Why Not Catholic?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah,

I may be wrong, but I believe that Luther also wrote somewhere that he would sooner drink Christ's blood with the Pope, than wine with Zwingli.

Wouldn't surprise me.

And I agree with the statement, even if Luther didn't say it.




.

 

[BabyLutheran]

If my wife weren't so stubborn and obstinate, I would be RC myself. I chose Lutheranism as the next best thing, got my wife to go with me, and she actually liked it! lol

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Wouldn't surprise me.

And I agree with the statement, even if Luther didn't say it.

So do I. Having grown up in a community where there were mainly Lutherans and RC's, wit a few "Orange" Methodists and Presbyterians thrown in, and Some rather inoffensive Amish and Mennonites. I soon came to that conclusion (about the time I was 12 or 13). They (Methodists and Presbyterians) called us their fellow protestants, but apart from their faith in Christ (which our Catholic brothers and sisters also shared) we had little in common. Same with our Anabaptist friends.

 

[DaRev]

.
Our "textbook" for this was a pretty intense 3 vol. set of theology books written by Francis Pieper called "Christian Dogmatics." It's Lutheran and I think still used in conservative Lutheran seminaries to train pastors.

It's required reading in LCMS sems.

I may be wrong, but I believe that Luther also wrote somewhere that he would sooner drink Christ's blood with the Pope, than wine with Zwingli.

The quote is "I would rather have pure blood with the Pope, than drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts." It's from Luther's Works, volume 37, page 317.

 

[BigNorsk]

My main fear is what if we are wrong...

The catholic church has been around since the beginning of Christianity. Dosent that mean its the right one even if we might not agree with it. I fear that if I dont join the catholic church I will not be saved, but there are many disagreements I have with the church.

The Roman Catholic Church keeps claiming that, only it would be more fitting to call it a lone splinter group than the universal church. The early Lutherans laid out clearly how the Evangelical Church, that is those we call Lutherans today is consistent with the teachings of the early church fathers. Martin Chemnitz wrote a lot about that, for instance his work the Examination of the Council of Trent is full of references showing it is the Lutherans who represent the historic faith. In addition I believe his dogmatics book, Loci Theologici I believe also has a lot of such references.

Martin Luther also frequently quoted the fathers to show he was not promoting a divergence from the faith but rather a return to it from the church of his time where the gospel was missing and the people were basically seen as a source of money and power.

Note of course this was after the time the Papacy developed with the help of the forgeries known as the False Decretals, and which contributed to the Great Schism, where the lone bishop of Rome broke from the others and proclaimed himself the ruler of the universal church. How can the one be the church? No, I can see possibly buying the claim of the Orthodox to be the historical church, but surely there is nothing supporting Rome in it's claim. Just that if it keeps saying it, it must be true.

Of course it's not true. Rome tries to make a claim on Peter the same way that Jews would look upon themselves and Abraham. They consider themselves children by blood, just as the Pope claims to be the successor of Peter. But which is more important? The worldly succession, or the succession of faith. Are the true children of Abraham those of his blood, or those of his faith? I say faith.

Many people try to understand Lutherans by looking at the Catholics. They see some outward things and thing the Lutherans are a lot like Catholics. Actually, no group is as far away from Catholicism as Lutherans. For Lutherans, the authority is the Bible and the Bible alone.

For Catholics, it is the Church.

When you take the differences, it comes from the Catholics claiming to have the authority to add to the Bible. They turned to philosophy to come up with transubstantiation in the Lord's Supper. Lutherans took it just as the Bible describes it. Calvin started to mix philosophy back in when he taught that the Lord's body and blood could not be present, even though called such by the Bible, because philosophy said a physical body could not be more than one place at a time.

Many people took their understanding from him.

Many others took it from Zwingli who ended up with the position the Lord's Supper is nothing but a memorial. That wasn't based on scripture either.

As you move down the line away from Lutherans, you move quite quickly to the Anabaptists who agreed with the Catholics that they had extrabiblical authoritative revelation, they only disagreed as to who received those revelations.

As you continued to move you come today to the position the Catholics often claim is representative of Protestants where the Third Wave Pentecostals actually do have all sorts of Popes. Once again you have people claiming authoritative revelation from God. If you disagree with them well too bad for you they say.

Myself, I chose the Bible, and that means Lutheran. It's really that simple. Though it can often take a long time to take the trip to see that for yourself.

Marv

 

[seajoy]

Great post, Marv.

 

[Zoness]

Good post, it helped me understand some more...I am considering going to some ELCA inquiry classes. Pray for me as I make a decision.

 

[popepaddy]

Well, I must say that it's been interesting to see some of the ideas the Protestant community has of the Roman Catholic Church. And, for the record, my money says that most people would call Lutherans Protestants simply in so much as Luther himself was a protester against the Catholic Church. I would imagine that's why many Lutherans celebrate the day the Protestant Reformation began as if it were a holiday.

To the OP, I have to say that you have not been given an accurate representation of much Catholic theology here, if that was ever what you were looking for. The main claim seems to be that there are a lot of Catholic doctrines that do not have any Biblical origin. Behind this claim, of course, is the belief that the only source of revelation or authority is the Bible. So, on that, I have a few simple questions:

1.) In your Bible, do you consider the Table of Contents to be part of the Divine Revelation? If not, one wonders how you account for which books are or are not in the Bible. For instance, the Gospel of Thomas is not in the Bible. Nevertheless, I am not familiar with any passage in the Bible that prohibits the inclusion of the Gospel of Thomas. So, on what Scriptural authority (and Scriptural authoirty only) do we know which texts are indeed Scriptural?

2.) If it is indeed the case that all authority and doctrine comes from Scripture alone, then there surely must be some place in Scripture where this doctrine is clearly spelled out. Where?

3.) Given that this reliance on Scripture alone seems to be such a fundamental cornerstone of the Lutheran faith, and also given the Lutheran claim that their faith is identical to the faith of the early Christiants, I would love for someone to explain how the early Christians had that sola scriptura approach before the Bible as we know it was compiled.

I don't mean to sound confrontational, but, given some of the statements made about Catholicism in this thread before I arrived, I think it might do some good to expose the other side of the coin for a little while.

 

[Lupinus]

1.) In your Bible, do you consider the Table of Contents to be part of the Divine Revelation? If not, one wonders how you account for which books are or are not in the Bible. For instance, the Gospel of Thomas is not in the Bible. Nevertheless, I am not familiar with any passage in the Bible that prohibits the inclusion of the Gospel of Thomas. So, on what Scriptural authority (and Scriptural authoirty only) do we know which texts are indeed Scriptural?

We believe this to be guidance just as those who penned the Scripture were guided.

2.) If it is indeed the case that all authority and doctrine comes from Scripture alone, then there surely must be some place in Scripture where this doctrine is clearly spelled out. Where?

Please show me where Scripture states there is some other source? Scripture says that it is God breathed, wheres your authority of tradition come from? You show me where Scripture says the Pope gets to contradict God breathed Scripture, and I'll be happy to start listening to him.

3.) Given that this reliance on Scripture alone seems to be such a fundamental cornerstone of the Lutheran faith, and also given the Lutheran claim that their faith is identical to the faith of the early Christiants, I would love for someone to explain how the early Christians had that sola scriptura approach before the Bible as we know it was compiled.

The bible is a collection of Scriptures, many books put together for ease of reading and study. The scriptures were there before the bible was compiled.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

This is the Lutheran forum. Did you honestly expect us to sing the praises of the RCC?

You may not mean to sound confrontational, but you are. You could've put this in a PM to the OP rather than posting it a forum that is not your home forum.

This is OUR safe haven. Just as we cannot come in and rant about what the Catholics say in One Bread, One Body, you should not come in here and rant about what we say about the RCC.

Well, I must say that it's been interesting to see some of the ideas the Protestant community has of the Roman Catholic Church. And, for the record, my money says that most people would call Lutherans Protestants simply in so much as Luther himself was a protester against the Catholic Church. I would imagine that's why many Lutherans celebrate the day the Protestant Reformation began as if it were a holiday.

To the OP, I have to say that you have not been given an accurate representation of much Catholic theology here, if that was ever what you were looking for. The main claim seems to be that there are a lot of Catholic doctrines that do not have any Biblical origin. Behind this claim, of course, is the belief that the only source of revelation or authority is the Bible. So, on that, I have a few simple questions:

1.) In your Bible, do you consider the Table of Contents to be part of the Divine Revelation? If not, one wonders how you account for which books are or are not in the Bible. For instance, the Gospel of Thomas is not in the Bible. Nevertheless, I am not familiar with any passage in the Bible that prohibits the inclusion of the Gospel of Thomas. So, on what Scriptural authority (and Scriptural authoirty only) do we know which texts are indeed Scriptural?

2.) If it is indeed the case that all authority and doctrine comes from Scripture alone, then there surely must be some place in Scripture where this doctrine is clearly spelled out. Where?

3.) Given that this reliance on Scripture alone seems to be such a fundamental cornerstone of the Lutheran faith, and also given the Lutheran claim that their faith is identical to the faith of the early Christiants, I would love for someone to explain how the early Christians had that sola scriptura approach before the Bible as we know it was compiled.

I don't mean to sound confrontational, but, given some of the statements made about Catholicism in this thread before I arrived, I think it might do some good to expose the other side of the coin for a little while.

 

[DD2008]

I would love for someone to explain how the early Christians had that sola scriptura approach before the Bible as we know it was compiled

I have made the definitive decision to leave the Roman Catholic Church over doctrinal and administrative issues. I am searching for a new Church home and the Lutherans are first on my list of 1. Lutheran 2. Reformed 3. Methodist. I grew up Baptist but I have many disagreements with them in regards to the sacraments and ecclesiology, so I doubt I'll return unless something unforseen pops up. I'm not happy with Anglicanism because the official head is the monarch of England, so I won't be going that way. I include Episcopalianism in with Anglicanism because they are linked.

So, Lutheranism seems to be a potentially good fit for me. Especially given that the vast majority of the family I married into is Lutheran, and Lutheranism seems to hold the same core beliefs as I do. I believe scripture is the primary authority as it is the written Word of God. I also believe that it clearly details that salvation is by the Grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

I wrote the following in a thread I started in general theology. It is a list of scriptures, what I believe they mean and show. I believe that the Holy Spirit is the arbiter of conscience and I believe He speaks to us through scripture, thus making scripture the authority by which it is best for a person to judge all things.

The Church is subject to the authority of scripture:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

2 Peter 1:13-21

[13] I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder,
[14] since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.
[15] And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.
[16] For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
[17] For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,"
[18] we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
[19] And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
[20] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
[21] because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.


I think that in this passage Peter is telling us this in order:

1. That after his death people will still be able to hear the gospel.
2. He and the apostles who were with Christ have inspiration from the Holy Spirit to write scripture.
3. That the apostles didn't interpret the inspiration of the Holy Spirit themselves. Instead they wrote what the Holy Spirit moved them to write.



2 Peter 3:15-18

[15] And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
[16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
[17] You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
[18] But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Here Peter clearly tells us that the letters of Paul are scripture written under inspiration. He warns us to be careful with the things that are hard to understand because they can be twisted.




1 Timothy 3:15-16

15] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
[16] Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated in the Spirit,
seen by angels,
preached among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.

I think what Paul is saying here is that the Church is the pillar and bulwark that supports the Gospel which is the truth. As we read the next verse after the statement of the churches role as the pillar, Paul says "great indeed, we confess is the mystery of our religion" and then proceeds to give a brief summary of the gospel. The truth that the Church is a pillar and bulwark of is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.





1 Timothy 3:16

[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

In this passage Paul is quite clear.




Matthew 22:29

[29] But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God.

Here Jesus says "You are wrong because you don't know the scriptures". So given that truth, He clearly tells us that the scriptures are right.




John 10:35

[35] If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken),

Jesus tells us scripture cannot be broken.




John 5:39

[39] You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me;

Jesus says that the scriptures bear witness to Him.




John 7:37-38

[37] On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and proclaimed, "If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink.
[38] He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, `Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.'"

Jesus uses scripture to support His position.




1 Timothy 4:13

[13] Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.


I think that the early Church was scripture oriented.




1 Peter 2:4-9

[4] Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God's sight chosen and precious;
[5] and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
[6] For it stands in scripture: "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and
precious,
and he who believes in him will not be put to shame."
[7] To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, "The very stone which the builders rejected
has become the head of the corner,"
[8] and "A stone that will make men stumble,
a rock that will make them fall";
for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
[9] But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.


Peter says believers in Christ should be a holy priesthood offering Spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Christ. Then the next thing he says is "For it stands in scripture". Scripture is obviously regarded as authority.

I think that the Holy Spirit is the arbiter of conscience. He speaks through the Holy Scriptures. I think it is best if a conscience is formed using the Holy Scriptures as the foremost authority by which to judge all truth.

 

[popepaddy]

Hmm. Whereas the header for One Bread, One Body declares, "A forum open to Christians to discuss various Catholic beliefs and issues," it would appear that the header for Theologia Crucis declares a significantly less open, "The forum for ELCA, LCMS, WELS, ELC, Moravian and other similar churches." So, I evidently am not as welcome here as you would be there. In which case, carry on...

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Hmm. Whereas the header for One Bread, One Body declares, "A forum open to Christians to discuss various Catholic beliefs and issues," it would appear that the header for Theologia Crucis declares a significantly less open, "The forum for ELCA, LCMS, WELS, ELC, Moravian and other similar churches." So, I evidently am not as welcome here as you would be there. In which case, carry on...

Oh hardly...I'd be willing to say that OBOB is one of the most closed forums to outsiders, and that's after time on staff.

We're probably the more open forum, in that we do allow respectful debate from other denoms (although probably not so much in the subforums). We do allow Catholics to come in and correct as long as they are respectful, and that they know we'll probably not agree with them.

You as a newbie should probably start by reading the rules of the site as well as the forum specific guidelines for the congregational areas. That might help you understand the safe haven rule a bit better.

 

[LilLamb219]

Hmm. Whereas the header for One Bread, One Body declares, "A forum open to Christians to discuss various Catholic beliefs and issues," it would appear that the header for Theologia Crucis declares a significantly less open, "The forum for ELCA, LCMS, WELS, ELC, Moravian and other similar churches." So, I evidently am not as welcome here as you would be there. In which case, carry on...

PreachersWife is correct in her response to you regarding this.

OBOB only allows fellowship postings from outsiders. We tend to allow much more than that here...but within limits to still protect our safe haven.

As long as you are respectful and don't tend to teach us about how wrong we are, then you are welcome to stay and post

Sorry for straying off-topic...back to the OP please

 

[Tofferer]

I think that part of why I am not RC is because of those in my life who claim to be such. Indeed, I do not mean to sound harsh, but I do not believe that mother has been to mass in nearly 30 years. My great grandmother and her sister went to mass weekly up until each of them was received into eternity. Now, it seems that I am about the only one (along with my wife and son) in the family that attends church on a regular basis. I think my uncle and his wife still attend Easter services, but that is about it. It is one thing to claim it, another to honestly live it. Sadly, those in my family who claim to be RC generally don't show it.


I remember as a teenager, as I was getting ready for US Navy boot camp, that I thought about becoming an RC priest, however, I find now that any thought of being a parish priest of any denomination is foolishness for me. It was simply the imaginative desires of an ego-centric child. Presently I am studying to complete my B.Th. and then perhaps become a teacher. Besides, who wants a pastor/priest that shows up to service with fresh sawdust in his hair?

 

[BigNorsk]

Good post, it helped me understand some more...I am considering going to some ELCA inquiry classes. Pray for me as I make a decision.

Since you mention a particular synod, I thought I would clue you in on the the basic difference within Lutheranism.

Those that we label here the liberal synods, such as ELCA, use a historical critical hermaneutic a form of higher criticism. While they would say the Bible is inspired, they stop short of saying that extends down to the words themselves. It's really the same methods you would use to understand any old book.

Those that are what we call the more conservative synods say that inspiration extends down to the very word level. They use a historical grammatical hermaneutic that really relies on the Bible being a unique book. If the words themselves were not inspired, then the hermaneutic makes no sense.

That's the basic disagreement. Knowing where you stand on the Bible really can help tell you where you would most closely fit.

Marv

 

[Tofferer]

In some ways, I feel as if the ELCA would rather be a master of scripture than let scripture be the master it. Sadly, I fear that it may be a symptom in more than just the ELCA. Thoughts?

 

[RedneckLutheran]

We kneel. And a few of us make the sign of the cross too.

yes...but we don't kneel as often...and I seem to cross myself a lot more than the rest in the congregation...(must be the Anglican influence)...

 

[synger]

So do I. Having grown up in a community where there were mainly Lutherans and RC's, wit a few "Orange" Methodists ...

Who knew the oompa-loompas were Methodist??

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Who knew the oompa-loompas were Methodist??

Now... That does explain a lot!