Huh?
Someone want to tell me how the Church Jesus Christ founded, headed by his apostles, upon which “the gates of Hell shall not prevail” is heterodox? Because I’m missing it.
Sometimes, when I’m home and bored I like to poke around Wikipedia. Today I stumbled across the entry for the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS), which I am familiar with, having several friends who are of this denomination. There was a link to their official website . Once there, I found a link to the differences between Catholicism and the LCMS church. Well, I was a bit curious. I decided to check this out, because I have long wondered where, precisely, some of my friends had gotten their rather strange ideas of Catholicism.
The page lists 8 issues that are listed in the form of questions. A few of the points I found, um, interesting: my comments in bold
- Q. I would like to understand the main problem your church body has with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (signed October 31 by representatives of the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church). Is it the fact that it implies that we are saved as a result of both faith and works? A. Yes, you are on the right track here. The recently signed Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) does not signal a change in the Roman Catholic church, but rather, a willingness on the part of the Lutherans who signed it to allow Rome’s doctrine of justification to stand as a valid interpretation of what the Bible teaches us about justification. This is something that the Lutheran church has never done before, and in fact, it is a great tragedy and a profoundly sad moment in the history of Lutheranism.
Rome historically has always taught that we are saved by grace, and grace alone. They emphasize that very strongly. The 16th century Council of Trent makes this point very clear. Thus, there is nothing new on this in the Declaration on this point, even though some Lutherans have made it sound as if Rome’s words about grace signal some marvelous breakthrough.
What you probably have not heard is that the JDDJ very carefully avoid precise definitions of the words grace, faith, sin, etc. That is no accident. Careful definition of those terms would have shown how far apart our two churches actually are on the doctrine of justification.
The problem with Rome’s view of justification is that they view it as a process, whereby we cooperate with God’s grace in order to merit eternal life for ourselves, and even for others (that is a paraphrase of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches). They view grace as a sort of “substance” that God infuses into us that permits us to do those works that are necessary in order that we might earn more grace. The Bible describes grace as the loving and favorable disposition of God; in other words, grace is all about what God is doing and giving.
We distinguish between the result of justification, which is the Christian life, and the work of God to save us. Rome mixes sanctification with justification. Why is this view troublesome? Because it teaches that something other than trust in Christ is necessary for or salvation. That “something other” is what we bring to the table. And the only thing we do bring to the table is our sin, not our good works. Our works are a response that God works in us, but not a contributing cause to our justification.
The Roman Catholic Church is very careful to state that even this “something other” is made possibly only because God has given us the “initial” grace to desire more grace. But in practical reality, it is apparent that the Roman Catholic Church is finally throwing people back on relying on what they are doing, or can do, to merit eternal life. When we mix in our works in the picture of our salvation, the glory and merit of Christ always end up becoming obscured.
But the Bible is clear that it is purely by grace, not by works, or else grace would just be a “help” for us to do the works that finally are what merit God’s forgiveness. In the Roman Catholic view, justification is a process by which we participate with God in achieving our salvation. The Biblical view is that justification is God’s declaration of our complete righteousness and total forgiveness, apart from any works. This gift is received by faith alone–apart from works (Rom. 3:28; Eph. 2:8-9). (Gee, seems like we’re missing James 2:14-26…cite below)
Another point to be made is this: If, in fact, Rome does teach justification as the Bible teaches it, then there should be an immediate change in its view of indulgences, prayer to the saints and the myriad of other extra-biblical traditions that it has embraced. (ARGH!) For if justification is the heart and center of the Bible, then these other things are incompatible with it.
James 2:14-26: What does it profit, my brethern, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
But some will says, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe–and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Issac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled with says, “Abraham believed in God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. You see that man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.”
But then again, Luther called this epistle an “epistle of straw”, probably because it doesn’t go along with sola fide.
2) Indulgences changed somewhere around the 17th century. They may want to investigate this.
3) Prayer to the saints–we’ll cover this in another post. There’s just too much here, except to say it is NOT extrabiblical!
Q. What is limbo and what religious group believes in it? Is it like what Catholics call purgatory? A. The Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology states the following under the entry on “limbo”:
Roman Catholic concept adduced by medieval theologians as the place or state of those souls after death who did not fit into either heaven or hell. In fact there were two limbos. The limbo of the fathers (limbus patrum) was for the souls of OT saints; Christ’s descent into hell in the creed was interpreted as his liberating these souls and taking them to heaven. More important was the limbo of unbaptized infants (limbus infantum), a perpetual state free from the pain of sense but without supernatural salvation and the enjoyment of God” (283). Purgatory is the Roman Catholic “concept of an intermediate realm where all those who die at peace with the church but who are not perfect must undergo penal and purifying suffering. Only those believers who have attained a state of Christian perfection are said to go immediately to heaven” (408).
Your local library would perhaps have a copy of the Roman Catholic Catechism, so that you could check out exactly what is said by the church on these topics.
This isn’t too bad, except, um, that B XVI has talked about limbo and clarified it. There’s more in my archives if you want to dig it up.
Q. I have been reading a book that has a section on the Roman Catholic Church in which the author talks about mortal and venial sins. My question is: What do we in the LCMS have to say on the subject or is this something that was made up by the Church in the past? I always understood that sin is sin–period.
A. Lutherans reject the complicated, philosophical notions the Roman Catholic Church has developed regarding mortal and venial sins. We recognize that ALL sin has the same consequence in the life of unbelievers: eternal damnation in hell. The Roman church teaches that certain actual sins are venial in themselves and do not deserve eternal punishment, but only temporal punishment. (huh?)
Another critical problem with the Roman view of mortal sin is that in the past they attempted to include as a mortal sin a failure to observe a regulation of the Pope! This, of course, is absurd and is a subject about which the Lutheran Confessions in the Book of Concord have quite a bit to say.
It is not only the Roman Church that holds false views about mortal and venial sins. Arminian theology also tends to embrace similar views of venial sins, that is, the view that some sins actually carry no threat of eternal punishment. The Calvinists teach that, in the case of the elect, even grave, enormous sins–mortal sins–cannot destroy faith nor deprive them of the Holy Spirit. (See the statements from the Canon of the Synod of Dort ). Roman scholastic theologians attempted actually to number seven sins as mortal sins: pride, covetousness, riotous living, anger/wrath, envy/jealousy, apathy toward God and His Word. (sigh. Those are the ‘Deadly’ sins, which, yes, is technically what ‘mortal’ means. But those aren’t the only ones. And these aren’t even right, for starters!)
In spite of the errors associated with false distinctions and understandings between mortal and venial sins, sins may be discussed properly as either mortal sins or venial sins.Mortal sins are those sins that result in the eternal death of the sinner. This term mortal sins includes all sins of unbelievers, since without faith, they are without hope of eternal salvation.
In the case of believers, those sins are called mortal that force the Holy Spirit to depart from one’s heart and life–sins that destroy faith. Venial sins are sins which, though they in themselves merit eternal death, are daily forgiven to the believer. Venial sins are perhaps better called “sins of weakness.” They do not drive away the Holy Spirit, and do not extinguish faith.
Definition of mortal sin: Knowledge (you know it’s a mortal sin); Free Will (you do it willingly), grave matter (it’s a big thing–like murder, skipping Mass, etc.). Not everything, therefore, falls under this category. Telling a white lie is not the same thing as killing someone. Yes, both damage your relationship with God, but not in the same way. It’s like spraining your ankle and breaking it. In both cases, you’re hurt, but not in the same way. And one is a lot easier to repair than the other.
As the Catholic Encyclopedia says:
While every mortal sin averts us from our true last end, all mortal sins are not equally grave, as is clear from Scripture (John 19:11; Matthew 11:22; Luke 6), and also from reason. Sins are specifically distinguished by their objects, which do not all equally avert man from his last end. Then again, since sin is not a pure privation, but a mixed one, all sins do not equally destroy the order of reason. Spiritual sins, other things being equal, are graver than carnal sins. (St. Thomas, “De malo”, Q. ii, a. 9; I-II, Q. lxxiii, a. 5).
(But you know, Catholics don’t know scripture!)
Disobeying the Pope is a matter of degree, which seems to be lost by the writers of this answer. If you disobey an infallible, ex cathedra teaching, that’s different than saying you disagree with the Pope on what he says about war, for example. I also love the “in the past” part–for the Catholic Church, that could be 400 years ago, or more. But there’s no clarification there.
Q. What’s the Lutheran response to the Roman Catholic teaching of purgatory?
A. Lutherans have always rejected the traditional Roman Catholic teaching regarding purgatory because 1) we can find no Scriptural basis for it and 2) it is inconsistent, in our view, with the clear teaching of Scripture that after death the soul goes directly either to heaven (in the case of a Christian) or hell (in the case of a non-Christian), not to some “intermediate” place or state.
Well now, if you all hadn’t gotten rid of 2 Maccabees from your Bible, you’d have biblical back-up. For example (again, Catholic Encyclopedia);
Old Testament
The tradition of the Jews is put forth with precision and clearness in 2 Maccabees. Judas, the commander of the forces of Israel,
making a gathering . . . sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:43-46)
At the time of the Maccabees the leaders of the people of God had no hesitation in asserting the efficacy of prayers offered for the dead, in order that those who had departed this life might find pardon for their sins and the hope of eternal resurrection.
New Testament
There are several passages in the New Testament that point to a process of purification after death. Thus, Jesus Christ declares (Matthew 12:32): “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” According to St. Isidore of Seville (Deord. creatur., c. xiv, n. 6) these words prove that in the next life “some sins will be forgiven and purged away by a certain purifying fire.” St. Augustine also argues “that some sinners are not forgiven either in this world or in the next would not be truly said unless there were other [sinners] who, though not forgiven in this world, are forgiven in the world to come” (De Civ. Dei, XXI, xxiv). The same interpretation is given by Gregory the Great (Dial., IV, xxxix); St. Bede (commentary on this text); St. Bernard (Sermo lxvi in Cantic., n. 11) and other eminent theological writers.
A further argument is supplied by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15:
“For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man’s work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.”
While this passage presents considerable difficulty, it is regarded by many of the Fathers and theologians as evidence for the existence of an intermediate state in which the dross of lighter transgressions will be burnt away, and the soul thus purified will be saved. This, according to Bellarmine (De Purg., I, 5), is the interpretation commonly given by the Fathers and theologians; and he cites to this effect:
- St. Ambrose (commentary on the text, and Sermo xx in Ps. cxvii),
- St. Jerome, (Comm. in Amos, c. iv),
- St. Augustine (Comm. in Ps. xxxvii),
- St. Gregory (Dial., IV, xxxix), and
- Origen (Hom. vi in Exod.).
See also St. Thomas, “Contra Gentes,”, IV, 91. For a discussion of the exegetical problem, see Atzberger, “Die christliche Eschatologie”, p. 275.
This might take the cake as my favorite answer:
Q. A non-Lutheran Christian friend of mine recently stated that he believes that Catholics are not saved and should not be considered Christians. What is the Synod’s belief regarding the salvation of Catholics who adhere to Roman dogma?
A. The LCMS recognizes all Trinitarian church bodies as Christian churches (in contrast to “cults,” which typically reject the doctrine of the Trinity and thus cannot be recognized as Christian). In fact, a primary “objective” listed in the Synod’s Constitution (Article III) is to “work through its official structure toward fellowship with other Christian church bodies”—which explicitly assumes that these “other church bodies” are “Christian” in nature. That does not lessen the Synod’s concern for the false doctrine taught and confessed by these churches, but it does highlight the Synod’s recognition that wherever the “marks of the church” (the Gospel and Sacraments) are present—even where “mixed” with error—there the Christian church is present. Such a church is a heterodox church, that is, a church that teaches false doctrine.
Of course, personal salvation is not merely a matter of external membership in or association with any church organization or denomination (including the LCMS), but comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone. All those who confess Jesus Christ as Savior are recognized as “Christians” by the Synod—only God can look into a person’s heart and see whether that person really believes. It is possible to have true and sincere faith in Jesus Christ even while having wrong or incomplete beliefs about other doctrinal issues.
Yup, the Church of Jesus Christ, founding by Him, the only church with a line that goes back to the Apostles, is “wrong or incomplete” and “heterodox.”
And I just love how we’re called “Rome” or “The Roman Church” throughout. It would be nice if they could extend us the courtesy of calling us “Catholics” or “Catholicism.”
More on this tomorrow–saints, Mary, etc! The Greatest Hits roll on….
sad anyway… marc