Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
Switch to Forum Live View Lutheran vs. Roman Catholic
7 years ago  ::  Jul 06, 2010 - 12:18PM #11
steve123
Posts: 610

I must admit that I didn't have a problem with Mary until I read Wannabe's ewtn link on Mary.  What an eye opener.  This just solidifies my gut reaction, that the RCC has some doctrinal errors.  Thus, I must stand on the Lutheran heritage.  Although liking the richness and depth of the RCC, I must stand in protest against Her in a few areas of doctrine.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jul 06, 2010 - 1:17PM #12
Bezant
Posts: 1,338

Jul 4, 2010 -- 1:53PM, WannabeTheo wrote:


I too admire much about the RCC, including its rich intellectual tradition and heritage of spiritual practices.  In many ways I feel much closer to the RCC than some protestant churches, especially those of the Anabaptist tradition.


However, I'm surprised that none of your questions dealt with the Catholic beliefs about Mary.  I'm fine with honoring her, but I've been reading the Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin by Louis de Montfort, and I would have to say that I cannot accept much of the teaching.  Here is a link to the treatise:


www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.H...


This treatise appears to have the RCC's approval, but I'm not sure how representative it is of Catholic beliefs.  But if I were considering a move to the RCC, I would think twice after reading Monfort's treatise.





While not wholly familiar with De Monfort, but his treatise isn't representative of Catholic doctrine on Mary. For all his contributions to Mariology thought only Catholic doctrine is representative of Catholic doctrine on Mary.


It has been ongoing Tradition from the early Church to honour Mary, given the name "Theotokos" or "one who bears God" in the East, declared at the Council of Ephesus in 431.


Note Gabriel's salutation of her in Luke: "Rejoice, you highly favored one! The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women!" So the Catholic and Orthodoxy's regard for Mary has a Scriputral basis, although neither Church accepts Sacred Scripture as the sole, final authority, but rather in "cooperation" with Sacred Tradition.


In any case Mary is venerated, not worshipped, in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches; Marian worship is forbidden in both communities.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jul 06, 2010 - 11:07PM #13
WannabeTheo
Posts: 401

Bezant,


Thanks for contributing to the discussion.  It's good to get a Roman Catholic perspective.


I agree that "Mother of God" is an appropriate title for Mary, as it is an affirmation of Jesus' divinity.  I also have no problem with the Hail Mary, as it is directly quoted from scripture.  I believe Mary played a singular role in salvation history, and her humility and obedience are to be imitated.  She is a role model for all Christians.


I understand that Catholics do not worship Mary.  However, I do have a problem with statements like this one (from Montfort's Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin): "And yet they [the saints] maintain that the height of her merits rising up to the throne of the Godhead cannot be perceived; the breadth of her love which is wider than the earth cannot be measured; the greatness of the power which she wields over one who is God cannot be conceived; and the depths of her profound humility and all her virtues and graces cannot be sounded."


I hope you are correct that this is not representative of RCC doctrine.  I know Montfort is a Catholic saint.  He has religious orders named after him and dedicated to his teachings on Mary.  And he and this treatise were influential on Pope John Paul II.  But perhaps this supports the idea of the RCC being a big tent.  I hope so, since, as I've said before, there is much I admire about the Catholic Church.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jul 07, 2010 - 11:34AM #14
Bezant
Posts: 1,338

Jul 6, 2010 -- 11:07PM, WannabeTheo wrote:


Bezant,


Thanks for contributing to the discussion.  It's good to get a Roman Catholic perspective.


I agree that "Mother of God" is an appropriate title for Mary, as it is an affirmation of Jesus' divinity.  I also have no problem with the Hail Mary, as it is directly quoted from scripture.  I believe Mary played a singular role in salvation history, and her humility and obedience are to be imitated.  She is a role model for all Christians.


I understand that Catholics do not worship Mary.  However, I do have a problem with statements like this one (from Montfort's Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin): "And yet they [the saints] maintain that the height of her merits rising up to the throne of the Godhead cannot be perceived; the breadth of her love which is wider than the earth cannot be measured; the greatness of the power which she wields over one who is God cannot be conceived; and the depths of her profound humility and all her virtues and graces cannot be sounded."


I hope you are correct that this is not representative of RCC doctrine.  I know Montfort is a Catholic saint.  He has religious orders named after him and dedicated to his teachings on Mary.  And he and this treatise were influential on Pope John Paul II.  But perhaps this supports the idea of the RCC being a big tent.  I hope so, since, as I've said before, there is much I admire about the Catholic Church.





Hello Wannabe, good to be welcomed to your "tent." ;)


You're right, de Monfort enjoys a great deal of popularity, but he's not the only voice in Mariologist "tent" as you say; for example, although he was a rosary enthusiast, the rosary remains a less common devotion in the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church.


I say de Monfort's language is strong, and probably not the first you've seen from a Catholic scholar (especially a 17th century French one), but I strongly doubt his quotation literally means Mary holds a superior power over God...while his treatise individually doesn't represent Catholic belief, he is candidate to become a Doctor of the Church.


We believe that Mary's intercession for us is particularly special. At the wedding of Cana it was Mary who advocated on the bridegroom's behalf, and Christ granted her request. Her petition was indeed of "profound humility" as de Monfont says, requiring Christ's go-ahead first (I still laugh at His reaction), but as His mother she has an influential relationship with Him. Not unlike the clip of George W. Bush from Fareinheit 9-11 during his father, George Bush Sr.'s presidency: "I can speak to my dad at any time...of the day."

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Dec 19, 2014 - 3:53AM #15
Roymond
Posts: 3,779

Jul 6, 2010 -- 11:53AM, Americanjosiah wrote:


Jun 29, 2010 -- 12:01PM, steve123 wrote:


4. The RC claims transubstantiation in their Masses. That the wafer and wine truly transform into the flesh and blood of the Lord. The Lutheran would say they believe in consubstantiation – that the Lord is truly present in the bread and wine, but doesn’t transform into the body and blood of the Lord.



 


1.  Lutherans affirm REAL PRESENCE, the insistence that the words of the Eucharistic texts mean what they say.  The meaning of is is is (pardon the grammar, lol).  The meaning of "bread" is bread, "wine" is wine, "Body" is body, "Blood is blood."  That in the Eucharist, Christ is truly, really, wholly, literally present so that we are receiving CHRIST.  This was the old RCC doctrine (officially, it's STILL a RCC position) and is still the Eastern Orthodox view. 


 


2.  Lutherans simply do not understand the new RCC fasinatation and focus on the bread and wine - which while we don't DENY such, we just don't regard such as of any signficance.  I'm 22 and can buy all the wine and bread I want (probably of much superior quality than is typical in the Eucharist!) but WHO CARES?  Lutherans just aren't focused on THAT, we are focused on CHRIST!  I can have bread and wine anywhere, only in the Eucharist can we receive CHRIST!  Last Sunday, as my Lutheran pastor placed the Host on my tongue, his verbatim words were, "Josiah - this IS the Body of Christ." 


 


3.  Transubstantiation, the unique and new Eucharistic dogma of the RCC alone, was the invention of medieval, western, RCC "Scholasticism" which attempted to blend Christian theology with the secular, popular ideas of the day - to make Christianity "intellectual" and hopefully to "explain" Christian mysteries (including Real Presence).  Transubstantiation was one of several theories they invented, quite controversal at first but it slowly gained some embrace in the west.  In 1215, it was given some official stamp of approval (exactly WHAT status it gained at the Second Laterin Council is a matter of considerable debate).  It was a common teaching in Luther's day, but one he regarded as MOOT, distracting, and problemmatic biblically - he preferred the older, simplier, biblical view of Real Presence (with the mystery left as mystery).  The RCC made Transubstantiation "dogma" a few years AFTER Luther's death, it seems as a way to justify condemning him for not accepting the dogma (which, of couse, wasn't dogma when he was alive).




What happened with Rome to get transubstantiation is that they set Aristotelianism above scripture.  If you do that, the moment the bread "becomes" the Body of Christ, it can't be bread any more.  As a result, they take the embarassing position that the Apostle was sloppy in his writing, so when he says "bread" before the Words are spoken, he means bread, but when he says it after, he doesn't mean bread at all.


Most Roman Catholics, including priests, only pay lip service to transubstantiation, and actually believe that Paul means "bread" every time he wrote the word.  They do this on very good authority, since in the Fathers it is easy to find the comparison of the Eucharist to the Incarnation, a comparison that makes it plain that just as the human body of God the Son did not get transformed into a divine masquerade, neither does the bread get transformed; rather, in both instances, the mundane takes on the eternal, the material takes on the divine.  In essence, the Roman church is partially Docetist, maintaining that once Christ 'enters in' to the bread, it only seems to be bread -- which is very akin to teaching that Jesus of Nazareth only seemed to be a man (in fact, some Fathers tie this together and say that to teach this about the Eucharist is to assert it about the Incarantion).


It was at Trent, the council Luther wanted but which Rome denied him until he was safely gone, that the church of Rome turned itself into a denomination, setting aside a series of ancient teachings and asserting to itself the authority of God, making of the Pope not merely the Vicar of God but effectively His replacement.  That's when it turned from honoring Mary to idolatrizing her, from biblical teaching about the Eucharist to pagan philosophy, from adhering to the canon as the Fathers had defined it to setting Rome above the scriptures.


And more recently they have turned more deeply into idolatry, confirming that Thomism/Aristotelianism is the official way to interpret scripture for Rome, thus becoming not just a denomination but a sect -- and leaving faithful Lutherans as the Western representatives of the actual catholic tradition.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook