tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post7289735738745788177..comments2023-08-19T23:23:19.849+10:00Comments on Sentire cum Ecclesia: A conversation with a Lutheran Pastor on the Evils of Pope BenedictSchützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-75608282067011485472009-01-11T20:24:00.000+11:002009-01-11T20:24:00.000+11:00Now there's the way to determine God's truth -- le...Now there's the way to determine God's truth -- let's examine and date all the claims about church of all the different churches, then decide to believe the claims about everything else of the church whose claims about church we have decided to believe.<BR/><BR/>Not quite reading an animal's entrails, but the same thing and better suited to modern sensisbilities.<BR/><BR/>Sola eccelesia. By church alone. Such a church and such a faith believes in nothing but itself. It believes in God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting not in themselves, but because it believes only in the visible church body it believes fully teaches these things and apart from which they cannot be correctly believed. By church alone. Sola ecclesia. <BR/><BR/>Re me, since I haven't been blogging for three years, let alone been commenting here that long, well you do the math.<BR/><BR/>I grew up in the Roman Catholic Church, when to believe as the Roman Catholic Church believes now was "liberal dissent". I was there for Vatican II, when liberal dissent won, became Roman Catholicism, and went on to quash both what it was before and any further or other "liberal dissent" from itself. The violence and viciousness of this effort can hardly be believed. But being under the influence of sola ecclesia myself, I thought there was no place else to go (which is the reason why sola ecclesia was manufactured), and so concluded it must have been wrong all along, Christianity in any form must be wrong.<BR/><BR/>It would be over twenty years before I would find out that what was wrong was not Christianity but the effort to validate it sola eccelesia -- that the faith is not validated by the church that proclaims it, but the church is validated by the faith it proclaims. That the Lutheran Reformation -- which is not to say the Reformation -- had set the church, the same church, not a new church, back on the track of the faith which validates the church.<BR/><BR/>So the postconciliar Roman Catholic Church is an absurdity twice over, once for purporting that its preposterous parody of Roman Catholicism IS still Roman Catholicism, and once for continuing the one thing it must continue to maintain the lie, the meta-lie I have satirised as sola ecclesia, by which the (Roman) Catholic Church of history fancies itself the catholic church of the creed of the catholic church.<BR/><BR/>As to why post here -- our host seems to have fallen for this barge of bilge, which is understandable, it's a very attractive barge, especially in view of some of what goes on in some church bodies with "Lutheran" in their names, however, if one is thinking with this church body, one is no more thinking with the Roman Catholic Church than when one thought with a church body with "Lutheran" in its name.<BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, some aspects remain in common -- not to lose sight of the original subject of this post -- and Ratzinger spoke well re the matter of homosexuality.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-68826792087554197002009-01-11T17:24:00.000+11:002009-01-11T17:24:00.000+11:00And Dr William, thanks for that important reminder...And Dr William, thanks for that important reminder. My journey into the Catholic Church was begun when my friends Pastor Adam Cooper and Pastor Fraser Pearce challenged me on the logic of my denominational ecumenical ecclesiology. They set me on the right path. For which I am eternally thankful.Schützhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-58606300604861298492009-01-11T17:20:00.000+11:002009-01-11T17:20:00.000+11:00David,Thanks for your comments - there is a great ...David,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comments - there is a great deal of similarity between the position you have outlined and the position the Catholic Church takes on this matter.<BR/><BR/>Homosexual activity is regarded no differently in the Catholic Church than any other sin. Those who commit homosexual acts are treated no differently than those who commit any other kind of sin: love, compassion, repentance, conversion, forgiveness. That sort of thing.<BR/><BR/>The debate today however has gone to the first principle: Is a homosexual act a sin. The Church commits the contemporary social sin of saying it is. And so Christians end up being treated by secualar society the way the Church is accused of treating those who commit homosexual sins...<BR/><BR/>Oh well. <BR/><BR/>Re Past Elder, we've been trying to figure him out for the last three years. We believe we are advancing in this endeavour. He would probably say to us "Good Luck"!<BR/><BR/>He is a regular commentator he on this blog. If you click his name in blue in his comments, you will find his blog. For past blogs on this site that have treated the great mystery that is Past Elder (aka "Terry"), just click here: <A HREF="http://cumecclesia.blogspot.com/search?q=elder" REL="nofollow">http://cumecclesia.blogspot.com/search?q=elder</A>Schützhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-6489026545516288502009-01-11T15:26:00.000+11:002009-01-11T15:26:00.000+11:00Hi David,Sometime you must explain to me what past...Hi David,<BR/><BR/>Sometime you must explain to me what past elder is on about.<BR/><BR/>Talk about people jumping in with both feet (your Lutheran friend), I have just come off another thread where a liberal Catholic was trying to equate Calvinism to which I’m partial with Islam - ugh!<BR/><BR/>I agree re your comment on homosexuality. Several years ago I got caught up in the debate over civil unions v relationship registers in Victoria and thought long and hard about homosexuality.<BR/><BR/>At the time in an article for Australian Presbyterian, I wrote<BR/><BR/>1) When thinking of homosexuals, we take particular note of how Jesus dealt with the woman caught in adultery found in John 8:1-11 and the prostitute in Luke 7:36-50.<BR/>2) As Christians we understand homosexual activity is not God’s purpose for we are told that God created our first parents, male and female together, as His image bearers (Genesis 1:27). Furthermore, the scriptural pattern of marriage is established in the text “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24). <BR/>3) There are a number of clear texts indicating God’s judgment upon homosexual activity, which is described as unnatural and detestable: Genesis 19, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:18f and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. <BR/>4) Christians understand the origins of homosexuality as one particular manifestation of man’s rebellion and idolatry. Adulterers, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers and homosexuals are all equally condemned in the 1 Corinthians text.<BR/>5) Further, without debating the existence of a gene for homosexuality or denying the shaping of upbringing or conscious decisions to embrace homosexual behaviour, our doctrine of original sin helps us to understand that human nature has been corrupted through and through. Some people can have the same indwelling tendency to homosexuality as others have to rage, jealousy, or promiscuity, every bit as real as another person having congenital heart disease. So even as we hate the constant pushing and promotion of homosexuality, we feel compassion toward homosexuals, particularly for those who want to break the habit of homosexual activity and find it so hard to do so.<BR/><BR/>Anyway that's my two bob's worth on the matter. However, we are going to have to face the issue again in relation to the Freedom of Religion and Belief project of the Human Rights Commission and the Exceptions review being undertaken by the Victorian Government in relation to the Equal Opportunity Act.<BR/><BR/>Cheers<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Palmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12915892358086536345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-40391807631463979912009-01-11T06:35:00.000+11:002009-01-11T06:35:00.000+11:00Sola ecclesia.Well at least that boils it down to ...Sola ecclesia.<BR/><BR/>Well at least that boils it down to one sola instead of three.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-89431210087537437472009-01-11T03:14:00.000+11:002009-01-11T03:14:00.000+11:00The Catholic Church "identifies itself with the Ca...The Catholic Church "identifies itself with the Catholic Church" in the same way that all churches whose origin predates the Reformation do, and did. The Orthodox Church does this, as do the non-Chalcedonians, or Oriental Orthodox. In its heyday, so did the East Syriac, or Persian, or "Nestorian" or "Assyrian" Church (it seems to have adopted the name "Assyrian" -- officially only in 1975 -- as a result of 19th-Century English Anglican influence), although latterly it seems to have adopted a version of the high Anglican "branch theory." Defunct bodies such as the Novatianists, the Donatists and the Arians, as well as the Marcionites and the Montanists, considered themselves to be "the Church" as well. And why? Because the theory or notion, or delusion, of an "invisible church" of which all Christian bodies or denominations are parts or fragments (the modern Liberal Protestant notion), OR the notion that all bodies or "synods" or "churches" that confess the same faith (which seems to be the Lutheran notion) are parts or manifestations of the Catholic Church, but not the whole Catholic Church, OR the alternative minority view (classically stated by william Temple in his pithy "I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church -- and I believe that it does not exist today) that "the Church" (a visible body) has ceased to exist as a consequences of the historic Christian splits -- all of these notions were wholly unknown among Christians of any sort before the Reformation; and although some have teased them out of some aspects of St. Augustine's soteriology, his anti-Donatist polemics, with the constant refrain of "you do not tear Christ's Body, you tear yourselves from Christ;'s body, for 'the Dive remains whole,'" show that he would have himself rejected such conclusions.<BR/><BR/>I would note further since PE seems to have an obsessive delusion about the Catholic Church being the surviving "state cult" of the Western Roman Empire and the Orthodox Church being that of the Eastern Roman Empire, that the same ecclesiological views are held (as I wrote above) by the Oriental Orthodox and also by bodies (e.g., the Novatianists, as well as some of the others I mentioned above) whose origin predates the years 313 and 380, all which implies that the notion of the "visible indivisible Church" underlying them all is not "Roman" in its origins, but simply "Catholic" or "Christian."<BR/><BR/>William TigheAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-53340275316681347112009-01-10T17:28:00.000+11:002009-01-10T17:28:00.000+11:00That's just it, Joshua -- absolutely no-one in LCM...That's just it, Joshua -- absolutely no-one in LCMS would think that it and synods in fellowship with it ARE the visible Church upon earth.<BR/><BR/>So the problem isn't only with identifying the catholic church as the Catholic Church, it's with what you expect the catholic church to be. Rome has appropriated the hallmarks of a state, not surprising for a state religion, then taught people to look for that, at the end of which, of course, guess what one finds -- Rome!<BR/><BR/>LCA is not in fellowship with LCMS. It has an associate membership in the International Lutheran Council (ILC) to which we belong, but it also is an associate member of the Lutheran World Federation, a thoroughly heterodox body unworthy of the name Lutheran.<BR/><BR/>No I am hardly surprised at "bitter". Postconciliar "Catholics" routinely excuse themselves from anything outside their paradigm by imputing dark emotions to whoever is, well, outside their paradigm.<BR/><BR/>Just another difference from when real Catholics roamed the earth.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-38394944045099692412009-01-10T13:54:00.000+11:002009-01-10T13:54:00.000+11:00PE,Your whole manner of writing is running over wi...PE,<BR/><BR/>Your whole manner of writing is running over with bitterness at the Catholic Church, so you can hardly be surprised if one dare apply the epithet "bitter ex-Catholic"!<BR/><BR/>There seems no point to rehash earlier fruitless arguments about whether the official Catholic Church position has undergone a substantial or merely accidental change since the Council. You clearly have concluded that the Church is a lying false whore and that's that. Of course, others disagree!<BR/><BR/>In any case, I thought it is 'denominationalism' for a LCMS person to not consider the LCMS and those with whom it shares altar and pulpit fellowship (is the LCA included??) to be the visible Church upon earth...Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17387698013828199070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-28254381697102437012009-01-10T10:46:00.000+11:002009-01-10T10:46:00.000+11:00You tell me.The only reasons people confuse "the C...You tell me.<BR/><BR/>The only reasons people confuse "the Church" with Anti-Christ are 1) the Catholic Church confuses itself with the catholic church and 2) in so doing is rather like Anti-Christ.<BR/><BR/>"Bitter" btw is not a synonym for "don't believe what the Catholic Church teaches, especially about itself".<BR/><BR/>The only reasons coming to the conclusion that one doesn't believe what the Catholic Church teaches, especially with regard to itself, has some force behind that coming to the conclusion one doesn't believe what other church bodies teach, especially about themselves, is 1) the Catholic Church confuses itself with the catholic church unlike most other church bodies and 2) in so doing is rather like the Anti-Christ more than other church bodies.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-38946941575349961202009-01-10T08:49:00.000+11:002009-01-10T08:49:00.000+11:00(Smiling)I'm afraid, PE, you're hoist by your own ...(Smiling)<BR/><BR/>I'm afraid, PE, you're hoist by your own petard: what did I say above?Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17387698013828199070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-64930650235625921002009-01-10T02:02:00.000+11:002009-01-10T02:02:00.000+11:00Why thanks, David. You know, my post above was su...Why thanks, David. You know, my post above was such a departure from my hallmark measured phrases and irenic tone that I went a little uncharacteristically over the top, so let's amend the last sentence of paragraph one of aection two to read:<BR/><BR/>... worth jack, and guess what, you're even IN this true church by the invisible and imperfect bonds of those of its truths you do not deny, so knock off the crap and get with the rest of the programme.<BR/><BR/>There, much better, now how about that job? <BR/><BR/>Oh hell, not more Newman. That blue ribbon serial church jumper never explained a damn thing except to his own confused mind, this was to rationalise his mistaking the Whore of Babylon if not Anti-Christ for the real deal. The analysis isn't that bad, actually, he just didn't recognise HE's the one making the mistaken indentity. He did so because he mistook his Protestant fantasy of the Catholic Church church for the real deal, which the WOB jumped on because he was a politically impressive catch, and now the WOB has adopted his fantasy for general use at Vatican II because it works so well.<BR/><BR/>BTW, Rome's self-worship is so thorough that it thinks it alone is what is meant by WOB or Anti-Christ. Guess what? It's no more coextensively the WOB or Anti-Christ than it is the catholic church, though since it thinks its the latter why not assume it's the former to those who call it that.<BR/><BR/>Flying Judas in the vestibule, if I went to the E?CA, a brothelial union within the WOB, thinking I was a better Lutheran for doing so, signing on with the big visible main brothel would be a natural next step, same as if I went to the COE, another such union, first too! Once you're in, go for the big top!Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-50295292006605234512009-01-09T23:07:00.000+11:002009-01-09T23:07:00.000+11:00It seems clear from your Lutheran pastor pal that ...It seems clear from your Lutheran pastor pal that he would fit in well with liberal dissenters, Catholic or otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Curious, isn't it, that being anticatholic is so common, whereas one never comes across a bitter ex-Anglican or militant ex-Methodist?<BR/><BR/>Newman explained it as follows:<BR/>1. The Church being the Body and Bride of Christ greatly resembles her Divine Master;<BR/>2. The Anti-Christ will perforce greatly resemble Christ, else no one would be taken in by his impersonation of Christ;<BR/>3. Therefore, unfortunately, the Church looks a lot like Anti-Christ, because both look a lot like Christ, although the former does so because she really is close to the Lord, while the latter strives to deceive by disguising himself as the Lord;<BR/>4. Hence interested persons, attempting to avoid Anti-Christ and seek the Lord in truth, often mistake the Church for Anti-Christ, and so out of their zeal to serve the Lord tragically reject the Lord's true Church. The classical example of this is of course Luther, who was followed by so many.<BR/><BR/>This confusion of the Church with Anti-Christ is why people can be such bitter ex-Catholics; whereas I've never heard of a bitter ex-Lutheran, say.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17387698013828199070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-89017830921196672612009-01-09T21:34:00.000+11:002009-01-09T21:34:00.000+11:00Worth adding to the reading list is the collection...Worth adding to the reading list is the collection of benedict's addresses and homilies from World Youth Day, on sale as 'Dear Young People'. They are marvellously positive and inspiring.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-82838697323083861372009-01-09T17:17:00.000+11:002009-01-09T17:17:00.000+11:00You are a classic, PE, I swear...That's about as p...You are a classic, PE, I swear...<BR/><BR/>That's about as positive as I have ever heard you be towards Rome since you joined us in this discussion.<BR/><BR/>And on the job at the EIC, let's just say "Don't call us, we'll call you"!<BR/><BR/>We love you!<BR/><BR/>Cheers :-)Schützhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-14925358104141210772009-01-09T16:23:00.000+11:002009-01-09T16:23:00.000+11:00Honest to God, I read this blog that calls itself ...Honest to God, I read this blog that calls itself Catholic and wonder where in God's name Catholic is.<BR/><BR/>1. Hell no Protestant churches aren't really churches. Pig's bum Dominus Jesus is talking about how Protestants understand themselves. A valid Eucharist celebrated by a valid episcopate with its priests is an essential part of what Jesus gave to his church, and if you carry on a church without that, you are not really a church, which is a more colloquial way of saying not a church in the proper sense, ie, in the sense which Christ established.<BR/><BR/>What the hell is offensive about that? For one thing, it's refreshing to hear a postconciliar prelate actually sound something like a Catholic and say there's something here that just isn't anywhere else, and for another, what kind of Lutheran cares a popefig, so to speak, whether Rome thinks we're a proper church or not, we should be glad they don't since their concept of church is burdened with Roman paganism.<BR/><BR/>2. Hell yes the RC Church is the only true church. Pig's bum this is about denominations or what people mean when they say Catholic Church. You can prettyfy it up with buzzwords like "in which the fulness of the church subsists", but what that means is, if you ain't in a local church under a bishop under the pope you ain't subsisting any fulness worth jack because you're not in the true church or a local church therein.<BR/><BR/>What the hell is offensive about that? For one thing, it's refreshing to hear a postconciliar prelate actually cound like a Catholic and say there's something here there just isn't anywhere else, and for another, what kind of Lutheran gives a popefig what Rome thinks of itself and therefore others who aren't in "union", read, say they're right, with them?<BR/><BR/>3. This pope didn't say a bleeding thing about homosexuals and, and as distinct from, homosexual acts that we don't, and if we're not, we should. It does not do a sinner a favour to say guess what, turns out your sin isn't really a sin. It's refreshing to hear a postconciliar RC prelate both identify the sin and tell the sinner he is neither bound nor identified by his sin but is offered grace unto repentance by a God who wills his salvation -- same message offered to me who, if a homosexual is bad because of his sins, I'm a thousand times worse for mine. Hell, next thing you know such a prelate might say something like Law and Gospel!<BR/><BR/>4. Christ, if you think his treatment of progessive theologians was draconian before he was pope, you shoulda seen the cans of whoop-ass he opened on anyone trying to stay Catholic after the Council. Walk in the park by comparison.<BR/><BR/>5. This pope didn't say a bleeding thing about women priests that we don't, and if we're not, we should. We don't refuse to ordain women priests, we can't. He's laying out not that we won't but why we can't even if we thought we should, and if we think we should, we should get why it is we can't and you'll see why we shouldn't either. Celibacy per se is not the issue, required celibacy is, which is completely unscriptural and removes the pastor from some of the criteria for the office in scripture.<BR/><BR/>5. Ya wanna see a Lutheran church with 30% or less attendance? Go to church in Wittenberg.<BR/><BR/>There hasn't been a pope in damn near half a millennium as close to getting it as this one. Judas in the scriptorum, he keeps reading Luther and who knows?<BR/><BR/>There. Hey Dave, you got any openings at the EIC? This interfaith dialogue stuff is kind of fun.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.com