Posted on 10/12/2005 10:15:23 AM PDT by NYer
I am a Lutheran. I am baptised and with great reverence receive the body and blood of my Savior in Holy Communion and I believe in Christ's perfect sacrifice, as you do, for the forgivness of sins...Both Lutherans and Catholics know that the Holy Scriptures show that this is the path to salvation as promised by God. Do you therefore contend I am condemed because I am not Catholic or Orthodox? Please answer simply with a yes or no...thank you.
To the extent that CCM leads toward a stronger linkage with the Apostolic succession that is a good thing; it promotes good order and such order is a necessity under Augustana VII. But I am not at all sure that attaching to Anglican orders is the proper way to get there.
If the ecumenical destiny of Lutherans is reconciliation with the Bishop of Rome any and all other ecumenical relations (frankly, all issues) need to be weighed against the question "does this action lead us closer to or farther away from that reconciliation?"
I don't see much on the national level that is enabling that reconciliation...quite the opposite, in fact. And I observe that with profound sadness.
bttt
No.
It's about sacraments, not preaching. Let me get this straight: Luther was upset with some corrupt practices by some Church officials, correct? So, he decided to "reform" these bad practices and instead changed the theology, correct? In otherwords, the Church was wrong ecclesiastically and theologically for 1,500 years according to Mr. Luther. If that is true, then not only is the Catholic Church in apostasy for two millennia but so is the Orthodox Church as well.
I don't for a moment doubt that Lutherans belive with all reverence, but that doesn't mean that a church is any one, any time, any place. Remember, the devil is also a believer. So what does that make a group of demons? A "church?"
If our Lord wanted all of us to be Protestants, He would have given everyone a Bible and said "Read it!"
Belonging to a Church (administratively) is not a ticket to a salvation. But that does not make every church equally valid, MarMema. A Church is not a club one can set up as he or she pleases. Lutheran Church was born out of a desire to purge the Church of some illicit human practices -- the end result was heretical theology with equally illicit human practices. I am not sure if you realize that the Lutherans were rebuked by the EP in the 16th century for their heresy. They may be individually awesome Christians, but that does not make their church a Church as far as I am concerned.
Is that like a belief in unicorns? They forfeited their Holy Orders by joining a heretic and subscribing to a theology that is as different from the one the Church held from the beginning as night and day.
I pray for Reunion, but until that day it would be wrong to pretend.
Thank you JR.
I think I was trying to say they retained a belief in the concept, but let's not be Donatists here and say the worthiness of the minister removes the grace from the sacred mysteries.
I think Orthodoxy has a wide variety of theories regarding the
efficaciousness of non-Orthodox sacred mysteries: ranging from the neo-Cyprianists to those who believe in St. Augustine's belief that heretical mysteries could be valid.
JR, the Lutherans went on a rampage imprisoning, torturing and killing bishops who did not submit to their view. The Lutherans had no clear theology for a long time, and the end result was not exactly what Luther had in mind. Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople serves as a witness to how they were perceived -- and let me tell you they were not perceived as valid anything. Numbers don't make something right. Just because there are some 90 million Lutherans (of all shades) doesn't make it "right". They are not an Apostolic church. They have no Apostolic authority. Their theology denies any ecclesiastical authority (no wonder!). Luther denied any validity of the Councils. Yet they have their own set of rules and traditions that tell them how they should believe. And all along I thought all they needed was the Faith and the Bible. Syncretism leads to nothing. Luke-warm is not good.
1,500 years after the Church was established?
How was "sola scriptura" to be practiced with scores of illiterates and only a few books to go around? And even after the invention of the printing press, most of the population was illiterate and/or could not afford to buy a Bible. Not until the 20th century was there sufficient literacy and economical capacity for most people to afford a Bible. So, in other words the true "sola scriptura" was intended 2,000 years after Christ?
Satan knows who Christ is, granted
Well, knowing is believing, as they say.
But a true believer (i.e. a person who is in the Church) also trusts in Christ for his salvation
Yes, a person who is in the Church. That is in -- an Apostolic Church with valid priesthood and valid sacraments; not a "church" that was invented 1,500 years later based on a mix of populist, secular and political rebellion, and lots of bloodshed.
You may also find that referring to the clergy of other churches as "clowns" isn't a real conversation starter.
Sir, Apostolic succession is not something "observed." It is not a "ritual." People pretending to be Apostolic successors are not only clowns -- they are impostors.
Let me clarify this: Our Lord gave us the Scripture. He also gave us His Apostolic Church.
Why sugarcoat the truth: Protestants are our Christian brothers, but they are not in that Church. It's their choice.
Your insecurity in your faith is saddening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.