By no means. It's all written down.
There is not a Reformed or Presbyterian Church on the planet that would take Luther's 1526 German Mass and use it in their churches. They would be horrified at how "Roman" it is. To most Presbyterians and Reformed Christians, belief in the Real Presence itself is * ipso facto* "Romanizing."
In the realm of reason, anyone, even a non-Lutheran can call a Lutheran to be faithful to his confession.
the reason you think confessional Lutherans are trying to make the church Roman Catholic is because you are trying to make the church Protestant.
Firstly, I for one am not asserting that confessional Lutherans are trying to make the church Roman Catholic. I do not think A.S. is doing that either.
I am only asserting this to your mates' brand of so called 'confessional' Lutheranism, and I emphasize, bro, their brand.
Secondly, what is amazing is to think as if the BoC is not Protestant in its assertions, tenor or demeanor towards RCC. I find that amazing. I suspect we are not in the same planet.
Here is what Luther said in the Smalcald Articles, II[The Mass],1
Yet, above and beyond all others, it has been the supreme and most precious of the papal idolatries, for it [The Mass] is held that this sacrifice or work of the Mass (even when offered by an evil scoundrel) delivers men from their sins, both here in this life and yonder in purgatory... There is to be no concession or compromise in this article either, for the first article [Article 1. Christ and Faith] does not permit it.
....
Article 1, 10
So by God's help I would suffer myself to be burned to ashes before I would allow a clebrant of the Mass and what he does to be considered equal or superior to my Saviour, Jesus Christ. Accordingly we are and remain eternally divided and opposed the one to the other. The papists are well aware that if the Mass fails, the papacy will fall with it. Before they would permit this to happen, they would put as all to death.
Note the force of the words 'eternally divided'.
Before talk of reunion happens, JBFA and the Mass should be in the agenda. IMHO, this should be the agenda of your mates.
JDDJ authors were quite naive. It is not justification only that should be talked about but how it plays up in practice.
LPC
Rev. Beane,
We are neither of Trent nor of Geneva. Rather Lutherans are a sort of "via media" between Rome and the Reformed
We know that, but your SSP is not in the middle, it is slanted towards Rome.
I agree with you on Calvinism and their Christological implication towards the Supper, but the quote you gave which you attributed to Luther and which you broadened to blanket to include the Reformed is not accurate. The Reformed must be distinguished from the Anabaptist.
If I were you I would win these folk more to Wittenberg, why? Because they have more respect for Luther and his doctrines than the Romans do.
And by the way, lest you think the Calvinists do not know how to read and are not astute theologians, in the same way we can charge them of Nestorianism, they can easily charge us back of Eutychianism.
I absolutely believe we are not Eutychians as they charge us, but
remember, many of their shining lights were once Lutherans -- one of them was Dr. Zacharias Ursinus.
Like I said, get B16 to sign not just the Augsburg Confession but the entire BoC, I am happy to drop my suspicion and think of your SSP differently.
Until you do, good luck, I am happy to be dead to your blog.
LPC
I repeat, I hereby pronounce as fools those who WILFULLY REFUSE to RECOGNISE Lutheranism as Protestant. Period.
Despite the fact that confessional Lutherans have, in keeping with convention and tradition, used the term, Protestant to describe the Lutheran Church and Confessions.
For example, see the Confessional Principle and the Confessions of the Lutheran Church.
"As the Blessed Dr. Marquart used to say: "Against Rome, we confess grace, against the Reformed, we confess the means of grace."
But precisely YOU are AGAINST Dr. Marquart!
Dr. Marquart taught that Rome as much as EO is a false church. Something which you refused, stubbornly refused to do, despite your professed love for him.
This is deceit.
Mr. Bollywood refuses to condemn the Mass as a distortion of the GOSPEL.
This speaks volumes of his deceit. All his blathering, foaming at the mouth reveals where his loyalty lies.
Interesting, interesting indeed.
Paul says very clearly
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"
Anathema to the SSP!
PE says there is no such thing as Anglican Reformed Lutheran. That is becausev he is a crypto-papist and no Lutheran. Of course there is such a thing as an Anglican Reformed Lutheran. WE are PROTESTANTS. And you are not.
You are no theologian of the cross. You and the SSP are theologians of glory.
Which means this: you call black white and white black; 2+2=5; the moon is made of cheese, truth is falsehood and falsehood is truth.
When I became Lutheran, I did not profess to be a Protestant. I professed the faith of the Creed, revealed in Scripture and taught in the Book of Concord, especially (being a layman) the Little Catechism, and to support the evangelical Lutheran church.
One cannot profess in full the Anglican faith or the Reformed faith and profess the Lutheran faith any more than one can profess in full Roman Catholicism and profess Lutheranism. We have major points of agreement with all of them, but major points of disagreement with all of them too.
It is not only in Roman churches where the Gospel is not rightly proclaimed and the sacraments not rightly administered. You will continue to see an essential identity between what are called confessional Lutherans and Rome as long as you continue to see an essential identity between what is called Lutheranism and non-Roman "Protestant" churches.
There is no such thing as an Anglican Reformed Lutheran.
PE said: "When I became Lutheran, I did not profess to be a Protestant. I professed the faith of the Creed, revealed in Scripture and taught in the Book of Concord, especially (being a layman) the Little Catechism, and to support the evangelical Lutheran church."
The true Lutheran position: "Over where I am, my Synod completely accepts for themselves the label Protestant. Of course we make a qualification, we are Protestant but 'not that kind of Protestant over there'."
THERE YOU GO. The denial of the word, Protestant is a recent innovation. So, the TRADITIONALIST Lutheran is one who knows himself to be Protestant. On the contrary, crypto-papists in their deceit capitalise on the difference between confessional Protestantism and modern Protestantism by denying the usage of the word, Protestant. THAT denial itself is an INNOVATION.
Only self-deluded folks insists otherwise, contra history, facts, contra the Truth, that is.
Where as it impossible to be a non-Protestant Lutheran, it is equally possible to be an Anglican Reformed Lutheran. Why? Because WE ARE PROTESTANTS.
It is clear that the SSP and Co. are defending the indefensible.
Why? Because we are living the in the last days.
It means that the apostasy within CONSERVATIVE CONFESSIONAL PROTESTANT CHURCHES WILL GET WORST.
Don't be surprised; the falling away has already been happening right from the start in the apostles' time. The difference is that the heresy becomes more subtle. Which is the apostasy becomes worst as more and more people become easily deluded.
You see, ecumenism is no business of the Protestant churches. Ecumenism is an agenda of Rome. But it is none of our business. Ecumenism is irrelevant to Luther. And so it should be for his followers.
Ecumenism is not grounded in Scripture. Church unity, catholicity, etc. is a gift. It is received by faith. And it is precisely revealed in the proclamation of the Word and Sacraments. It is the Gospel which creates the Church. And by extension, it is the Gospel which fosters unity. Unity does not come by the Law. It comes by the power of the Gospel.
So, the concrete human bearer must himself be proclaiming the Gospel. Not Law if church unity must happen. The pope can never be that candidate.
So, the instrument of unity must be the Word of God alone through faith alone.
Sola Scriptura, sola fide.
P.E.
Point well taken on confessional differences.
But I have a question for you bro, perhaps you can clarify deeper your position. Frankly I think you are being philosophical because when you became Lutheran did you not accept the historical notion amongst civilized and learned people that it is categorized as a Protestant group?
Here is my question: a.) Do you believe that Lutherans are not Protestants? Why?
b.) Do you believe that Anglicans are Protestants? If so, why? If not, why not?
LPC
We've been over this before, so I'll say at the ourset that I detect a kind of attachment to the word Protestant that you assail toward the word catholic, upper or lower case.
The answer to question a is, it depends on what one means by Protestant. As a general term meaning non-Roman Catholic Christians, which is its general meaning, I have no problem with the term, though it has the weakness of combining Lutherans with other non-Roman Christians -- for example, the Anglicans and the Reformed -- whose errors we reject as strenuously as those of Rome. And, because the great majority of what is called Protestant rejects some of the key beliefs of the Lutheran faith, it is not a particulary helpful term regardless of its first use historically.
As to question b, I neither know nor care whether Anglicans are Protestants or not. I feel deeply for members of the ECUSA and other Anglican communion bodies I read about as they attempt to hold fast to the faith they learned from the very church bodies that now oppose and suppress them. This is not to overlook confessional differences with them, but to acknowledge the common revisionist mentality assaulting all historical church bodies. Being on that side in my own church body, I sympathise with those in other church bodies who, while they do not profess the same faith, face the same enemy as I/we do. I wish them well and God speed.
I confessed what I confessed. It did not include such terms as the world may apply to it. Those terms admit of serious misunderstanding. So I stand by what I confessed, and confess to-day, nothing more, nothing less.
As a side note, these Aussie blogs are amazing -- I bash the papacy as Anti-Christ on one, and am called a crypto-papist and no Lutheran on another!
"As a side note, these Aussie blogs are amazing -- I bash the papacy as Anti-Christ on one, and am called a crypto-papist and no Lutheran on another!"
It's no point bashing the papacy as Antichrist in the ABSTRACT, when that is not backed up by CONCRETE bashing of those who support the papacy.
Because B16 is the Antichrist, the SSP's reunion proposal is a sham, to say the least. There's no reunion with the Antichrist either from his perspective - as he demands only submission - or the perspective of the confessional Lutheranism - as how can one advocate reunion with the Antichrist?
If I am a priest, when I elevate the host, I am at the same executing a polemical stance in defiance of the pope and apostolic succession. Unlike the SSP, I'm in no way "mimicking" Rome by way of a "common liturgical inheritance". I am declaring to Rome that say what you want but I am a PRIEST of the CATHOLIC Church, and the ministry of reconciliation has been committed unto me, and I stand in persona Christi. I am authorised by the risen and crucified Christ to proclaim the Gospel. And I am now, in a dramatic instance, holding forth really and substantially Jesus Christ as the Gospel before the church.
I am not the Roman priest who is lifting up the host before God the Father. Even when he faces the people (ad populum), he is still RE-PRESENTING the sacrifice before GOD. I do not re-present the RECONCILIATION between God and the world. It needs no re-playing again.
I EXTEND the reconciliation between the God and world in the living present, here and now, to church at a specific time and place through bread and wine. This IS evangelism; this is MISSIONAL. I "reach out" with the reconciliation which has been achieved on the Cross.
And thus God who was placated by the death of His Son is placated when we eat of His Body and Blood. For by eating in His broken Body and driking His shed Blood, we do participate in his death and resurrection and so proclaim His death until He comes.
P.E.
I realize the frustration.
I bash the papacy as Anti-Christ on one, and am called a crypto-papist and no Lutheran on another
But it is not only a 'Protestant' who bashes the pope - cults like the JW, the Mormons, Traditionalist Catholics bash the Pope too. The Sedvacantists call the present RC as a whore too and B16 the anti-Christ.
Funny too, I bash the Evangelicals/Reformed and I get a lot of hurrahs, but when I challenge the crypto-Papist attitudes, it is suggested I am a crypto-Protestant.
So I come back and say, please do not tell me I am crypto-Protestant, call me a Gnesio-Protestant. I am not hiding it.
I read some so called 'confessional' blogs and in their critcism of the evangelicals they have virtually denied the "evangelical-ness" of the BoC.
Mate, there is a reason why the Reformation fathers called themselves 'Evangelical'. They did not call themselves catholic/Catholic or the New Improved Roman Catholic Church as someone suggested.
In fact, in Germany, they still call themselves Evangelical Lutheran Church(SELK/VELKD).
Classically a Protestant is someone who is pro-evangel, i.e. JBFA.
Take time to read my Walther article. He argued well why he was allergic to the word Catholic/catholic, among other things, unlike some who love it to death yet are allergic to the word Protestant.
LPC
Walther avoided the term for much the same reason terms like "Protestant" or even "evangelical" are avoided -- not because they are bad in themselves, but they carry heavy connotations of things rather afield from what we believe.
Say evangelical, especially here in the US, and the last thing to come to mind is Lutheranism. Say Protestant too and the same thing happens. By the time it is explained what these terms mean in a Lutheran understanding, nearly all of what they are generally taken to mean will be set aside.
Now, while Catholic too will as a rule bring to mind Roman Catholic, it does not require a short course in church history to distinguish proper adjectives from regular ones or to recall that the source word for which it is cognate has a meaning not associated with church stuff at all. Of the four words that describe the church in the Creeds, only "apostolic" is solely church oriented, and even there I should not abstain from its use, or holy or one either, because of the Apostolic Holiness Church down the street.
Hell, Luther himself didn't like the term Lutheran, and rightly so. But Lutheran and Protestant and Evangelical do not appear in the Creeds, which begin the BOC. Catholic does.
P.E.
If you are going to agree with Walther then it does not matter if the word Catholic appears in the BOC of the Creeds. Walther followed no such reasoning.
It is the meaning behind the words that count, not the words per se.
This was the issue tackled by the Formula of Concord because the cryptos subscribed to the words but not the meaning of those words (eg in Augsburg/Apology etc).
And BTW in my Tappert version of the BoC - the word Evangelical does appear. I will find you the reference.
LPC
I did not say the word evangelical does not appear in the BOC. I said it does not appear in the Creeds.
Walther was a *repristination* theologian. He wasn't a gospel reductionist. Neither was he, obviously, a high church Lutheran. And he baulked at the use of "Catholic". It says something about what the real, genuine theology of Luther and Lutheran Orthodoxy is.
http://www.scholia.net/files/pauls/05%20The%20Antichrist%20and%20the%20Office%20of%20the%20Papacy.pdf
Count Zinzerdorf
Um, that's ZinzeNdorfF -- add an "n" and another "f", please, Augustinian Successor, since you're such an expert.
Man, does reading these posts make me glad I'm Catholic -- I've never seen so much distorted information in my life.
Good Lord, growing up Lutheran in Germany I never encountered such blatant anti-Catholicism. This ain't the 16th century anymore. Even my Lutheran family members are better informed.
One more thing before I bow out -- the "Roman" Catholic Church is the Latin rite of the Catholic Church.
There are other rites.
We are properly the "Catholic Church."
And a nota bene to PE -- forgive me if I'm enjoying the bantering about what is "Protestant" and what is "Catholic" between you and Augustinian Successor.
Why am I not surprised!
Oh, but -- Anglican Reformed Lutheran ?? You've got to be kidding!
No, Christine,
It is not anti-catholicism.
It is just perhaps critical of Lutherans who are already Roman in heart but still does not want to convert.
Oh, but -- Anglican Reformed Lutheran ?? You've got to be kidding!
What about a Roman Catholic Lutheran, would you find that weird also?
My parents are Roman (btw my father now lives there in SF, CA USA). I love them to death and would die for them, but I disagree with their belief and how they have been taught.
My mom is weak now and has lots of health problems. Tommorrow is Wednesday, had she been strong she would have gone to a RC Church south of Manila and from the gate of that church, would walk on her knees all the way to the altar. This is part of her novena devotions to Virgin Mary. If you look at her knees it is now black and the knee has become course. Others like here believe that Mary is more merciful than God or Jesus.
The thing though is that RCC in the West look Protestant, you really think you have not really converted i.e. just a change in local church. But go to Latin American countries and the Philippines, you will see the RCC in action.
Why am I not surprised!
I guess you know something we don't.
Blessings,
LPC
Growing up in Malaysia and having lived in the UK, I see no apparent difference at all between Romanism in Malaysia and the UK. Both are what they are, ROMAN-ism. Mariolatry flourishes like hell ...
And why folks moan that we mispresent Romanism when we have precisely represented Romanism as she is???
Isn't this strange? Talk about delusion. The WEIRDER thing is self-professing Romanists are ones MISREPRESENTING their own religion! And they have gall to accuse us of doing so. Sheesh ...
Wo' men ch'n chiang tui te!
Well, Lito, that's the whole deal. A Catholic, particularly a post conciliar one, will say But those excesses of popular piety are not based on true Catholic teaching, which opposes them as much as you do (so come home to Rome).
And you know what, even if they were right (and since AS might be reading, this is not saying they are for God's sake) that would mean nothing. I find it absolutely amazing how Catholics simply dismiss people
s living experience with "that isn't what the Church really teaches".
Well guess bloody what? If that's what is allowed where you are, if that's what you are taught from the Catholic pulpit and in the Catholic classroom, then that if functionally what the Church teaches and it really doesn't matter if it doesn't square with some book somewhere that isn't calling the shots where you live.
This is the killing reality of the Death Star known as the Roman Catholic Church -- it is whatever it wants to be, whatever it needs to be, to insure its survival, being its own god and functional chief article of its own faith, it will co-opt and both/and anything and everything into an ecclesiastical Orwellianism of massive proportions. Trent is the least of it. It is far worse than that now.
The Church Is My Idea, by Benedict Schopenhauer (if I may be pardoned a Nietzschean dance).
The Gospel According to Max Scheler, by JPII We Love You.
At least Julius II was a little more overt about it.
Popular folk piety do not represent the official teachings of the Roman Church. Nor do they contradict the official teachings of the Roman Church. Which explains why they are allowed to flourish. Not only that, the Roman hierarchy turns a blind eye to some of the common errors too. Marian apparitions at Medjugorje did not enjoy official reception and sanction. On the other hand, Marian apparition at Lourdes does.
Mary is up to be the Co-Redemptrix in the near future. It is the GRASSROOTS which are clamouring for the status. As it is, much of the Marian dogma has its origins in folk piety.
The Marian procession of Walsingham, Norfolk is attended by bishops or high ranking church officials, where the common errors of the Catholic Church, i.e. the true Catholic Church is on display for ALL to see. Marian dolls abound everywhere. This IS official Roman teaching.
And puwwwwleese people!
Don't tell me that I am a poor benighted mis-catechized RC boy who just happened to be absent when the nuns of St. Mary's college were teaching the "real" stuff.
See where I got my childhood education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Mary's_College,_Quezon_City
It is known to have a good RC pedigree!
LPC
"Trent is the least of it".
Not really, Trent anathematised the sola fide of Lutheranism. in doing so, it anathematised the sola fide of the Gospel. You can not get anymore serious than THAT one. Things have a lot more worse since then, of course and for OBVIOUS reasons. The APOSTASY just gets worse and worse.
Should we be any SURPRISED?
I don't think so ...
"The Marian procession of Walsingham, Norfolk is attended by bishops or high ranking church officials, where the common errors of the Catholic Church, i.e. the true Catholic Church is on display for ALL to see. Marian dolls abound everywhere. This IS official Roman teaching."
I know. I was there myself, alongside other Protestants from various traditions protesting against the common errors of the Catholic Church, protesting against paganism masquerading as Christianity, etc.
And I tell ya, the atmosphere is stifling. The demons were certainly at work. And yet, none can silence, literally the preaching of the Word of God, even we 100 was "surrounded" by 5000 plus plus "pilgrims".
THIS is the theology of the Cross.
"We are properly the "Catholic Church."
You belong to the Catholic Church? You've gotta be kidding, lady!
The Roman Church is a SECTARIAN church, and the ANTI-Catholic Church.
It's funny how a Church can claim to be Catholic when it requires submission to a chap based in Rome.
"Good Lord, growing up Lutheran in Germany I never encountered such blatant anti-Catholicism. This ain't the 16th century anymore. Even my Lutheran family members are better informed."
Do your family members know that Lutheran believe to sola fide and Rome doesn't?
Do your family members know that Lutherans believe God alone eoprates in salvation and Rome doesn't?
Does your family members know that Lutherans believe in imputed righteousness, and Rome doesn't?
Do they?
"And a nota bene to PE -- forgive me if I'm enjoying the bantering about what is "Protestant" and what is "Catholic" between you and Augustinian Successor. Why am I not surprised! Oh, but -- Anglican Reformed Lutheran ?? You've got to be kidding!"
It's funny how I right I am about folks who profess to be Romanists and yet don't actually know what their Church teaches!
Yeah, that's right you should have read what Mr. Schutz posted recently ...
"And rightly so. Neither does the Bishop of Rome today claim such a title. He is a local bishop, the first among bishops, the "prius", the primate, and he has universal jurisdiction in the Church as Bishop of Rome, but not as a "universal bishop". He is not above his brother bishops as if like some sort of "super bishop". There is no such title as "universal bishop" in the Church, except, as Walther points out, perhaps Christ himself."
Can you imagine a ROMAN CATHOLIC saying something like this? If it were somebody else, it's understandable. But a Roman Catholic? Would you, i.e. Christine say the SAME thing too?
I tell ya, this must surely qualify as one of the most funniest statements ever to be made in Extra Nos!
Yeah, I AM enjoying this one!
I guess what we who are true Lutherans are witnessing is self-denial syndrome blues rearing its ugly head. It's making its rounds, well, it's always been there, so it just pops up from time to time.
God says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy".
Paul adds, "So then, it is not he who willeth nor of him who runneth, but of God Who sheweth mercy".
Salvation does not depend on man whatsoever, merit or otherwise. His obedience counts for nothing. His so-called "cooperation" counts for nothing. It is God's sovereign choice which is everything.
This is the heart of the Gospel. Rome denies it. Rome is against God. Amen.
Say, Christine, are you still around ... do pop by will you, I have something to share with you ...
Right, about the pilgrimage by false Catholics to the Walsingham shrine in East Anglia.
Families go there, but sodomites go there too, they can be found especially hanging in and around the loos (that's toilets for you). Why? because the homosexuals are looking for an encounter and some of the Roman and Anglo priests are homosexuals, before or after the procession.
OK, you see so-called "priests" drinking beer like drinking an evil substance. He gulps a pint and he's laughing his way like he's not a Christian! All the heeehaws and all that you know ... a few get drunk, like they were meant to ...
A few over-zealous pilgrims do get into a trance, only to be rebuked by the Word of God from the mouth of the Protestant preacher.
It's a carnival atmopshere, congenial ground for the common errors of the Catholic Church to flourish ...
Oh yeah, the so-called "priests" would also swear OBSCENITIES at us ... including bishops ...
I had a fruitful discussion with a nun. I remember she asked me what if a man who considers himself saved or elect commits murder jsut before he dies? That's a valid question. I replied to the effect that the elect and reprobate have different "post-conversion" life history. Repentance is granted to the elect and denied the reprobate. So, a hypocrite can find himself in a situation where he commits mortal sin just before he dies. But the elect, will be prevented by the prevenient grace of God from falling into mortal sin. Why? Because the whole life of the Christian is one of repentance. It is impossible for the Christian to sin AND not repent. He sins AND he repents. He sins and dies to sin. He is killed and raised up anew DAILY. Death and life all of his life, until he dies.
You see, the good nun was proceeding from a Roman anthropology in which grace is infused to the sinner who is basically a continuous existing subject. Of course grace in this scheme is dangerous. It can easily turn into poison and so it will.
Well, she did not misrepresent me, and I did not misrepresent her. She knew I took a genuine interest in her religion. And it seems that I was the only she could intellectually "clicked" out of the 100 or so odd Protestant contingent. And I was the only Asian guy. There were some Asians who were part of the pilgrimage.
Lastly, these people were adoring Mary as a goddess. Make no mistake. The distinction between latria and hyper-dulia is simply false. It is a distinction without a real difference.
Dangerous isn't it? Well, that is what you find when you pretend to be wiser than the Word of God.
"Why? because the homosexuals are looking for an ENCOUNTER and some of the Roman and Anglo priests are homosexuals, before or after the procession."
Encounter, a trademark term, or one of the most "distinguished" terms, favourite jargon and so on and so on of NEO-ORTHODOAXX ... like Karl Barth and so on.
Post a Comment