Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Succumbs to Heresy

Catholic Online ^ | 8/24/09 | Deacon Keith Fournier

[tcg]

What happened is that representatives of the ECLA succumbed to heresy. Oh, I can hear it now, “how dare he say such a thing?” Because… it is true, and there is nothing compassionate about failing to help fellow Christians to reject error. Christians abandoning the clear teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the unbroken Christian Tradition is not a new phenomenon in the 2000 year history of the Christian Church. What is new is the massive support that such a sad turn of events receives from this kind of media report. ...

All one has to do is look to the first few centuries of the Christian Church to see that this is not new. The same issues and struggles existed very early on. Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyon, France, was born in Asia Minor in the year 125. His efforts are one example of the many early Church Fathers who contended for the truth and pulled no punches. His seminal work was entitled “Against Heresies” precisely because so much of his work was spent exposing and opposing false teaching in order to protect the Christians of that day from their poison. His treatise is a refutation of the teachings of certain “Christian” Gnostics whose followers fell for similar heresies as those which were voted upon by the ELCA this past week. Irenaeus’ goal was stated in the Fifth Book of the treatise, to “…reclaim the wanderers and convert them to the Church of God” and to “confirm at the same time the minds of the neophytes” (Preface, Book V).Irenaeus loved the heretical Christians enough to speak the truth precisely to try and lead them back to the faith. We must follow his example.

[B-Chan]

Luther's heresy was not based upon the sale of indulgences. It was based upon his refusal to accept any authority but himself -- the same sin that destroyed the order of the world during the overthrow of the monarchy in France, and the same sin that destroyed Man's unity with God in the Garden.

"If the French Revolution gave birth to the spiritual tsunami described by Mark Mallett, it was nevertheless conceived by the Protestant Revolt. Martin Luther’s heresy of Sola Scriptura destroyed the unity of the Christian faith in the western world." [1]

[Mr. Lucky]

You're apparenly not familiar with the 99 theses posted on the door at Whitenberg nor the Confession of orthodox Lutherans. (and while that may be OK for a member of your branch of the Church, it's sad that the polity of the ELCA is also not familiar with the doctrinal basis of Lutheranism).

[B-Chan]

As a former Lutheran, I assure you that I’m quite familiar with Luther’s theses.

[Mr. Lucky]

OK, which one supports the claim made in your post #21?

[B-Chan]

I never used his theses as support for my claim. I support my clam with his own words. "Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me" (Luther's Works, Erlangen ed., 61:422).

Yet even mighty Luther had his doubts."With how much pain and labor did I scarcely justify my conscience that I alone should proceed against the Pope, hold him for Antichrist, and the bishops for his apostles. How often did my heart punish me and reproach me with this strong argument: 'Art thou alone wise? Could all the others err and have erred for a long time? How if thou errest and leadest into error so many people who would all be damned forever?'"(Luther, "Letter to the Augustinians in Wittenberg", Nov. 25, 1521: De Wette, 2. 107, cited in O'Hare p. 195)

[Mr. Lucky]

Luther's personal peccadilloes are no more a part of Lutheran doctrine than, say, Alexander VI’s are of Roman Catholic. For what it's worth, Luther was satirically pointing out that Pope Leo X had no training in theology. (Luther didn't think much of Leo after the Pope claimed the right to order Luther killed).

[bjorn14]

With all due respect the trouble started on January 3, 1521 when Pope Leo X ex-communicated a ‘reluctant rebel’

[B-Chan]

Sigh. I’ll explain it again in seventh-grade terms.

Luther’s error was in thinking that he (and other individual believers) had the ability to infallibly define the teaching of the Christian faith for himself instead of submitting himself to the teaching of the Bishop of Rome and the bishops in union with him. He became “as God, knowing good and evil” by his own reason instead of humbly following the teaching given orally from our Lord to His Apostles and from them to us through their successors, the pope and bishops of the Church.

[Antoninus]

It was based upon his refusal to accept any authority but himself -- the same sin that destroyed the order of the world during the overthrow of the monarchy in France, and the same sin that destroyed Man's unity with God in the Garden.

Amen. Every sin stems originally from "non serviam."

[Mr. Lucky]

It is the orthodox Lutheran belief that Christians were obligated to follow the doctrine established by Scrpture when it conflicted with that established by man. Thus, Luther’s rejection of the sale of Indulgences (and thus the uproar over the ELCA’s rejection of Scripture on sodomy).

[B-Chan]

It is the orthodox Lutheran belief that Christians were obligated to follow the doctrine established by Scripture

Where is this "scripture only" precept found in Scripture?

Who gets to decide what "the doctrine established by Scripture" is?

Who defined Scripture?

[Mr. Lucky]

Assuming that by Sola Scriptura you mean the belief that Scripture is the sole norm against which religious practices may be infallibly judged, that belief is instinct in Scripture.

Jesus Christ was, Himself, the Word of Scripture made flesh John 1. Christ, Himself, asserted the authority of Scrpture. Matthew 26:53-56 And, of course, the role of Scripture in determining the orthodoxy of faith and practice is confirmed by the Apostle Paul. 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Scripture is believed by Lutherans to have been determined by the early Church fathers and not to require interpretation.

Now, let me ask you. What was the Authority for the Bishop of Mainz to sell Indulgences?

[B-Chan]

Assuming that by Sola Scriptura you mean the belief that Scripture is the sole norm against which religious practices may be infallibly judged, that belief is instinct in Scripture.

What? "Instinct in Scripture"? What does that mean? Sorry, but I don't understand you.

Also: when "scripture" is mentioned in the New Testament, the word refers to the Tanakh (תנ"ך), aka the "Jewish bible", which contains the Law, the Prophets, and other holy writings. The Christian canon of Scripture (the Bible as we know it) didn't exist until it was defined by the Catholic Church around AD 300. What did Christians live by during the three hundred or more years in which Scripture as we know it did not exist?

Answer: the Tradition of the Catholic Church, which not only defined Scripture for us but passes down to this day the oral teachings of the Church, which include such doctrines as the Trinity, the elevated nature of Our Lord's mother, and the infallibility of St. Peter and his successors the popes when teaching on matters of faith, morals, and Church discipline.

It is by that authority that the doctrine of Indulgences is taught, and it is that authority that Luther and all those rebels since him have betrayed.

[Mr. Lucky]

Well, Pope Pius V, in 1567, agreed that the sale of indulgences was offensive to God and they have been outlwed since.

[B-Chan]

With just a bit of research, you will find that the sale of indulgences was not outlawed by Pius V or any other pope, because the sale of indulgences was never a part of the Catholic faith. (The sale of spiritual authority, the misuse of tithes, the practice of hearing confessions, granting absolutions, or performing miracles for money, etc. is a sin under Canon Law: the sin of simony.) Some priests sold indulgences despite this, of course; eventually, Rome cracked down on this at the Council of Trent. All "contracts" between buyers and sellers of indulgences were annulled by Pius V.

Indulgences themselves have been and are part of the Deposit of Faith handed down to us via the Church from our Lord and His Apostles, and are taught by the Catechism to this day.

Myths about indulgences

Detailed information on indulgences

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

This makes me more and more glad to be Catholic.

There is plenty of this going on in the Catholic church, too. Many priests are pure lefties. I wouldn't get too smug.

[Mr. Lucky]

You might want to Google on something to the effect of, say : “Pius V sale of indulgences 1567”.

[B-Chan]

You claimed (without evidence) that selling indulgences was part of the official teaching of the Church. I posted evidence refuting this claim. You refuse to concede the point despite this. Since you didn’t have an answer to the evidence I posted, you lose the point.

There’s no point wasting words on one who doesn’t understand what argument is. One might as well “argue” with a brick wall — or a Wittenberg door. Therefore, I’m finished talking to you. Think what you want.

[Mr. Lucky]

Alrighty then, lets let the Catholic website Catholicity.com be the last word. In its article on Pope Leo X it states:

The immediate cause (of Luther's actions) was bound up with the odious greed for money displayed by the Roman curia, and shows how far short all efforts at reform had hitherto fallen. Albert of Brandenberg, already Archbishop of Magdeburg, received in addition the Archbishopric of Mainz and the Bishopric of Hallerstadt, but in return was obligated to collect 10,000 ducats, which he was taxed over and above the usual confirmation fees. To indemnify him, and to make it possible to discharge these obligations, Rome permitted him to have teached in his territory the plenary indulgence promised to all those who contributed to the new St. Peters; he was allowed to keep one-half the returns, a transaction which brought dishonour on all concerned in it."