500 years ago today,

[Gorgias]

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/11/a-rose-in-bloom-luthers-reformation-at-500

Absolutely first rate article on the current state of Lutheranism. Did I say first rate?

Interesting article. Something I’d say I disagree with, though:

the historical-critical method approach to Scripture, which downplays or denies the doctrine of inerrancy.

The historical-critical method does no such thing. There might be scholars who make use of the historical-critical method, who themselves don’t believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, and who attempt to use the method to ‘prove’ their pet theories, but that doesn’t mean that the historical-critical method gets the blame. (That’s like saying that a screwdriver is a murder weapon: no, a screwdriver is a screwdriver, but it can be misused as a weapon…)

 

[Gorgias]

Liturgical things were still not defined during the reign of Carolus magnus.

I think you’re conflating ‘standardized’ with ‘defined’.

Then, in the 12th and 13th century, priesthood was discussed much in public (especially the question if they should be allowed to marry).

However, the Catholic priesthood was well-defined far before that time.

Eucharistic questions came up late in the monastic area

Yet, the ‘question’ was merely how the Eucharist was the Body of Christ, and not whether it was.

 

[lilypadrees]

NuclearReceptor:

What I would like to know is, Do Lutherans believe that for 15 centuries, Catholics and Orthodox had been living in heresy and that the Church Christ promised would not fall actually practiced and preached fundamental doctrine falsely for that long? And God did nothing about it until a former priest with…questionable ethics…“fixed” Christendom?

No. They don’t. The very first documents in the Lutheran Book of Concord are the three ecumenical creeds. Not the Small Catechism. Not the Augsburg Confession. This is not by accident.
Additionally, Lutherans accept as authoritative at least the first four Ecumenical Councils, and some all seven.
Regardless of what many Catholics might think of it, confessional Lutherans consider themselves a continuation of the Church Catholic.

Actually, many of these “confessional Lutherans” will tell you to your face that they’re more Catholic than Catholics or they will proudly call themselves Protestants. And they expect us to celebrate Luther? No thank you. I am one Catholic who will never celebrate Martin Luther or the Reformation. And it is because of the attitudes of various Lutherans.

 

[JonNC]

Actually, many of these “confessional Lutherans” will tell you to your face that they’re more Catholic than Catholics or they will proudly call themselves Protestants. And they expect us to celebrate Luther? No thank you. I am one Catholic who will never celebrate Martin Luther or the Reformation. And it is because of the attitudes of various Lutherans.

I think attitudes are the hardest thing to change. One looks at how the theologians talk about each other, and compare it to the laity and apologists.
Learning to speak to and about each other with respect and Christian love.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I think attitudes are the hardest thing to change. One looks at how the theologians talk about each other, and compare it to the laity and apologists.

This is very true. I am as cordially received at non-Catholic schools of theology as my non-Catholic colleagues are received where I have taught. We all see each other as peers in the theological community just as, among those who are academics of philosophy, there is a respect for those of all the different schools of philosophy…from ancient to contemporary.

My time on this forum has greatly diminished my thought about apologists. They need to become degreed theologians; it would cure the bulk of their shortcomings.

I do think theologians are very good at assessing the theologians of the past. One of the most pointed passages in From Conflict to Communion, which charts the course for both confessions for the next decade, sums it up well

1. Sixteenth-century divisions were rooted in different understandings of the truth of the Christian faith and were particularly contentious since salvation was seen to be at stake. On both sides, persons held theological convictions that they could not abandon. One must not blame someone for following his or her conscience when it is formed by the Word of God and has reached its judgments after serious deliberation with others.
2. How theologians presented their theological convictions in the battle for public opinion is quite another matter. In the sixteenth century, Catholics and Lutherans frequently not only misunderstood but also exaggerated and caricatured their opponents in order to make them look ridiculous. They repeatedly violated the eighth commandment, which prohibits bearing false witness against one’s neighbor. Even if the opponents were sometimes intellectually fair to one another, their willingness to hear the other and to take his concerns seriously was insufficient. The controversialists wanted to refute and overcome their opponents, often deliberately exacerbating conflicts rather than seeking solutions by looking for what they held in common. Prejudices and misunderstandings played a great role in the characterization of the other side. Oppositions were constructed and handed down to the next generation. Here both sides have every reason to regret and lament the way in which they conducted their debates. Both Lutherans and Catholics bear the guilt that needs to be openly confessed in the remembrance of the events of 500 years ago.