Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue

[LaPorteAveApostle]

No, not the kind that takes place every day on this board, but by people more intelligent than we are (who knew they even existed?):

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/after-five-centuries-of-division-catholics-and-lutherans-consider-their-com/

Thought this was interesting and wanted some Lutheran feedback.  Haven't read the new document, but will soon.

[vu72]

Well, it is interesting.  However, I expect it to have the same effect as the Joint Declaration of 1999. On its surface a lay person could conclude that the major difference between Catholic and Lutheran understanding of Salvation had been settled.  After all, one of Luther's primary problems with the Church at the time was based on the sale of indulgences as a means of getting departed relatives to Heaven or gaining special benefits and considerations upon ones death.  As I understand it St. Peters in Rome was financed via indulgence sales.  Luther's point, which seemed agreed to, was that one does not come to Salvation via any human effort, be it good works or buying indulgences, and that good works were a product of faith, not some requirement.  That seemed settled.  However, if you read this article you will note an almost immediate hedging by its author ( a Priest I am guessing).

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1464

At the same time (shortly thereafter) Pope John-Paul seemingly reintroduced indulgences to the consternation of many who thought the matter of Salvation settled.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/nyregion/10indulgence.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And so, though we lay people may be gaining understanding and acceptance of each other, the scholars, who relish debate, will in all likelihood continue to research, meet and draft documents which will somehow be relegated to the stack of previous "agreements".  I hope not...

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Two strands in there I'd like to tease out.

One is your (mis)understanding of indulgences, which is understandable and you're hardly alone.  The long answer can wait, but indulgences are alive and well.  The selling of them is not, but the short answer is that indulgences have nothing to do with any striving of humanity, but on the divine Mercy of Christ.

But the one more apropos to the discussion: are you saying that these sort of discussions are:
--a waste of time and effort
or
--a good idea, but largely ignored by laity
?

[vu72]

Two strands in there I'd like to tease out.

One is your (mis)understanding of indulgences, which is understandable and you're hardly alone.  The long answer can wait, but indulgences are alive and well.  The selling of them is not, but the short answer is that indulgences have nothing to do with any striving of humanity, but on the divine Mercy of Christ.

But the one more apropos to the discussion: are you saying that these sort of discussions are:
--a waste of time and effort
or
--a good idea, but largely ignored by laity
?

You've managed to add to the confusion, at least on my part!  Indulgences are "granted" by a human based on the action (visiting a specific church and going to confession etc) of another human.  The striving, as you've noted, is certainly human as it allows for less time in purgatory for the recipient or perhaps one of his departed relatives.  Please explain.

As for the next question, the problem lies primarily with the clergy in my opinion.  Striving for unity is a great thing, certainly endorsed by God!  After the 1999 agreement, did you hear great pronouncements of accomplishment from your pulpit?  I didn't.  What I did find was some of the back peddling (sorry--it was exclusively on the part of Catholics) who wanted to make sure that no one actually thought the Church could possibly change its teaching--though we both know there have been others.

My answer is that any effort toward better understanding is a great thing, not just good.  That is why Valpo is such a special place, where not only Catholics and Lutherans can have an open discussion but so can Lutherans and Lutherans or Catholics and Muslims.  A true blessing.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

There was no back-pedaling, save for the selling of indulgences.  Indulgences have always been fine. Indulgences are not granted by a human, since they are checks no human could cash.  Christ's forgiving love is what makes them work--as channeled through his apostles. 

If you don't believe that Christ founded his one Church upon them, and has continued to lead and guide them today, then of course you would have a problem with that, and likely many other things as well!  But if you take him at his Word, then they could pretty much sell "tickets to heaven" like a personal seat license and you wouldn't abandon the ship for some sect.

We still agree on salvation, just not justification.  So I'm glad to hear you get something out of these things too--your last sentence originally made me think that you think these sorts of discussions are just ignored by everyone else.

I'd much rather talk about what we have in common at the end of the day.

[vu72]

We still agree on salvation, just not justification.

[/b]

Now you've got me confused again.

Didn't the Catholic Church agree with us Lutherans in 1999?   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Declaration_on_the_Doctrine_of_Justification

You can hopefully see how Catholicism, to the outsider, and to most Catholics is difficult to understand. So you agreed before you didn't? 

I have great respect for your traditions.  When it becomes difficult to understand or needs pontiffical (sp?) interpretation then we Lutherans begin to have problems. 

Consider Christ's words from Mark 10:   And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Well, we agreed at least that we are justified by grace through faith in Christ.  I would just say that since we have different definitions of faith, then we necessarily have different understandings of the action of grace, and then justification itself is different.  (I would think we have the same understanding of Christ though : )

It's hermeneutics, of course -- (which Lutherans or at least Protestants pioneered the understanding of, btw) -- we each agree with that bolded statement.  But what that statement MEANS is something slightly different to us (consider the Catholic appendix to that particular document, for instance).

This is why this dialogue stuff is so hairy.  But so important as well.

[I fail to see that Mk 10 is relevant, unless you are arguing that the presence of a Pope (or, to put it another way, the fact that Christianity is not self-explanatory) is itself a hindrance to coming to Christ.]

[vu72]

Well, we agreed at least that we are justified by grace through faith in Christ.  I would just say that since we have different definitions of faith, then we necessarily have different understandings of the action of grace, and then justification itself is different.  (I would think we have the same understanding of Christ though : )

It's hermeneutics, of course -- (which Lutherans or at least Protestants pioneered the understanding of, btw) -- we each agree with that bolded statement.  But what that statement MEANS is something slightly different to us (consider the Catholic appendix to that particular document, for instance).

This is why this dialogue stuff is so hairy.  But so important as well.

[I fail to see that Mk 10 is relevant, unless you are arguing that the presence of a Pope (or, to put it another way, the fact that Christianity is not self-explanatory) is itself a hindrance to coming to Christ.]

Not at all.  Here's my point: Here is a definition of an indulgence from Catholic Bible 101:  "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints."

"An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin." The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.

Then there is this site which describes what may be done to gain these:  http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/indulge/plenary.htm

I'm not here to argue about indulgences (we won't agree here) but rather address, again, Mark 10.  Christ say's (his words not mine) " Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."  My point is, what part of having to know or understand indulgences or how they may or may not effect our ability to ultimately get to heaven is "childlike"?

[LaPorteAveApostle]

I don't think you understand either of the concepts here in Mark 10 correctly to begin with; "coming to Christ" seems to mean to you something different than it means to Christ himself.  To me it seems you mean something more akin to what evangelicals mean ("have you come to Jesus?" or "have you been saved?" as though once you said the magic words you can do whatever you want forever.  and yet they mostly disdain harry potter.  i digress.).  Receiving the Kingdom like a child does NOT mean that everything about faith has to be on a second(? third? sixth?) grade level, either.  Receiving the Kingdom as a child means accepting one has a Father, which entails total dependence (like a child) on God and obedience (like a child) to the Gospel.  It does not mean that our theology has to be intelligible to those at the dawn of the age of reason because otherwise you are a mean old man who is keeping the people in short pants from Jesus.

Thus, indulgences don't prevent, or even hinder, anyone (young or old) from coming to Christ--they actually make it easier.  They don't prevent anyone, because not knowing about them or ever using them will not keep anyone from union with Christ.  (Other things will prevent that, but not the existence of indulgences.)  They even make it easier because their very existence makes it possible for other people to intercede on your behalf.

So, I'll turn the Scriptural tables, and give you Matthew 16:  just what was Christ conferring on Peter there?  Or on the apostles in John 20?  Either the apostles--and their successors--have the power to bind and to loose, to forgive and to hold bound, or they don't.

[vu72]

Well you certainly can manage to interpret my words in a variety of ways!  I never said that it was saying "magic words" or that one could go about their lives as they pleased after "accepting" Christ. To the contrary, sitting in church no more makes one a Christian than sitting in a chicken coop makes one a chicken.  God will not be mocked!  He and He alone knows what is in the hearts of people. Actions (good works to you) are a reaction to faith, not something required to gain salvation. The key here is found in Isaiah 64:6 "our most noble work are like dirty rags"  We can't impress God.

God's Grace, as a means to salvation" is a gift.  You can't do something to "earn" a gift, can you?  That wouldn't be a gift it would be a pay check.  Thus, the "gift" of God, through the death of His Son can not somehow be "earned" through an indulgence.  More confusing yet is the idea that not only can you do something to help get to heaven, that you can do something to help someone else whose already dead!  Now, please don't dodge the question by saying that Christ's death provides us the means of salvation but there is this thing called purgatory and THAT is where indulgences come into play.  If purgatory exists (we won't agree here either) then getting out seems to be something you can control versus the gift of forgiveness from God.  Somehow still puts man in control of something uncontrollable. Yes, based on free will, we have a choice to accept or deny Christ.  Saying it once doesn't preclude us from changing our mind.  But, our sins (as believers) are forgiven.  All of our actions fall short of the glory of God.

Now, on to Peter.  The Greek work used in the New Testament is petros, meaning small rock, not petra--massive rock upon which someone could build something. A more appropriate interpretation might be that "upon people like you Peter (just one person) I will build a massive body of believers (petra). Aside from that there is no reference to a "pope" or Bishop of Rome or any other such designation for Peter even though several books of the Bible were written after Peter's death.  Paul recognizes him as a "leader", along with James and John ("they seem to be the leaders").  In addition Peter was corrected by Paul on a matter of salvation, something a pope would never get wrong, correct?  Peter wrote two books in the Bible yet never mentions anything about his position. Paul wrote letters to the Romans and several letters from Rome, yet no mention of Peter or his authority.  Paul, in Galations 2 says "As for those in high esteem, whatever they were makes no difference to me. God does not show favoritism".

As for binding or loosing sin, Christ says the same thing to others in the next chapter, thus nothing special for Peter.  It is subject to interpretation by folks a lot brighter than me.  I would say it means that Clergy are allowed to convey God's forgiveness or God's displeasure with sin, I don't know.  I'll rely on St. Paul saying: "There is one Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ" (1 Timothy 2:5)

[FWalum]

I listen to Catholic Answers all the time and I still don't understand their explanation on the granting of indulgences. Despite that and a few other things, I still find that it much easier for me to listen to Catholic Radio than the "Protestant" Bott Radio Network and other similar stations.  Probably my biggest issue is with Mary as Co-Redemptrix. Now that is a real sticky wicket.

[valporun]

LAA and vu72, you're both making indulgences sound like a bartering tool that Catholics use to get a better seat or lottery position into God's Kingdom or to heaven, even if your attendance in church or faith in Christ is excellent or as minimal as during Lent and Advent with Christmas and Easter being circled on the calendar in multiple colors. Unfortunately, it should be faith and works together, but too often people associate faith as the works done or to be done, not how the work(s) done has influenced one's faith to be stronger/better than the day before. Yes, I know I sound like I'm preaching works before faith, and I heard once that faith without works is dead, but I believe that one's faith can be strengthened through the works one does, but also that the works need to associated with one's faith to show how God is working with that person's spiritual gift. Not how one can indulge their work being better than someone else's in a bartered deal to get a better seat at the table. I'm Lutheran, if that helps quantify my opinion/view here.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Well you certainly can manage to interpret my words in a variety of ways!

Hermeneutics!  Thank Schleiermacher.

Actions (good works to you) are a reaction to faith, not something required to gain salvation.

If faith without works is dead, then works are required for faith, no?  Which, in turn, is required for salvation.  Or no?  "Lord, when did we see you?"

[Or, If water without oxygen is hydrogen, then oxygen is required for water.  Which in turn is required for life.]

the "gift" of God, through the death of His Son can not somehow be "earned" through an indulgence.

You're dead on.  But it's not earned, it's given.  Mediated, but still given.  Freely given, which is why selling them was wrong.  But mediated grace, similar to intercessory prayer.  I would think we would agree on that, no?  The ability to pray for others (and have it mean something more than empty words)?

You haven't really been able to answer why you don't think Jesus really gave the apostles the power to bind and forgive.  If they have the power to forgive (in persona Christi capitis) then they can...which is what they do through (among other means) the quantification of an indulgence.

Somehow still puts man in control of something uncontrollable. Yes, based on free will, we have a choice to accept or deny Christ.

You have objected to your objection as well as I could have   Glad we agree on free will.  I dated a girl back in the day whose manager at Dunkin' Donuts was both a Bible-thumper and an adulterer.  She called him out on it one day (that's who she was) and he said that since he didn't have free will it wasn't his fault; it was preordained.  They argued back and forth until she screamed "You want free will?  Here it is!!!", flipped him off, threw off her apron and visor and quit on the spot.

Now, on to Peter.

If Jesus had wanted to say "upon people like you, Peter, I will build a massive body of believers! A nebulous union of thousands of different sects!)" he would have.  But didn't.  (As, if he wanted to say "This is like my Body" he would have.  But didn't.)  Peter is "the rock", as in masculine (petros) not feminine (petra).  (It's not often, but every six or eight months my 4 years of ancient Greek comes in helpful...usually just in watching JEOPARDY.)  But even if you were right in your interpretation, Jesus wasn't speaking Greek, but Aramaic!: kepha (also transliterated "Cephas"; that's what Paul calls him) is THE ROCK.

Clearly Peter was preeminent among the apostles (importantly: primus inter pares, first among equals).  Paul admits it (though perhaps begrudgingly at times : ); John makes it clear, several times; every other gospel writer describes it similarly (e.g. he is always listed first, although the order of the Twelve changes after him), and Christ conferred it on him in word (Mt 16:18; their several one-on-one conversations) and deed (taking him with him in every important circumstance, along with J&J).  We Americans, immersed in democracy, tend to smooth such distinctions away. 

So, you want to say that "clergy can forgive sin"; that's great, but what makes clergy clergy?  What is it that gives some people apostolic powers and not everyone?  (Bearing in mind, always, that the people don't literally "have the power", but rather that Christ exerts his power through them in the Sacraments. In persona Christi capitis, as I said before.)

No one for 1500 years would have understood or used such an explanation as "petra" either.  (And I think that's what ultimately brings many seeking Christians home to Rome:  the realization that apostolic succession is real, important, and really important , and that if the apostles came back, on Sunday they wouldn't be found at a "service" or a megachurch's COFFEE-n-PRAZE HOUR, which they would not recognize, but at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.)

What you and I are discussing, ultimately, comes down to authority.  Either we can accept Jesus/the apostles/their successors/the Church Fathers, etc. etc., at their word, or we can accept the word of Luther (and/or Calvin, Melanchthon etc.) and 'every man('s interpretation) for himself'. And if we take the latter, then of course we have a problem with the Sacraments (well, at least 5 of the 7, anyway, per Luther's "Babylonian Captivity") and sacramentals, indulgences, etc.  If we take the former, then we take such things easily in stride.

Thus, the problem, at least initially, was not one of heresy, but of schism.  Once schism enters in, heresy much more easily follows--which is why the principle of unity found in the Church is so important.  And so I think discussions like this are helpful to see that our theological differences actually arise from our ecclesiological ones.

But if lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer/liturgy is the law of belief), then we have even MORE in common, if you've ever been to a Mass, as I have noticed myself at various things at the Chapel, or even Immanuel on occasion.  And that in the end is what I prefer to remember/ponder/discuss.  What we have in common, which is Christ, a valid baptism, and an undying love for Crusaders basketball.  So a tip of the biretta to you, my friend.

Speaking of which,

I listen to Catholic Answers all the time and I still don't understand their explanation on the granting of indulgences. Despite that and a few other things, I still find that it much easier for me to listen to Catholic Radio than the "Protestant" Bott Radio Network and other similar stations.  Probably my biggest issue is with Mary as Co-Redemptrix. Now that is a real sticky wicket.

See?  That's great to hear.  And don't worry, Mary as co-Redemptrix is not a teaching of the Church.  If and when it becomes part of her teaching, then we'll burn that bridge when we get there

[vu72]

This has become convoluted, to say the least, but nonetheless a learning experience.  I hope Apostle feels likewise.

We will not find common ground on Papal authority, means of Grace, Heaven and Purgatory, Mary or prayer to saints, or helping others out of purgatory, certainly.  Yet we express deep faith, not just intellectually but as a matter of practice and personal conviction.  Those are good things indeed!  And I praise God for believers who ever they may be because, as Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 3:4 "When one of you says "I follow Paul" and another "I follow Apollos", aren't you acting like worldly people?  And then in verse 11 he goes on to say "For God has already placed Jesus Christ at the one and onlyfoundation, and no other foundation can be laid."

I'm sure we could both quote scripture for hours and that in and of itself is adiaphora as it doesn't matter as it relates to salvation.

Still, I have one more question before I rest my case and return to (never left) true friendship in the love of all things Valpo--before I ask the question, I should warn you that I have indeed attended not one but many masses as my former wife, raised a Catholic but became luke warm until after we were married, became a Pope following letter of the law Catholic who unfortunately drove great barriers between us and led in part to a divorce.  As a result I became a Catholic "expert" of sorts as I studied your faith so I could accurately defend my own. Thus, I believe I  know vastly more about Catholicism than your average mass attender.  This is all beside the point but necessary so you know that base of understanding from which I come.

So here's the question:  We have debated the means of Grace (Salvation) or the pathway to Heaven as if there were only one way..."no man comes to the Father but by me"...yet the Catholic Church teaches that all are going to Heaven if they follow their particular beliefs.  Thus, Hindus, atheists, Muslims etc. are all saved (quote from your catechism...)  "principal among these are the Muslims"  Please explain and peace brother I'm done with this debate!!

[LaPorteAveApostle]

...yet the Catholic Church teaches that all are going to Heaven if they follow their particular beliefs.  Thus, Hindus, atheists, Muslims etc. are all saved

no. way. bro.  what the Church says not that God will save them, but that they have a place in the plan of salvation.  you're always better off in the Church.  What the Catechism is doing is tracing concentric circles out from ourselves--the Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, believers in God, believers in religion, agnostics, and finally atheists.  If you start reading at 830 and go for like 20 paragraphs or so you'll get a much better picture.
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=17-paragraph18.xhtml%23para830

You're taking a single phrase in CCC 841 out of context.  CCC 843:

Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these [ed: other] religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

Preparation, as incomplete realization thereof, but steps toward nonetheless.  Cf. Romans 1.

CCC 845: 

To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled."

The fullness of salvation is found in the Church, but God will not hold against people invincible ignorance, which is to say that those people who have never heard the Gospel, or have heard it but incompletely and not known of the Church and its role in the plan of salvation.

Been good talking with you about this.  Will return to this when needed in the future!

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Couldn't resist adding this   (sorry--would have even if we'd lost!)

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/oct/05/college-football-ave-maria-rallies-to-get-win-at/

or

http://www.avemariagyrenes.com/news/2013/10/5/FB_1005133418.aspx

[bbtds]

http://concordiamn.prestosports.com/sports/fball/2013-14/releases/20130928h34aqp

http://www.csbsju.edu/About/At-a-Glance.htm


Cobbers over the Johnnies two years in a row by double digits.

[vu72]

Wagner over Sacred Heart!

http://www.wagnerathletics.com/news/2013/10/5/FB_1005132317.aspx?path=

[LaPorteAveApostle]

touche

luckily there aren't many Lutherans in/on Oklahoma

[vu72]

touche

luckily there aren't many Lutherans in/on Oklahoma

You are correct!  The closest we can come is Texas Lutheran.  They do have victories over East Texas Baptist and Southwestern Assemblies of God!  Do they count??   

[LaPorteAveApostle]

I was just referring to how OU handed ND its head on a platter the other week.

not that I (a Michigan Man) care a great deal for how the Irish fare.

I did read "The Fighting Irish vs. the Klan" a while back (by a valpo author too), though.

[valpotx]

I believe that there is a Concordia in TX as well

[vu72]

I believe that there is a Concordia in TX as well

Yes, in Austin, but they don't play football.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

God bless Texas Lutherans.  No one'll mistake THEM fer Baptists...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/12/texas-church-attracts-new-followers-with-beer/

[historyman]

God bless Texas Lutherans.  No one'll mistake THEM fer Baptists... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/12/texas-church-attracts-new-followers-with-beer/

They don't say "yee-haaa" before "A-men?"