Catholicism Unriddled {An ex-Lutheran pastor's thoughts}

First Things first ^ | July 15, 2015 | Russell E. Saltzman

[Cronos]

...When I was growing up, what Catholics did, Lutherans didn’t. That seemed to be the extent of what Lutherans knew about Catholics. They did these things, and because we weren’t Catholic we didn’t. Simple.

The list was evident if never specific. We did not cross ourselves at the invocation or upon receiving communion. Our pastors did not wear funny suits, they did not dress in clericals, make hand signs over the communion elements, bow, or do any of those things that might be mistaken as Catholic and not Lutheran. Most of all, we didn’t have to stand in line at a confessional box.

It’s a wonder, then, I ever became interested in Roman Catholicism. That happened largely because, while a youth in catechism class, I actually read the Augsburg Confession. And there I found pastors referred to as priests, worship called a “mass,” private confession encouraged, and the Lutheran assertion—against Roman charges otherwise—that Holy Communion was retained, celebrated with reverence, and offered every Sunday. Except, for perhaps the previous three hundred years, Lutherans hadn’t done any of that.

...what I found at that young age was this: Lutherans are more theologically Catholic than they (or Catholics) could ever admit.

How did Lutherans lose a good part of their catholic substance? It wasn’t Luther. It was later Lutherans determined to avoid doing things Catholics did even if those very practices were present in their foundational documents.

There was a period for perhaps two hundred years after the Reformation during which Lutherans largely did keep to the confessions in parish practice and congregational life: weekly communion, private confession—the whole deal

---

TOPICS: Catholic; General Discusssion; Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS:

[Cronos]

Interesting - Catholics and Lutherans have more in common than either of them even realize

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

Interesting — a religion article posted in the news forum dating from 2015.

[equaviator]

Tomorrow is Friday and I’m having steak and imitation lobster meat for dinner. Is that okay? /s

[CondoleezzaProtege]

I just posted about a young Muslim woman becoming a Christian, but it’s so true there can be just as much a journey in traveling between denominations *within* Christianity...

I see denominational diversity as much a blessing as it is a curse...The curse is obviously all the endless division and resulting conflicts that have tainted Christianity through history. But at the ground level: it’s good that people can find modes and styles of worship that resonate with them..If one mode of worship is all you know, your faith risks becoming stale, and just “going through the motions.”

I remember meeting an Englishman who said he had completely abandoned all things religion as an adult despite being raised Anglican...Until an African co-worker invited him to his church! The Englishman was so moved by the vibrancy and joy of the worship. He was like “I didn’t know church can be like that.”

St. Augustine’s maxim applies here:

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

[Cronos]

It sure is for you :)

The article just points out our doctrinal/dogmatic similarities, not discipline/rituals

Have a blessed Thursday!

[Jan_Sobieski]

What if I want to worship Pachamama like Pope Leo? Does that make me Roman Catholic?

[No.6]

> “In essentials, unity;

This. If you can’t affirm the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds you’re not a Christian; but after that it’s mostly about dispelling myths (which I will not enumerate here as it trashes threads).

ALL of us recognize that Christ saves us through grace not merited; but then what we do in grateful response is where we get muddled (of course; we’re saved, not perfect).

[Dr. Sivana]

Tomorrow is Friday and I’m having steak and imitation lobster meat for dinner. Is that okay? /s

Are you Catholic?

Here are the pertinent rules (from copilot):

"Canon 1251. Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.



"Canon 1253. The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast."

BUT, in the U.S.,

The governing document for the United States is the 1966 Pastoral Statement on Penance and Abstinence, which remains in force even after the 1983 Code of Canon Law. It makes two key moves:

1. It removes the legal obligation to abstain from meat on most Fridays.
Norm 3 explicitly states that the bishops “terminate the traditional law of abstinence as binding under pain of sin” for Fridays outside Lent.

2. It does not impose a new mandatory penance. Although the bishops strongly encourage Catholics to continue Friday abstinence or choose another form of penance, they do not create a new legal requirement to replace the old one. The language is exhortative, not legislative.

This is why many canonists describe the U.S. situation as “muddled”: the universal law (Canon 1251) requires Friday penance, but the U.S. bishops did not specify a binding substitute.

[Cronos]

Jan, you still haven’t answered my question

In 2 Thessalonians 1:6–10, St. Paul says that God will give relief to the suffering Church at the same time He is revealed from heaven in ‘flaming fire’ to judge the world. If the Church is raptured seven years before the judgment, why does Paul say that our rest and the world’s judgment happen at the exact same moment?

[equaviator]

Whoops, I didn’t realize that this is part of the Religion forum. When I look at the Latest Articles list, I don’t see which forums the articles were posted to.

[Jan_Sobieski]

Same context…Paul comforted the Thessalonians by giving the signs that would precede God’s judgment on the earth. The generation that sees those signs will be caught up before God’s final judgment

2 Thessalonians 2:1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

[roving]

That’s why I left the Lutheran Church.

[Cronos]

Well, if you left Christianity, it’s nothing to be proud of

[Cronos]

Jan, I asked about the 1st chapter of 2 Thessalonians, you answered about the 2nd. I wrote

In 2 Thessalonians 1:6–10, St. Paul says that God will give relief to the suffering Church at the same time He is revealed from heaven in ‘flaming fire’ to judge the world. If the Church is raptured seven years before the judgment, why does Paul say that our rest and the world’s judgment happen at the exact same moment?

Jan, you didn't address 1:7. Paul says God gives us rest 'when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire.' If we are raptured seven years before the fire, then dispensationalism is saying that Paul is wrong, because he explicitly synchronizes our 'rest' with the world's 'destruction.' Paul’s 'gathering' in 2:1 is the same event as the 'revelation' in 1:7.

Why do you need a 7-year gap that the text never mentions?

In 2 Thessalonians 1:6–10, Paul says God will repay your persecutors with affliction and give you rest: when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire

Furthermore, you cite Chapter 2, but verse 8 says the Antichrist is destroyed by the 'brightness of His coming' (Epiphaneia). If the Church is already gone, why does Paul use the gathering of the Church (v. 1) as the reason we shouldn't be shaken by the Antichrist's arrival?

You are trying to insert a 'Gap' into the text where the text shows a Collision. Paul doesn't describe two Second Comings (one secret, one public); he describes one event that is 'relief' for us and 'ruin' for the world.

Why do you need to add seven years of 'extra' history to Paul's one-sequence timeline?

You need to show where the Bible explicitly puts a gap between the "Rapture" and the "Glorious Appearing."

Remember that the Tribulation (John 16:33) is not the same thing as The Wrath of God (which is for the wicked). We endure the first; we are saved from the second at the very moment He returns.

[Jan_Sobieski]

Sorry Mate. I have no time for dissertations. Try teaching college courses. I can tell students have no idea what writing if they cannot do it in as few words as possible.

[Hootowl]

When I was growing up (I’m 77 now) we called Lutherans “Catholic lite.”