What has convinced you that Lutheranism is the Truth?

[sculpturegirl]

It is really short and can be read in a day or two. It is very impactful

 

[Victrixa]

2. The fallacy of the "rule of Faith" as articulated by Basil is that they equate that rule of Faith with their particular church body, whether RCC or EO. But that is not the intent of Basil's quote. Nor is that the position of the Lutheran Confessions. Luther (and the Confessions) demonstrate that what they "believe, teach, and confess" is what the Church has taught. Of any of the Reformers, Luther was most familiar with the ECF. He went through many of the same struggles, and came to same conclusions. At that point he saw that the RCC, and to a lesser extent the EO, was not in line with the "rule of Faith" as a clear understanding of the Scriptures.

Hi filosofer

But that is not the intent of Basil's quote.

Then, filo, what does St.Basil mean? Check http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/church_tradition_florovsky.htm

Thank you in advance! (I sincerely want to know...)

Anyone else can answer who is able to answer!

Love in Christ,

Caroline

 

[Victrixa]

On the EO side...there seems to be an inordinate dependency on traditon however it also seems that for the EO tradition is sacred and revered so long as it does not trump scripture. (If you know this to be incorrect, please advise...I am merely repeating some things I have read.) So the "rule of faith" then remains Scripture, and to be inclusive, interpretation of Scripture is left in the hands of the EO "church". (Although Lutherans ought not be too smug about this...our interpretations have been done for us and are represented in the Book of Concord. But...as with the EO, the Book of Concord, tradition, etc., in the Lutheran church are measured against Scripture...Scripture remains the rule.)

On the the RCC side however, there is not such a discipline. Doctrine has been developed regarding things that have never been mentioned in Scripture.
indulgences
purgatory
immaculate conception of Mary
infallibility of the pope
supremacy of the pope
assumption of Mary

The EOs believe in a kind of assumption of Mary, don't they? And in a sort of immaculate conception of Mary as well?

Wasn't it considered heretical to personally interpret Scripture outside the Tradition of the Church at the time of the first Christians? What would this Tradition be, according to you? What is heresy or what was this heresy? What is Truth? Jesus said 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". Jesus is the Truth, right? Is there something else to Truth?

Please, I would appreciate it, give me a definition of what Truth, heresy and Tradition are. The first Christians referred to all three...

And didn't the Church Fathers talk about the supremacy of Peter and the presidency of the Church in Rome? In what way was Peter supreme or in what way did he hold the primacy? I think scholars agree that Peter did hold the primacy in Rome, but in what way, according to you and to the knowledge you have gained? What was Peter's role? He wasn't meant to be a Pope? What about apostolic succession? Didn't the Church Fathers emphasize on apostolic succession (St.Augustine, for example)?

Are you aware of any forged documents which were created in the 9th Century to 'prove' the Papacy? Were the writings of the Church Fathers changed to prove the Papacy? Know anything about that? Is it true?

Rose, or anyone else, can you help me?

Thanks in advance!

Sincerely seeking,

Caroline

 

[JVAC]

The EOs believe in a kind of assumption of Mary, don't they? And in a sort of immaculate conception of Mary as well?

Wasn't it considered heretical to personally interpret Scripture outside the Tradition of the Church at the time of the first Christians? What would this Tradition be, according to you? What is heresy or what was this heresy? What is Truth? Jesus said 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". Jesus is the Truth, right? Is there something else to Truth?

Please, I would appreciate it, give me a definition of what Truth, heresy and Tradition are. The first Christians referred to all three...

And didn't the Church Fathers talk about the supremacy of Peter and the presidency of the Church in Rome? In what way was Peter supreme or in what way did he hold the primacy? I think scholars agree that Peter did hold the primacy in Rome, but in what way, according to you and to the knowledge you have gained? What was Peter's role? He wasn't meant to be a Pope? What about apostolic succession? Didn't the Church Fathers emphasize on apostolic succession (St.Augustine, for example)?

Are you aware of any forged documents which were created in the 9th Century to 'prove' the Papacy? Were the writings of the Church Fathers changed to prove the Papacy? Know anything about that? Is it true?

Rose, or anyone else, can you help me?

Thanks in advance!

Sincerely seeking,

Caroline

One of the earliest Fathers, St. Ignatius of Antioch, does extol the virtue of the episcopate as authority but does not concede any power to Rome over his church in antioch, which was started and headed by St. Peter. Infact the earliest writings attributing a Rome as a special See is St. Iraneus's Adversus Hereticos (Against Heresies) where he cites Rome as the source of Apostolic Succession because that is where the two blessed Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred. St. Iraneus clearly did this to establish his authority to write against the gnostics. Yet it can be deduced from ECF writings that Rome was the church people looked to because of it's wealth, it's location, and it's martyrs. An argument can be placed that Rome is the first among equals, but not for pre-eminance. Infact there are written records of other bishops telling the Roman bishop that he is in error. In fact, St. Paul confronted St. Peter himself, when St. Peter "was clearly in the wrong" (Gal); so if St. Peter could be wrong how much more could his successors?

St. Cyprian of Carthage in the latter 200's could be interpreted to ascribing something special to the Roman Bishop. However, he was in danger of losing his See, a powerful one at the time, the only other western patriarch, and obviously was playing up the other western patriarch to resecure his See. I don't know how much is flattery and how much is sound dogma though.

Papal infallability is a dogma that is deffinately ill-founded. Tradition does infact say that Rome is special but not that it is supreme. The Roman Bishop is not the Bishop of the world, he is merely the first Bishop of many. The Sees of Antioch and Jersualem were prime in the Earliest times, and then spread to be Rome, Carthage, Antioch, Alexandria and Ephesus. In fact the See of Ephesus could be sited as the other See, comprable to Rome, because it was Founded by St. John.

If Rome were to deny infallability and come back to being the first of equals, the Eastern Church would return to communion with them (and I am possitive they would recognize the validity of filioque) and all the historic sees would again be in communion as it was in the begining with no one Pope over all, but instead an Ecumenical understanding among patriarchs that traces to the apostles.

-James

 

[SPALATIN]

If you look at all of Biblical History you will see that it is in our nature to want a leader. One who we can look up to. The Jews had been ruled by Judges for several centuries with God being their leader, but they wanted an earthly king to lead them and God gave them Saul who was a good leader until he tried to usurp the high priest role and made a sacrifice. It was then that God stepped in and over threw Saul and gave them David.

The church had no specific leader until after the 5th century when the Bishop of Rome started to become the Pontifex Maximus or Pope (latin for Papa). Many think that it was invented by those who had a greed for power. The Medici family had several members become Pope during the middle ages.

 

[CrossWiseMag]

Whether the Pope is given authority over other bishops is a bit of a red herring, it seems to me. The question is whether that authority is divinely instituted, or instituted by man. The Lutheran reformers made the case, in the Treatist on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (in the Lutheran confessions), that this power was instituted by man. It's all well and good to have order in the church. But any authority given by man (as shown through historical reference in the Treatise) must be secondary to God's authority. Because the Papal office had corrupted the doctrine of justification, which is the center of the Gospel, the Pope relinquished any divine authority in the church, and was left with only man-instituted authority.

 

[Carrye]

The question is whether that authority is divinely instituted, or instituted by man.

What if it was both, in the person of Jesus Christ? I bring that up only because that's often the dichotomy that's set. If it's divine, it's good; but if it's human, it's not. That logic too, because of the Incarnation, doesn't quite work.

 

[CrossWiseMag]

Let's say it this way, then. If it's divine, it's good. If it's sinful human, it's bad. There's no indication that Christ instituted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Even some of the church most revered fathers read the famous "Rock" passage as referring to Peter's confession, not Peter himself.

Chrysostom: "Christ says 'on this rock,' not 'on Peter.' For truly he has built his church not upon the man but upon Peter's faith.

Hilary: "The Father revealed this to Peter so that he might declare: 'You are the Son of the living God.' Upon this rock of confession, therefore, the church is built. This faith is the foundation of the church."

 

[SPALATIN]

Let's say it this way, then. If it's divine, it's good. If it's sinful human, it's bad. There's no indication that Christ instituted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Even some of the church most revered fathers read the famous "Rock" passage as referring to Peter's confession, not Peter himself.

Chrysostom: "Christ says 'on this rock,' not 'on Peter.' For truly he has built his church not upon the man but upon Peter's faith.

Hilary: "The Father revealed this to Peter so that he might declare: 'You are the Son of the living God.' Upon this rock of confession, therefore, the church is built. This faith is the foundation of the church."

Just an addendum to what you are talking about. Too many let Peter's name which means Rock to be what they are talking about. That is where the confusion lies.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

The EOs believe in a kind of assumption of Mary, don't they? And in a sort of immaculate conception of Mary as well?

I honestly don't know much about what the EO believe but I have heard some claim a "kind of cleansing" for Mary prior to conception and I have heard some say they believe in the Assumption...however...I don't know that EOers are required to believe in things that are not kerygma? In the RCC these beliefs have become dogma and failure to accept them as promulgated is considered heresy and grounds for excommunication. In my estimation this is a huge difference.

Wasn't it considered heretical to personally interpret Scripture outside the Tradition of the Church at the time of the first Christians?

Only if the interpretation was not agreed upon by others. Lots of theologians in the early church interpreted Scripture outside of the tradition of the church...some of it was accepted, some was not. Interpretation did not stop with the early church nor did accepted interpretation always align with tradition, look at Aquinas...his views were novel and yet still adopted by the RCC (although not until after his death).

What would this Tradition be, according to you? What is heresy or what was this heresy? What is Truth? Jesus said 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". Jesus is the Truth, right? Is there something else to Truth?

Please, I would appreciate it, give me a definition of what Truth, heresy and Tradition are. The first Christians referred to all three...

I am not particularly good at definitions...perhaps someone else might do a nice job with this?

And didn't the Church Fathers talk about the supremacy of Peter and the presidency of the Church in Rome? In what way was Peter supreme or in what way did he hold the primacy? I think scholars agree that Peter did hold the primacy in Rome, but in what way, according to you and to the knowledge you have gained? What was Peter's role? He wasn't meant to be a Pope? What about apostolic succession? Didn't the Church Fathers emphasize on apostolic succession (St.Augustine, for example)?

I think James did an excellent job with this. I believe the first hint of apostolic succession was alluded to in I Clement--which, interestingly enough, was the first document specifically determined to be excluded from the canon.

Are you aware of any forged documents which were created in the 9th Century to 'prove' the Papacy? Were the writings of the Church Fathers changed to prove the Papacy? Know anything about that? Is it true?

Nope--never heard of such a thing. Makes me a bit leary though...sounds like something Jack Chick might have come up with....

Caroline...I met with my friend Francois today and we discussed the terrible state of the church in Quebec. I think he is starting to sense his own need for a life in Christ and laments how his fellow Quebecois have drifted so far from the faith. He says many are angry at the church because of the actions of a few wayward priests. We need to pray for Christ's healing and for reconciliation. We are all sinners...living on the edge of a knife...and need to understand that any one of us can fall in a very visible way. We need to be there to help pick each other up and encourage each other in Christ.

I pray for Christ's peace for you, my friend.

Rose

 

[Victrixa]

Caroline...I met with my friend Francois today and we discussed the terrible state of the church in Quebec. I think he is starting to sense his own need for a life in Christ and laments how his fellow Quebecois have drifted so far from the faith. He says many are angry at the church because of the actions of a few wayward priests. We need to pray for Christ's healing and for reconciliation. We are all sinners...living on the edge of a knife...and need to understand that any one of us can fall in a very visible way. We need to be there to help pick each other up and encourage each other in Christ.

I pray for Christ's peace for you, my friend.

Thank you Rose for taking the time to respond. I know it's been a long time since I last posted on TC-CL. A huge hug for you.

And yes, many Quebecers are really angry at the Church. Not just because of priests who have not behaved properly, but for many other reasons too. I won't get into that now....

Yes, it's true, I would qualify the Catholic Church in Quebec as lukewarm. The Masses are always nice, since liturgy and the Eucharist are beautiful, but I find that the Word of God is too often watered-down. I receive a watered-down Gospel too many times and it bugs me (and my hubby as well). The homelies are often good but there is room for improvement. What I have noticed is that the priests do not wish to offend anyone who comes to church. There are so very few practicing Catholics that the priests do not wish to offend the few who do come to church. They don't want to empty the churches even more. Some parish priests even do things that are against the Canon of the Church in order to attract more people to church. You'll never hear (oh so rarely, it never happened to me) a priest talking about sin and the necessity to repent from one's sins. All you hear is 'God loves you, God loves us' but nothing on 'God is just and hates sin'. A Gospel which pleases everyone is what is really preached. Like I said, many of the messages/homelies are good but watered-down.

I'm used to fire and brimstone messages, lol! I'm used to meat. I'm spiritually hungry. I'm not getting what I want spiritually (in terms of the Word). All I recieve is milk and I have reached the stage of solid food/meat many years ago. It can be frustrating. I find that the Catholics here do not know what being the Church really means. No fellowship, no Bible studies, no meat from the Word (or very rarely). I really miss all that which I experienced as a Protestant. I've never been so isolated as a Christian. It seems no one from the parish cares.

I am unable to reach a state of peace in my situation. I lost the peace I had in Christ. I'm extremely exhausted spiritually and this exhaustion has reached my every day life (other things are bothering me too). I am confused, indeed. All the different historical versions of the Church and doctrines are confusing me.... argh!

Thanks for your prayers, Rose!

Thank you everyone for your responses! Anyone who has information related to my questions can continue to respond in this thread! I appreciate all the information I can get. I can only read so much.

Love in Christ,

Caroline

 

[SPALATIN]

Thank you Rose for taking the time to respond. I know it's been a long time since I last posted on TC-CL. A huge hug for you.

And yes, many Quebecers are really angry at the Church. Not just because of priests who have not behaved properly, but for many other reasons too. I won't get into that now....

Yes, it's true, I would qualify the Catholic Church in Quebec as lukewarm. The Masses are always nice, since liturgy and the Eucharist are beautiful, but I find that the Word of God is too often watered-down. I receive a watered-down Gospel too many times and it bugs me (and my hubby as well). The homelies are often good but there is room for improvement. What I have noticed is that the priests do not wish to offend anyone who comes to church. There are so very few practicing Catholics that the priests do not wish to offend the few who do come to church. They don't want to empty the churches even more. Some parish priests even do things that are against the Canon of the Church in order to attract more people to church. You'll never hear (oh so rarely, it never happened to me) a priest talking about sin and the necessity to repent from one's sins. All you hear is 'God loves you, God loves us' but nothing on 'God is just and hates sin'. A Gospel which pleases everyone is what is really preached. Like I said, many of the messages/homelies are good but watered-down.

I'm used to fire and brimstone messages, lol! I'm used to meat. I'm spiritually hungry. I'm not getting what I want spiritually (in terms of the Word). All I recieve is milk and I have reached the stage of solid food/meat many years ago. It can be frustrating. I find that the Catholics here do not know what being the Church really means. No fellowship, no Bible studies, no meat from the Word (or very rarely). I really miss all that which I experienced as a Protestant. I've never been so isolated as a Christian. It seems no one from the parish cares.

I am unable to reach a state of peace in my situation. I lost the peace I had in Christ. I'm extremely exhausted spiritually and this exhaustion has reached my every day life (other things are bothering me too). I am confused, indeed. All the different historical versions of the Church and doctrines are confusing me.... argh!

Thanks for your prayers, Rose!

Thank you everyone for your responses! Anyone who has information related to my questions can continue to respond in this thread! I appreciate all the information I can get. I can only read so much.

Love in Christ,

Caroline

Caroline,

Here is a link to click on for some very good devotionals that might give you the "meat" that you are looking for and are not receiving at your church.

http://www.lutherquest.org/discus/index.html

 

[Victrixa]

Thank you Scott!