Roman Catholic Discussion

[LutheranHawkeye]

I was reading some posts in the roman catholic forum on here and was intrigued to find a post called A letter from a Soul in Hell. I started skimming through the first page and it was terribly boring so I looked at one of the replys and saw a quote from Saint Teresa...it describes her vision of hell and said she saw tons of lutherans in hell. She said she felt disturbed because she knew most of them were baptized in the church. I then posted a reply about this and asked if followers of christ outside the roman church would be damned to hell for not being in the church of rome and they said yes. This distrubs me. I never knew that the RCC claims christians outside of the church will be damned. I always thought the RCC had its problems but was close to us. Now I know why all of my evangelical friends absolutley despise the RCC. With good reason too.

[holyorders]

Actually our doctrines state that Protestants our a total unknown in regards to salvation.

After the reformation you can find quotes from saints and popes even saying things to this affect. We developed Extra Ecclesia Nulla (no salvation outside the CHurch) doctrine. The Catholic doctrines have changed a bit because obvious no one knows the state of one's own soul. We do state, however, that salvation outside of the Catholic Church comes from the graces recieved to the Catholic Church.


I wanted to post this so that the truth of what Catholics believe.



If you want a quote from the Catholic Catechism I am more than happy to quote it.

:)

[SPALATIN]

Actually our doctrines state that Protestants our a total unknown in regards to salvation.

After the reformation you can find quotes from saints and popes even saying things to this affect. We developed Extra Ecclesia Nulla (no salvation outside the CHurch) doctrine. The Catholic doctrines have changed a bit because obvious no one knows the state of one's own soul. We do state, however, that salvation outside of the Catholic Church comes from the graces recieved to the Catholic Church.


I wanted to post this so that the truth of what Catholics believe.



If you want a quote from the Catholic Catechism I am more than happy to quote it.

:)

Thank you for filling us in. It may be what you believe and are taught, but it isn't true. Especially if it came from the Papacy. Martin Luther and all those who follow him declare the Pope to be the AntiChrist so you can see why we would disagree with anthing that comes from that office.

[Jim47]

I was reading some posts in the roman catholic forum on here and was intrigued to find a post called A letter from a Soul in Hell. I started skimming through the first page and it was terribly boring so I looked at one of the replys and saw a quote from Saint Teresa...it describes her vision of hell and said she saw tons of lutherans in hell. She said she felt disturbed because she knew most of them were baptized in the church. I then posted a reply about this and asked if followers of christ outside the roman church would be damned to hell for not being in the church of rome and they said yes. This distrubs me. I never knew that the RCC claims christians outside of the church will be damned. I always thought the RCC had its problems but was close to us. Now I know why all of my evangelical friends absolutley despise the RCC. With good reason too.



Can you please PM me with the link to that thread. Thanks :)

Edit, I found the thread.

[Qoheleth]

The Catholic doctrines have changed a bit because obvious no one knows the state of one's own soul. We do state, however, that salvation outside of the Catholic Church comes from the graces recieved to the Catholic Church.


The quote below belongs to Karl Adam and is considered to be an orthodox understanding of Vatican documents relating to this issue




[p.177]".....Non-Catholic sacraments have the power to sanctify and save, not only objectively, but also subjectively. It is therefore conceivable also, from the Church's standpoint, that there is a true, devout and Christian life in those non-Catholic communions which believe in Jesus and baptize in His Name. We Catholics regard this Christian life, wherever it appears, with unfeigned respect and with thankful love......

And not merely a Christian life, but a complete and lofty Christian life, a life according to the "full age of Christ," a saintly life, is possible - so Catholics believe - even in definitely non-Catholic communions. It is true that it cannot develop with that luxuriance which is possible in the Church, where is the fulness of Jesus and His Body; and it will never be anti-Catholic in its quality. Yet it will be a genuine saintly life; since, wherever grace is, the noble fruits of grace can ripen" (The Spirit of Catholicism)


Q

[Protoevangel]

I was reading some posts in the roman catholic forum on here and was intrigued to find a post called A letter from a Soul in Hell. I started skimming through the first page and it was terribly boring so I looked at one of the replys and saw a quote from Saint Teresa...it describes her vision of hell and said she saw tons of lutherans in hell. She said she felt disturbed because she knew most of them were baptized in the church. I then posted a reply about this and asked if followers of christ outside the roman church would be damned to hell for not being in the church of rome and they said yes. This distrubs me. I never knew that the RCC claims christians outside of the church will be damned. I always thought the RCC had its problems but was close to us. Now I know why all of my evangelical friends absolutley despise the RCC. With good reason too.
Hi NordicLutheran,

I went over there and checked out some of the thread at the beginning, and then jumped to your post and read the rest. Carrye answered your question correctly, and charitably. The Catholic Church sees themselves as "The" Church, and anyone outside of her are not part of the Church of Christ... Not in a full and complete way, anyway.

Let me try to clear it up for you a little. I am oversimplifying it, and may have some of the details wrong, but I believe the following is basically correct. Their Doctrine does not state that you or I will go to Hell because we are Lutheran. We may very well be responding to the Truth and the Grace of God to the best of our ability and understanding, and may therefore actually be part of the Catholic Church, without even knowing it, and certianly not in a full way. Only those who fully and truly "know" that the Catholic Church is the True and Only Church, but still reject Her, are (more or less) guaranteed a one-way-trip to eternal punishment.

Don't take it personal, or be disturbed about that. It is not their way of saying they are better than everyone else. Once you begin understanding Catholic ecclesiology, you will see that the statement that "there is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church" is not only natural, but absolutely necessary to the very essence of their faith and Who they see their Church as being. Disagree with it all you want (I certianly do!), but don't let it make you bitter or angry against them. The Catholic Church could not give that doctrine up any more than they could give up on the Papacy.


EDIT:
To be more precise, in regard to the statement, "there is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church". My only disagreement would be in the way the Catholic Church interprets "Catholic". If we reclaim the original meaning of catholic, then I would fully agree... There is no Salvation outside the catholic Church, wherein the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

[KEPLER]

Actually our doctrines state that Protestants our a total unknown in regards to salvation.

After the reformation you can find quotes from saints and popes even saying things to this affect. We developed Extra Ecclesia Nulla (no salvation outside the CHurch) doctrine. The Catholic doctrines have changed a bit because obvious no one knows the state of one's own soul. We do state, however, that salvation outside of the Catholic Church comes from the graces recieved to the Catholic Church.

I wanted to post this so that the truth of what Catholics believe.

If you want a quote from the Catholic Catechism I am more than happy to quote it.

:)

Actually the whole phrase is Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus.

This is the silliness that developed after the French King embarassed the Pope. Innocent VIII kicked Philip out of the CHurch in order to force him to back down on a political position. This was one of the vents that led to the eventual position of the separation of church and state.

I love it when Catholics confuse politics with religion....

K

[Called2Grace]

As far as I was aware The Catholic church teaches that we rely on the mercy of God, no one really knows who will end up in heaven only God. We don't have the right or the ability to say who will and who will not end up in heaven.

[LutheranHawkeye]

Thanks for clearing it up everyone. I was disturbed by the thread because I thought the Rcc was fairly close to us. I'm not really disturbed anymore because now that I think about it, it's quite silly. I don't care what the roman church thinks about true christians. A true christian is all caught up in the word of god. A true roman catholic is all caught up in dogmas about the word of god. Christ>Roman Dogmas

[judaica]

Those Roman Catholics who answered in the affirmative, and even those who want to question whether we are considered members of the Church or not, do not seem to be grounded in the teachings of the catechism very well, which teaches that yes, by virtue of our baptisms, we are members of her body:

855 The Church's mission stimulates efforts towards Christian unity. Indeed, "divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her sons who, though joined to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all its aspects."


The Roman Catholic Church does have the teaching that outside of the Church there is no salvation (ironically, so does Confessional Lutheranism). But we are not considered salvically outside of her. All those who are joined to her, be it ever so imperfectly, are considered to be within her boundries:

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

This whole thing of "protestants" being imperfectly joined to her, is ridiculous if a catholic then wants to conclude from that, that they are then as a catholic perfectly joined to her. No christian, this side of heaven is perfectly, and completely joined to the true Church (whatever it may be). Being joined to the Church is more than mere membership (which all christians enjoy), it is full and absolute conformity, be that moral (sinlessness) or theological. Ironically, there are christians who are more roman catholic than alot of roman catholics, in other communions outside of Rome. And that's the thing too, alot of the old boundaries are starting to break down, for good or ill. Meeting a "Roman Catholic" will not ensure that they follow the mandates of their Church, or that they are even correctly informed as to what their Church teaches. Same with Lutherans, Calvinists ect. I personally have met Roman Catholics, who could run circles around Lutherans in terms of their understanding of God's mercy and grace, and Lutherans, who you wonder why they're still Lutherans. The old divisions just don't seem to exist anymore to a large degree.

Judaica

[Ravenonthecross]

Thanks for clearing it up everyone. I was disturbed by the thread because I thought the Rcc was fairly close to us. I'm not really disturbed anymore because now that I think about it, it's quite silly. I don't care what the roman church thinks about true christians. A true christian is all caught up in the word of god. A true roman catholic is all caught up in dogmas about the word of god. Christ>Roman Dogmas

I'd watch your mouth, in assuming that a true Roman Catholic is "all caught in dogmas about the word of God". I'm always with Christ in my heart, it's not the RC's dogma that I rely it's Christ himself, the dogmas via the church's teachings merely serve to guide catholics in the right direction. :preach:

[judaica]

I'd watch your mouth, in assuming that a true Roman Catholic is "all caught in dogmas about the word of God". I'm always with Christ in my heart, it's not the RC's dogma that I rely it's Christ himself, the dogmas via the church's teachings merely serve to guide catholics in the right direction. :preach:

It's sad for me personally, to see all the fighting back and forth. I just came from a thread tonight where a catholic wanted "ammo" (his words) to convert his friend. And both questions pertained to Luther. On a personal note, half of my family is Roman Catholic, the other Lutheran, I've grown up with an affinity and respect for both churches (and sometimes have been disgusted by both as well unfortunately). I wish to God with all my heart that Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism can come to some sort of consensus. A pipe dream maybe, but I can't stand it, whenever I see either group pulling away from the other.


Judaica

[Jim47]

It's sad for me personally, to see all the fighting back and forth. I just came from a thread tonight where a catholic wanted "ammo" (his words) to convert his friend. And both questions pertained to Luther. On a personal note, half of my family is Roman Catholic, the other Lutheran, I've grown up with an affinity and respect for both churches (and sometimes have been disgusted by both as well unfortunately). I wish to God with all my heart that Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism can come to some sort of consensus. A pipe dream maybe, but I can't stand it, whenever I see either group pulling away from the other.


Judaica



I think I know your feelings, but I don't think it will ever happen unless millions of Catholics become Lutheran.

[judaica]

I think I know your feelings, but I don't think it will ever happen unless millions of Catholics become Lutheran.

Well, both Roman "Catholics" and "Lutherans" need to become more Catholic. (In regards to the RC, "Catholic" is kinda of a misnomer in my mind). Neither Church is ideal and both suffer from much of the same problem, members and congregations diverting away from the Faith of the Historic Undivided Church. At least these Lutherans are honest about it though, and are willing concede that they hold to a "Protestant" view of Scripture and the World, and think that's perfectly alright. Their Roman Catholic counterparts try to hide it under the guise of "Tradition" and "Apostolic Doctrine". The Reformation I think went along way to restore an affinity for the Historic Faith, but the general mindset of many Lutherans today is not what it was at the Reformation unfortunately. If I had to choose between the Movement Luther was a part of, and Rome, even Rome today, I'd choose the former. But the direction in which the Lutheran Church seems to be going today makes me very uneasy. So, I'd have to say that I wouldn't want Roman Catholics to become Lutherans, until Lutherans become more Lutheran.

Judaica

[Chemnitz]

Only those who fully and truly "know" that the Catholic Church is the True and Only Church, but still reject Her, are (more or less) guaranteed a one-way-trip to eternal punishment.


Dan,

I read your whole post and I think you did an excellent job of characterizing the current RC ecumenical stance wrt salvation.

This bit struck me though.

It is a book-end to the Catholic doctrine of "invincible ignorance" which is, basically the belief that if someone doesn't know that the RCC is The One True Church and never finds out about it they can still be saved since their ignorance is invincible. There's more to it, of course, but that's the root.

The problem with this view is that it, like gnosticism, makes awareness or knowledge the test and substance of salvation. And this too is very Roman Catholic since their understanding of faith itself has more to do with assent than with trust.

Anyhow, it sounds charitable enough.

When I see this though, meaning what you have described here, I am struck by the sophistry of it:

Who, knowing something is true, has ever wilfully not believed it? Who, upon discovering that two plus two yields a sum of four, would persist in believing that it actually yields three?

Are there really, have there ever really been, people like this who discovered and knew that the RCC was the One True Church and yet persisted in the acceptance of error?

It seems to me that once discovered, truth is inescapable. It can take a while for preconceptions to die, but if they are erroneous, once confronted with truth, they inevitably do. And even then Truth has long since taken root. It is already there.

I don't think it's possible to discover that the RCC (or any church or body of doctrine) is true and not respond to it with faith. Those who hear and do not believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ fail to believe because their hearts are darkened and because they are enemies of God, not because they are neutral vessels in whom the message just "didn't take". Their failure to see the truth has to do with the desperate nature of their hearts, not with their understanding. Correspondingly, those who do hear and believe do so because God has created faith in their hearts, He has changed their very nature.

The RCC position here strikes me as a wild abuse of reason and the very height of scholastic ninnyhammering.

[judaica]

The problem with this view is that it, like gnosticism, makes awareness or knowledge the test and substance of salvation. And this too is very Roman Catholic since their understanding of faith itself has more to do with assent than with trust.

You know I never thought of it like that, or saw that connection, but you are dead on right.

Who, knowing something is true, has ever wilfully not believed it? Who, upon discovering that two plus two yields a sum of four, would persist in believing that it actually yields three?

Are there really, have there ever really been, people like this who discovered and knew that the RCC was the One True Church and yet persisted in the acceptance of error?

It seems to me that once discovered, truth is inescapable. It can take a while for preconceptions to die, but if they are erroneous, once confronted with truth, they inevitably do. And even then Truth has long since taken root. It is already there.

I don't think it's possible to discover that the RCC (or any church or body of doctrine) is true and not respond to it with faith. Those who hear and do not believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ fail to believe because their hearts are darkened and because they are enemies of God, not because they are neutral vessels in whom the message just "didn't take". Their failure to see the truth has to do with the desperate nature of their hearts, not with their understanding. Correspondingly, those who do hear and believe do so because God has created faith in their hearts, He has changed their very nature.

The RCC position here strikes me as a wild abuse of reason and the very height of scholastic ninnyhammering.

I think the human heart is such that yes it possible to know that something is true and still want to persist in error, because you're in love with the error and not with the truth. Scripture speaks often of people rejecting the truth. And I have to wonder, if there is more to that, than just the idea that the Gospel is true and people reject it. I think it's similiar to a woman who in her heart knows her husband is cheating on her, but will do what she can to deny it, ignore it, ect. I think we are like that with God, but in the reverse. I think we can be so self-centered at times, and want our way so much that we prefer to live in a fantasy of our own creation than in conformity with what we know to be true.

Judaica

[Chemnitz]

I completely agree that it is possible to "know something is true and to still want to persist in error".

My point is that this rebellion never lasts for the redeemed; the Truth has it's way with us because we belong to it.

For a while we rebel, we lust after the fleshpots of Egypt and so on, but eventually these things fall away.

The Truth cannot really be denied, as much as we may want to deny it.

[judaica]

I completely agree that it is possible to "know something is true and to still want to persist in error".

My point is that this rebellion never lasts for the redeemed; the Truth has it's way with us because we belong to it.

For a while we rebel, we lust after the fleshpots of Egypt and so on, but eventually these things fall away.

The Truth cannot really be denied, as much as we may want to deny it.

That's true, and not just for the redeemed, there will come a day when even the unredeemed (if there are any) will not be able to escape the truth.

Judaica

[Jim47]

Mod hat on

As you may have noticed I changed the title of this thread. I understand the disuninty with the Catholic teachings and beliefs, but we do have to draw the line at not sounding offensive. We need to show ourselves as approved by Our Savior and showing the same love as He showed us and bad language never came out of the mouth of Him who shed His blood for us.

I would like to applogize to all for not taking this action sooner as should have been done. :blush:

[Chemnitz]

Mod hat on

As you may have noticed I changed the title of this thread. I understand the disuninty with the Catholic teachings and beliefs, but we do have to draw the line at not sounding offensive. We need to show ourselves as approved by Our Savior and showing the same love as He showed us and bad language never came out of the mouth of Him who shed His blood for us.

I would like to applogize to all for not taking this action sooner as should have been done. :blush:

How un-lutheran.

By which I mean Luther would never have apologized for calling something evil what it was.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Yep I would err on the side of Luther to. Seems to me that we still don't realize what the rules are here. I for one think that main forums should gives us a LOT more latitude than is afforded here. I guess that can only be done in GT.

Just when things were getting good.

[Colabomb]

To be honest the issue is this.

Catholics used to say all protestants were damned. They came to their senses and realized that they were wrong, so they changed their doctrine accordingly.

However, as they are Rome, they have to pretend the past didn't happen, and that they have taught the same from the Beginning.

It is nice to be recognized by my bretheren though.

[Jim47]

How un-lutheran.

By which I mean Luther would never have apologized for calling something evil what it was.


May I kindly suggest that everyone re-reads the forum rules? When you joined this forum you all agreed to obey the rules. I realize that you may not agree with the rules, but you still need to abide by them. I don't intend to take away your discussions about this what so ever, but we can not call another denomination un Christian. This is the rules. If anyone disagrees with the rules you can make an appeal thru the appeals forum.

Please PM me if you want to discuss this any further.

[BigNorsk]

To be honest the issue is this.

Catholics used to say all protestants were damned. They came to their senses and realized that they were wrong, so they changed their doctrine accordingly.

However, as they are Rome, they have to pretend the past didn't happen, and that they have taught the same from the Beginning.

It is nice to be recognized by my bretheren though.

What's a bretheren. Is that a southern brethren?

Couldn't resist, as a member of the Lutheran Brethren.

Marv

[Jim47]

I will not hamper conversation or debate what so ever, but we have to watch things like calling people names, insults and telling others that they are un Christian. We will not win any souls by bad mouthing, but we can if we show them from scripture where they error.

Please continue in your discussion.

[Chemnitz]

I will not hamper conversation or debate what so ever, but we have to watch things like calling people names, insults and telling others that they are un Christian. We will not win any souls by bad mouthing, but we can if we show them from scripture where they error.

Please continue in your discussion.

Well, I am not sure we really can now, I mean we've been told what we may and may not say...

This is the irony of CF, when asked to discuss something, we, often, can't really discuss it. We must proceed obliquely.

And again, to reiterate Radidio's point, this should be a place where there could be some leeway.

For my part, I didn't really see anything offensive or conducive to a poor witness in anything anyone said.

[Protoevangel]

Well, I am not sure we really can now, I mean we've been told what we may and may not say...

This is the irony of CF, when asked to discuss something, we, often, can't really discuss it. We must proceed obliquely.

And again, to reiterate Radidio's point, this should be a place where there could be some leeway.

For my part, I didn't really see anything offensive or conducive to a poor witness in anything anyone said.

Perhaps you missed the original title of this thread. This is the only thing Jim said he changed.

Talk about the errors in Roman doctrines all you want, no one is stopping you from doing that. There is no reason however, to use such inflammitory language as the original title of this thread used.

I applaud Jim for doing such a great job, and handling the situation with such a gentle touch. Any other forum would probably have handed out a few warnings by now. Thank you Jim for your patience and wisdom!

[Chemnitz]

Perhaps you missed the original title of this thread. This is the only thing Jim said he changed.

Talk about the errors in Roman doctrines all you want, no one is stopping you from doing that. There is no reason however, to use such inflammitory language as the original title of this thread used.

I applaud Jim for doing such a great job, and handling the situation with such a gentle touch. Any other forum would probably have handed out a few warnings by now. Thank you Jim for your patience and wisdom!

Maybe so.

beg pardon.

[Jim47]

DanHeadPerhaps you missed the original title of this thread. This is the only thing Jim said he changed.

Talk about the errors in Roman doctrines all you want, no one is stopping you from doing that. There is no reason however, to use such inflammitory language as the original title of this thread used.




Thanks Dan for your help. This is all I changed and I have no intentions at all of hammpering discussion. It would make me very happy if I never had to make another Mod post. I just want to keep the peace here and comply with the rules.

[Jim47]

Well, both Roman "Catholics" and "Lutherans" need to become more Catholic. (In regards to the RC, "Catholic" is kinda of a misnomer in my mind). Neither Church is ideal and both suffer from much of the same problem, members and congregations diverting away from the Faith of the Historic Undivided Church. At least these Lutherans are honest about it though, and are willing concede that they hold to a "Protestant" view of Scripture and the World, and think that's perfectly alright. Their Roman Catholic counterparts try to hide it under the guise of "Tradition" and "Apostolic Doctrine". The Reformation I think went along way to restore an affinity for the Historic Faith, but the general mindset of many Lutherans today is not what it was at the Reformation unfortunately. If I had to choose between the Movement Luther was a part of, and Rome, even Rome today, I'd choose the former. But the direction in which the Lutheran Church seems to be going today makes me very uneasy. So, I'd have to say that I wouldn't want Roman Catholics to become Lutherans, until Lutherans become more Lutheran.

Judaica


My apologies but I just found your reply to me. I am trying to read between the lines, but the full meaning of what you wrote has escaped me. :sorry: I would like to discuss this more but can you explain what you mean about Lutherans becoming more Lutheran and this statement> If I had to choose between the Movement Luther was a part of, and Rome, even Rome today, I'd choose the former. But the direction in which the Lutheran Church seems to be going today makes me very uneasy. So, I'd have to say that I wouldn't want Roman Catholics to become Lutherans, until Lutherans become more Lutheran.

[Melethiel]

So, I'd have to say that I wouldn't want Roman Catholics to become Lutherans, until Lutherans become more Lutheran.

I fully agree with you. Modern Lutheranism seems tainted by the Reformed to me.

[Protoevangel]

[/color][/font][/i]I fully agree with you. Modern Lutheranism seems tainted by the Reformed to me.
[/color][/size][/font]:sigh: It's sad, but I would have to say I see the same thing.

[C.F.W. Walther]

[/color][/font][/i]I fully agree with you. Modern Lutheranism seems tainted by the Reformed to me.
[/color][/size][/font]

Yep--me three

[Chemnitz]

You mean like Luther and Melanchthon telling Phillip of Hesse that it was okay to have two wives?

Well, that's not exactly what they said...but don't lets let the facts get in the way of a good slander-err, story.

[LutheranHawkeye]

Sorry I haven't been on this thread in awhile because I thought it was a different thread than my original one. I felt disgusted after reading that post and I wanted to express my opinion on here. The safe place for lutherans. I didn't want to start a discussion I just wanted other lutherans to know about this subject and give some insight, not for a mod to change the title and then state what this thread was about. I'm honestly thinking about leaving cf, I'm sure there are better forums out there where you can express your feelings and get support and insight. And you know a thread has gone to long when an orthodox member comes in and bashes luther.

[Jim47]

Sorry I haven't been on this thread in awhile because I thought it was a different thread than my original one. I felt disgusted after reading that post and I wanted to express my opinion on here. The safe place for lutherans. I didn't want to start a discussion I just wanted other lutherans to know about this subject and give some insight, not for a mod to change the title and then state what this thread was about. I'm honestly thinking about leaving cf, I'm sure there are better forums out there where you can express your feelings and get support and insight. And you know a thread has gone to long when an orthodox member comes in and bashes luther.


I think if you read the rules you will be just fine. I've been to tons of forums, and this is by far the best. Its all what you make it.

By the way, you just broke another rule by quotng a Mod post and discussiing Mod actions in the forum. Please read the rules.

[Protoevangel]

Wow thanks for the comforting words for me to stay on cf...I was actually in a very bad mood when I wrote that because I have a ton of things in my life going on right now and I just came back on to say sorry I was so rude, but simply wow...I guess I won't discuss mod actions on my thread or how my thread should go. It's kind of ironic how the only member of wels on this whole forums is being like this to lcms members. Can we get a different mod for this thread. What do the rules have to say about different denomination mods treating others like this? Or I have a better idea! Delete this thread. You prolly won't though because you sound just like well...the pope. Delete it. Glad to see more reasons being thrown at me to leave the forums.
NordicLutheran, I have enjoyed your contribution here, and I'd really like to see you stick around, but please explain to me how exactly is the big bad WELS guy treating us poor LCMS guys? Is he picking on us? No, he is simply trying to enforce the very same rules you and I agreed to when we joined this forum, and throwing a fit won't help anything.

I understand that you were in a bad mood, just like you were disgusted when you made the original title to this thread. Your feelings were valid, but they are not reaons to break the rules of the forum and treat other Christians like dirt. If you have a problem with their doctrine, then by all means, let us discuss those doctrines, and the issues you have with them. But let us do it without calling them "filth", and then complaining when the moderators do their jobs. No, you aren't alone. I was in the same position you are in right now a couple of times. I have had a problem with my words getting me into trouble, and I didn't always take my lumps real well, either.

Please, let this all be water under the bridge. Stick around, you are a fine addition to Theologia Crucis! :hug:

[Tetzel]

I was reading some posts in the roman catholic forum on here and was intrigued to find a post called A letter from a Soul in Hell. I started skimming through the first page and it was terribly boring so I looked at one of the replys and saw a quote from Saint Teresa...it describes her vision of hell and said she saw tons of lutherans in hell. She said she felt disturbed because she knew most of them were baptized in the church. I then posted a reply about this and asked if followers of christ outside the roman church would be damned to hell for not being in the church of rome and they said yes. This distrubs me. I never knew that the RCC claims christians outside of the church will be damned. I always thought the RCC had its problems but was close to us. Now I know why all of my evangelical friends absolutley despise the RCC. With good reason too.

The RCC issues many statements. Sometimes newer statements contradict older statements. But like Colabomb said, Rome being Rome pretends that whatever they say now is what they always said. Thus the RCC is hardly a credible source of Christian doctrine.

[Tetzel]

Thank you for filling us in. It may be what you believe and are taught, but it isn't true. Especially if it came from the Papacy. Martin Luther and all those who follow him declare the Pope to be the AntiChrist so you can see why we would disagree with anthing that comes from that office.

I'm sure that some truth is sprinkled in with the rest of it.

[christinepro]

I was reading some posts in the roman catholic forum on here and was intrigued to find a post called A letter from a Soul in Hell. I started skimming through the first page and it was terribly boring so I looked at one of the replys and saw a quote from Saint Teresa...it describes her vision of hell and said she saw tons of lutherans in hell. She said she felt disturbed because she knew most of them were baptized in the church. I then posted a reply about this and asked if followers of christ outside the roman church would be damned to hell for not being in the church of rome and they said yes. This distrubs me. I never knew that the RCC claims christians outside of the church will be damned. I always thought the RCC had its problems but was close to us. Now I know why all of my evangelical friends absolutley despise the RCC. With good reason too. Wow! I guess I'm really doomed for being Messianic!!

[judaica]

My apologies but I just found your reply to me. I am trying to read between the lines, but the full meaning of what you wrote has escaped me. :sorry: I would like to discuss this more but can you explain what you mean about Lutherans becoming more Lutheran and this statement> If I had to choose between the Movement Luther was a part of, and Rome, even Rome today, I'd choose the former. But the direction in which the Lutheran Church seems to be going today makes me very uneasy. So, I'd have to say that I wouldn't want Roman Catholics to become Lutherans, until Lutherans become more Lutheran.

Sure.

Let me start out by saying that I really do not think that any church is fully and completely catholic. By that, I mean, that all church bodies have adopted things which were not apart of the general consensus of the undivided church (the church before she split into the present-day factions).

Historically, the closest have been the Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox Churches. By historic Lutheranism, I mean those Churches which adhered to the Confessions in their entirety. Though still, even during the Reformation, these Churches retained certain Roman practices and beliefs, which are uniquely Roman Catholic, so I can't go so far as to consent to the idea that they are the true church, or the catholic church in her entirety. Not to stray too far off the subject, but Eastern Orthodoxy too has, imho, veered in some regards from the undivided church.

However, even though the Churches during the time of the Reformation, didn't go far enough in purging their Churches of practices and beliefs not held by the undivided Church, if I had to compare them with the Roman Catholic Church of their day, then there is in fact, no comparison. Even if I were to compare the Reformation Churches to the RCC of today, there is still no comparison.

The RCC's notion of universal papal supremacy, mixed with their notion of infallibility, in addition to their idea of developmental tradition, was the recipe for disaster. In theory (and it seems in practice imo), it broke down, and continues to brake down, everything that would safely guard the catholicity of a church.

All throughout church history we've had speculative fathers and theologians, but now that speculation can reach the level of dogma in the RCC. The RCC through the concept of developmental tradition, are no longer bound to adhere to the tradition of the Apostles (no more, no less), but the opinions of theologians, fathers ect. pious though they may be, becomes an additional source of doctrine. Apostolic doctrine therefore, is not just that taught by the Apostles, and Tradition is not just the transmission of the Apostles' teaching, through the bishops ect., but the bishops (namely those in communion with the bishop of Rome) themselves share in the Apostolic charism to such a degree, that they can through councils ect. form new doctrine that the Church has never held too.

And these councils, such as the council of Trent, need not be approved by all the bishops of the undivided Church (those belonging to the Eastern orthodox and Oriental orthodox communions ect.), because the bishop of Rome has claimed universal jurisdiction. (in a certain sense he has nullified their authority).

As long as he approves a council, then the council is considered ecumenical, even if the church at Rome (ie those under the Roman bishop) are the only ones who accept the proposed decrees. The test of catholicity then because not the universal doctrine or teaching of the entire undivided Church, east and west, handed down through Tradition, via the bishops, per general councils, but the authority of the bishop of Rome. He traditionally, has not been, when speaking from the chair of Peter, subjected to councils. In a way, he is above the councils. And as far as I know, this has not changed substantially today. Though I still hold out hope for some reason.

The churches of the Reformation went along way in correcting much of this (as I said above). But the same cannot be said of many of the churches bearing the name "lutheran" today. I say "many" because although I believe most of the synods and church bodies in American have really just gone by the wayside, along with individual congregations, there are still congregations out there, who are fully and completely in conformity with the Confessions, along with their pastors. And I really don't know the situation abroad either. I'm sure lutheranism fares better elsewhere than here in the States.

As others mentioned below many have been flirting with the Reformed. But this is just one effect, of a much larger cause. That is, is that somewhere along the line, the churches within the stream of the Reformation, forgot that they were suppose to be "catholic". Many of them adhere to a misguided form of sola scriptura, scripture has become the source of all doctrine, instead of the pure source and sole norm. There exist very little sense of church authority. They like there more protestant counterparts have become subjective in their interpretation. If they don't see it in the Bible, it doesn't matter what the Church has to say on the matter, even the Confessions are starting to be tossed aside. "I adhere to the Confessions insomuch as I believe they adhere to Scripture" sorta thing. We have reinstituted the pope in doing this, except now the pope is every individual believer. The general consensus of the undivided Church doesn't matter to us anymore, we don't feel bound by it. We are in a sense going backward. If a Lutheran cannot say that they are catholic, and by catholic, I mean, that they adhere to the teachings of the undivided Church, then they aren't lutheran either. The Confessions weren't meant so much as to be a statement of everything we would ever believe. It was a response against heresies of that time. It is meant to be viewed within the larger context of the councils and confessions that went before it. In other words, a lutheran is not one who simply says, "I am a lutheran because I follow the Confessions". But rather "I am a lutheran, because I believe the lutheran church is the true manifestation of the catholic church in the west, and I follow all of her teachings, per all of her ecumenical councils and confessions, of which those comprised in the book of Concord, are but some, written in response, in the name of the Catholic Church, against those heresies, and a new doctrines, which the Church has never held too or believed."

Judaica