Certain video too uncharitable toward Martin Luther?

[JonNC]

Luther’s doctrine was consubstantiation, which sought to reserve his belief in the Real Presence. Most denominations follow Zwingli who was a rationalist. Even Calvin, to my surprise came much closer to the Catholic doctrine. Some Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, but only during Communion. The Calvinists Churches are more Zwinglian than Calvinist in their. teachings.

One of things I’ve learned here, Robby, is to accept what others tell me about their faith.

On consubstantiation, no where will you find any official teaching of the Lutheran Church which states a belief in consubstantiation. The fact is Luther’s opposition to transubstantiation was on the Greek metaphysical/philosophical construct. Consubstantiation, like transubstantiation, is a metaphysical construct. It would have made no sense for him to use a construct he didn’t like.
Luther and Lutherans belief that the bread and wine, when consecrated, are the body and blood of Christ. We confess that how this happens is a mystery. Luther did use the phrase Sacramental Union, that the body and blood are present in and under the bread and wine, but even this is not a metaphysical statement. I don’t care for the phrase simply because it gets confused with consubstantiation. So, I’ll close with this, from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

Article X: Of the Holy Supper.
54] The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

Jon

 

[GKC]

The original King James had the Apocrypha. Why the book of Wison does not make their cut is beyond me. It is so proto-Christian.

“Wisdom”? Doesn’t make whose cut?

GKC

 

[guanophore]

I should learn this economy, shouldn’t I?

Jon

Yes. When you write a post you really like, or you have resources you often use, save them in notepad in directories so you can pull them out at need. You have done all the research, so it just saves time posting.

Unless of course you can do it from memory, which you might well be doing!

 

[RobbyS]

“Wisdom”? Doesn’t make whose cut?

GKC

Wisdom, or Sirak, is not in the KJV today.

 

[RobbyS]

One of things I’ve learned here, Robby, is to accept what others tell me about their faith.

On consubstantiation, no where will you find any official teaching of the Lutheran Church which states a belief in consubstantiation. The fact is Luther’s opposition to transubstantiation was on the Greek metaphysical/philosophical construct. Consubstantiation, like transubstantiation, is a metaphysical construct. It would have made no sense for him to use a construct he didn’t like.
Luther and Lutherans belief that the bread and wine, when consecrated, are the body and blood of Christ. We confess that how this happens is a mystery. Luther did use the phrase Sacramental Union, that the body and blood are present in and under the bread and wine, but even this is not a metaphysical statement. I don’t care for the phrase simply because it gets confused with consubstantiation. So, I’ll close with this, from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

Jon

I agree that “consubstantiation" is basically jargon, but it is commonly used to describe his views. But the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is only accidentally linked to Greek Metaphysics, just as the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is. Nicaea appropriated the Greek term for substance and gave it a new definition. Hence “consubstantial” from the Latin, a term that is used in the Creed in talking about the relationship between the members of the wholly Trinity. In many respects the term is no more than a shibboleth, to be used as a test for a persons adherence to the teachings of the Church. The Trinity is of course an even deeper “mystery” But we must use language to talk about it in such as way as to answer the question: Who was Jesus? Ditto, the Real Presence.

 

[GKC]

Wisdom, or Sirak, is not in the KJV today.

I know.

In the Anglican Lectionary, though, if not in the AV.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

=RobbyS;10021546]I agree that “consubstantiation" is basically jargon, but it is commonly used to describe his views.

By Calvinists, originally, who wished to undermine.

But the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is only accidentally linked to Greek Metaphysics, just as the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is. Nicaea appropriated the Greek term for substance and gave it a new definition. Hence “consubstantial” from the Latin, a term that is used in the Creed in talking about the relationship between the members of the wholly Trinity. In many respects the term is no more than a shibboleth, to be used as a test for a persons adherence to the teachings of the Church. The Trinity is of course an even deeper “mystery” But we must use language to talk about it in such as way as to answer the question: Who was Jesus? Ditto, the Real Presence.

Agreed to an extent. The “consubstantial” in the isn’t speaking of earthly elements and the Almighty. Curiously, the Orthodox feel no compulsion to use metaphysics to speak of the real presence.

Jon

 

[RobbyS]

By Calvinists, originally, who wished to undermine.

Agreed to an extent. The “consubstantial” in the isn’t speaking of earthly elements and the Almighty. Curiously, the Orthodox feel no compulsion to use metaphysics to speak of the real presence.

Jon

I don’t think that Trent uses the term transubstantiation. It is more a term of art than science. As to the Greeks, they certainly did use a metaphysical term in defining the relationships among the Holy Trinity. It is not a term one find in scripture, as the Arians pointed out. When speaking of the divine substance in the creed, obviously the “substance” of the Creator must be something other than the substance of the created if the creator is totally separate from the creation. And in the case of the bread and wine, if the person of Jesus is there in place of these objects, then what remains to our senses, is something like an illusion. But of course that is not the right word either. We really don’t know what the substance of bread and wine is anyway.

 

[GKC]

I don’t think that Trent uses the term transubstantiation. It is more a term of art than science. As to the Greeks, they certainly did use a metaphysical term in defining the relationships among the Holy Trinity. It is not a term one find in scripture, as the Arians pointed out. When speaking of the divine substance in the creed, obviously the “substance” of the Creator must be something other than the substance of the created if the creator is totally separate from the creation. And in the case of the bread and wine, if the person of Jesus is there in place of these objects, then what remains to our senses, is something like an illusion. But of course that is not the right word either. We really don’t know what the substance of bread and wine is anyway.

Try Trent, Session XIII, Chapter IV and Canon II.

GKC

 

[RobbyS]

Try Trent, Session XIII, Chapter IV and Canon II.

GKC

You are right. It is not using the term to the same purpose as the First Council did to the tern" substance,: which is to negate the Protestant heresies? Kinda joining Luther, in fact, here in saying “is” means “is.” Of course the term had been long in use for the same purpose but here it is made much more explicit. The Protestants in general rejected it because they rejected priestly power, and claimed that the mass was something like a magic act in which the priest through his “hocus pocus” conjured up Christ.

 

[JonNC]

=RobbyS;10032589]I don’t think that Trent uses the term transubstantiation.

Already responded to.

It is more a term of art than science.

I think, and I amy be wrong, that the use of Transubstantiation was intended to help believers more easily understand the mystery that is the Eucharist (how does the Spirit take ordinary bread and wine and make use of it so that we receive His true body and blood?). TO this extent, I have no problem, as it is in effect, catechesis.

As to the Greeks, they certainly did use a metaphysical term in defining the relationships among the Holy Trinity. It is not a term one find in scripture, as the Arians pointed out. When speaking of the divine substance in the creed, obviously the “substance” of the Creator must be something other than the substance of the created if the creator is totally separate from the creation

No problem here. I think this was the distinction I was trying to make earlier.

And in the case of the bread and wine, if the person of Jesus is there in place of these objects, then what remains to our senses, is something like an illusion. But of course that is not the right word either. We really don’t know what the substance of bread and wine is anyway.

Spoken like this, you are back to mystery, on which we agree. There is bread and wine. It is consecrate by the power of the Holy Spirit when the celebrant speaks the verba. The (bread and wine) are His body and blood. How can this be? It is a mystery. Amen.

Jon

 

[RobbyS]

Already responded to.

I think, and I amy be wrong, that the use of Transubstantiation was intended to help believers more easily understand the mystery that is the Eucharist (how does the Spirit take ordinary bread and wine and make use of it so that we receive His true body and blood?). TO this extent, I have no problem, as it is in effect, catechesis.

No problem here. I think this was the distinction I was trying to make earlier.

Spoken like this, you are back to mystery, on which we agree. There is bread and wine. It is consecrate by the power of the Holy Spirit when the celebrant speaks the verba. The (bread and wine) are His body and blood. How can this be? It is a mystery. Amen.

Jon

My problem with the term is that it is, at bottom, no more than shorthand for the doctrinal statement, and became a shibboleth distinguishing the Catholic and Protestant “camps” in the long holy way between us. The English Test Act required members of Parliament to communicate in the Church and expressly deny the doctrine taught by Trent. Today Greek physics, from which Aristotle derived his metaphysics, hss been superceded. But I have caught many Catholics who know little about modern science rejecting the very old idea “substance,” as out moded., do not understand that Aristotle was first of all a biologists, and his physics comes from that foundation. It is much more dynamic, vitalistic, rather than something inert, tangible. God is pure act, which is interesting in that modern physics tells us that “matter” does not in fact exist on the subatomic level but is the “dynamic” that somehow produces what is present to our senses. Our educations have left us with the naive notion that Niels Bohr;s planetary model of the atomic is the real thing. The “particles” of which it is represents are no more than statistical probabilities. which we can detect only by their motion at any given time, but which are not necessarily “there” which we can predict them to be, except within certain bounds. Any more than we can predict where that car that passes us on the highway will be ten hours hence. Indeed, no all is whirl, but as hard to catch as a fly with our bear hands.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Is this episode of The Vortex too uncharitable toward the late Martin Luther?

Does Catholic Answers have a position on “The Vortex”? That is, I’ve seen more than a few Roman Catholic apologists distance themselves from Voris. Where does Catholic Answers stand?

That is, I’d like a answer about Catholic Answers.

Regards, James

 

[SirStephen]

Not uncharitable, when compared to somethings I’ve seen. Some of it is factually incorrect. Some of it expresses a similar tone that we’ve seen in the past by folks like Father O’Hare. Some of it sounds like he wants to up his “hit totals”.
Some folks, Lutheran and Catholic, seem bent on continuing the lobbing of anathemas back and forth, even though that old practice seems gone among our respective Church leaders.
Luther was Luther. Pope Leo X was Poe Leo X. Nothing will change who they were. Nothing will change to time they lived in, or the mistakes they made. The challenge for Lutherans and Catholics today is to recognize that, 495 years later, our vision should be on the tasks at hand today - working with the Spirit’s guidance toward the unity Christ calls us to, spreading the good news as Christ commands us to, and helping those in need as He expects us to.

Jon

Jon,

In the concluding comments to the biography of Pope Leo X written in 1910, New Advent, a Catholic Encyclopedia, stated:

"The only possible verdict on the pontificate of Leo X is that it was unfortunate for the Church. Sigismondo Tizio, whose devotion to the Holy See is undoubted, writes truthfully: “In the general opinion it was injurious to the Church that her Head should delight in plays, music, the chase and nonsense, instead of paying serious attention to the needs of his flock and mourning over their misfortunes”. Von Reumont says pertinently—“Leo X is in great measure to blame for the fact that faith in the integrity and merit of the papacy, in its moral and regenerating powers, and even in its good intentions, should have sunk so low that men could declare extinct the old true spirit of the Church.”

I point this out because even in the pre-Vatican II era, the Church recognized Pope Leo X as an abject failure who bore responsibility for the Reformation through his corruption and inaction and he reduced the prestige of the Papacy through his activities. My in-laws are Lutheran. I don’t get my shorts in a bunch when they make critical comments about Catholics in a genuine defense of Lutheranism. Protestants, most of the them, will certainly not get too upset when they see discussions about Catholicism on Catholic discussion boards that take the Catholic view. In fact, one should expect to see it.

What I don’t get, not with you but with others on this posting, is the hostility, especially from more senior Catholics, in the name of charity no less, over Voris. Yes, he is partisan. But, in the main, his statements are accurately aligned with the comments he makes. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with him, only that he generally presents arguments with a tight fit between the position taken and the evidence used in support. From a Catholic perspective, Luther caused great damage to the Christian domain through practices deemed heretical. I have more respect for Lutherans who, in faith, stand for what they believe and defend their positions than those who, out of some need to “all get along,” pretend those differences don’t exist. When the second happens, often, they either don’t respect me or themselves. I am a big boy and will neither bruise nor wilt.

Those that insinuate that he plays fast and loose with the facts and then damns him by inference should beware that they are doing what they accuse Voris of – that he actually doesn’t do – and hence, they should make some offer of proof when impugning him this way. I suspect his accuracy quotient is quite high. (Again, not that he’s right, but that he is good at laying his foundation – sorry, as a lawyer I notice this stuff - especially when planning on how to respond.) Of course a Lutheran will disagree with Voris’ conclusions and what will separate them, in the main, is what separates Lutherans from Catholics. What a shock.

This is just a long way of saying that I feel something of an involuntary recoil when I read all these Catholics, on a Catholic forum no less, get upset with Voris for making the classical Catholic argument because it may offend Protestants who, one would suspect, especially if they are of any caliber, would expect no less.

Voris stands for a masculine defense of the faith. Even with the warts and occasional errors, this type of voice has long been missing and long overdue. A Catholic forum that apologizes for a zealous Catholic advocacy. Who’d of thunk it!

 

[JonNC]

=SirStephen;10043130]Jon,

In the concluding comments to the biography of Pope Leo X written in 1910, New Advent, a Catholic Encyclopedia, stated:

"The only possible verdict on the pontificate of Leo X is that it was unfortunate for the Church. Sigismondo Tizio, whose devotion to the Holy See is undoubted, writes truthfully: “In the general opinion it was injurious to the Church that her Head should delight in plays, music, the chase and nonsense, instead of paying serious attention to the needs of his flock and mourning over their misfortunes”. Von Reumont says pertinently—“Leo X is in great measure to blame for the fact that faith in the integrity and merit of the papacy, in its moral and regenerating powers, and even in its good intentions, should have sunk so low that men could declare extinct the old true spirit of the Church.”

Hi Stephen,
It is good for both sides to see and recognize the flaws in our leaders, not just 500 years ago, but even today. It is also good and proper to see the Holy Spirit in each other, which, for example, is so wonderfully evident in men such as the last number of popes, particularly the last 2.

I point this out because even in the pre-Vatican II era, the Church recognized Pope Leo X as an abject failure who bore responsibility for the Reformation through his corruption and inaction and he reduced the prestige of the Papacy through his activities. My in-laws are Lutheran. I don’t get my shorts in a bunch when they make critical comments about Catholics in a genuine defense of Lutheranism. Protestants, most of the them, will certainly not get too upset when they see discussions about Catholicism on Catholic discussion boards that take the Catholic view. In fact, one should expect to see it.

ageed. And I hope your Lutheran relatives stay calm when Catholics make critical statements about Lutheranism. The sad fact is some of it is richly deserved.

What I don’t get, not with you but with others on this posting, is the hostility, especially from more senior Catholics, in the name of charity no less, over Voris. Yes, he is partisan. But, in the main, his statements are accurately aligned with the comments he makes. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with him, only that he generally presents arguments with a tight fit between the position taken and the evidence used in support. From a Catholic perspective, Luther caused great damage to the Christian domain through practices deemed heretical.

Thanks for the kind words. I take no offense with Mr. Voris, only issue with some of his statements about what we believe, which I think are at times inaccurate.

I have more respect for Lutherans who, in faith, stand for what they believe and defend their positions than those who, out of some need to “all get along,” pretend those differences don’t exist. When the second happens, often, they either don’t respect me or themselves. I am a big boy and will neither bruise nor wilt.

Indeed, well said. I feel the same about Catholics who stridently defend their faith. And when I dialogue here, I try to make sure I am disagreeing with points Catholics actually hold. For example, to me it is silly to accuse Catholics of worshipping (latria) the Blessed Virgin. They don’t. End of story. Why debate that?

Those that insinuate that he plays fast and loose with the facts and then damns him by inference should beware that they are doing what they accuse Voris of – that he actually doesn’t do – and hence, they should make some offer of proof when impugning him this way. I suspect his accuracy quotient is quite high. (Again, not that he’s right, but that he is good at laying his foundation – sorry, as a lawyer I notice this stuff - especially when planning on how to respond.) Of course a Lutheran will disagree with Voris’ conclusions and what will separate them, in the main, is what separates Lutherans from Catholics. What a shock.

I would say that when he draws conclusions, it is best to draw them from a clear understanding of what we actually believe. the condemn us as heretics.

This is just a long way of saying that I feel something of an involuntary recoil when I read all these Catholics, on a Catholic forum no less, get upset with Voris for making the classical Catholic argument because it may offend Protestants who, one would suspect, especially if they are of any caliber, would expect no less.

You know, my experience here is that the Catholics, for the most part, are fair. They care about charity, and accuracy. I find I get most bent outof shape when I see protestants attack my Catholic siblings either out of blatant ignorance, or lack of charity.

Voris stands for a masculine defense of the faith. Even with the warts and occasional errors, this type of voice has long been missing and long overdue. A Catholic forum that apologizes for a zealous Catholic advocacy. Who’d of thunk it!

Might I say that I think your criticism of the Catholics is somewhat exaggerated, maybe because I’m seeing it from a different angle. Personally, I want honesty. I try to be honest, too. Hopefully, we can be honest, even strident, yet charitable.

His peace,
Jon

 

[october_baby]

---

Jon,

In the concluding comments to the biography of Pope Leo X written in 1910, New Advent, a Catholic Encyclopedia, stated:

"The only possible verdict on the pontificate of Leo X is that it was unfortunate for the Church. Sigismondo Tizio, whose devotion to the Holy See is undoubted, writes truthfully: “In the general opinion it was injurious to the Church that her Head should delight in plays, music, the chase and nonsense, instead of paying serious attention to the needs of his flock and mourning over their misfortunes”. Von Reumont says pertinently—“Leo X is in great measure to blame for the fact that faith in the integrity and merit of the papacy, in its moral and regenerating powers, and even in its good intentions, should have sunk so low that men could declare extinct the old true spirit of the Church.”

I point this out because even in the pre-Vatican II era, the Church recognized Pope Leo X as an abject failure who bore responsibility for the Reformation through his corruption and inaction and he reduced the prestige of the Papacy through his activities. My in-laws are Lutheran. I don’t get my shorts in a bunch when they make critical comments about Catholics in a genuine defense of Lutheranism. Protestants, most of the them, will certainly not get too upset when they see discussions about Catholicism on Catholic discussion boards that take the Catholic view. In fact, one should expect to see it.

What I don’t get, not with you but with others on this posting, is the hostility, especially from more senior Catholics, in the name of charity no less, over Voris. Yes, he is partisan. But, in the main, his statements are accurately aligned with the comments he makes. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with him, only that he generally presents arguments with a tight fit between the position taken and the evidence used in support. From a Catholic perspective, Luther caused great damage to the Christian domain through practices deemed heretical. I have more respect for Lutherans who, in faith, stand for what they believe and defend their positions than those who, out of some need to “all get along,” pretend those differences don’t exist. When the second happens, often, they either don’t respect me or themselves. I am a big boy and will neither bruise nor wilt.

Those that insinuate that he plays fast and loose with the facts and then damns him by inference should beware that they are doing what they accuse Voris of – that he actually doesn’t do – and hence, they should make some offer of proof when impugning him this way. I suspect his accuracy quotient is quite high. (Again, not that he’s right, but that he is good at laying his foundation – sorry, as a lawyer I notice this stuff - especially when planning on how to respond.) Of course a Lutheran will disagree with Voris’ conclusions and what will separate them, in the main, is what separates Lutherans from Catholics. What a shock.

This is just a long way of saying that I feel something of an involuntary recoil when I read all these Catholics, on a Catholic forum no less, get upset with Voris for making the classical Catholic argument because it may offend Protestants who, one would suspect, especially if they are of any caliber, would expect no less.

Voris stands for a masculine defense of the faith. Even with the warts and occasional errors, this type of voice has long been missing and long overdue. A Catholic forum that apologizes for a zealous Catholic advocacy. Who’d of thunk it!

BRAVO, sir well said!!!:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown2::bowdown2:

 

[SirStephen]

The Deuterocanonical books were removed by publishers who wanted to save paper, and thus money, on not printing the books.

With respect, that is simply not true. For some time in most Protestant Bibles, the Deuterocanonicals were printed in the Bible as Apocryphal texts deemed not inspired. In doing this, Luther did so because he was pinned down in a famous debate when reference to, I think it was 2 Maccabees, lead him to reject its status. I think the specific topic concerned prayers for the dead. In justifying his actions, Luther made reference to St Jerome’s commentaries questioning their authenticity. St. Jerome made his observations based on the Jewish canon of his time, formulated by the Pharisees, that rejected the Deuteros – somewhere around 132 a.d. - after the destruction of the Temple and the diaspora.

In the time of Christ, the prevailing Jewish canon was Septuagint (or its Hebrew counterpart). With the Qumran texts, it is now known the the Septuagint was accurately translated from a Hebrew equivalent that was not the same as what was to become the Jewish canon. It is estimated that 300 of the roughly 350 references in the New Testament to the Old were from the Septuagint. The Septuagint, the canon used by the Apostles, included all the Deuterocanonicals.

Martin Luther lead that movement.

 

[JonNC]

=SirStephen;10043410]With respect, that is simply not true. For some time in most Protestant Bibles, the Deuterocanonicals were printed in the Bible as Apocryphal texts deemed not inspired. In doing this, Luther did so because he was pinned down in a famous debate when reference to, I think it was 2 Maccabees, lead him to reject its status. I think the specific topic concerned prayers for the dead.

This wouldn’t explain his concerns regarding the other 6 books, however.

In justifying his actions, Luther made reference to St Jerome’s commentaries questioning their authenticity. St. Jerome made his observations based on the Jewish canon of his time, formulated by the Pharisees, that rejected the Deuteros – somewhere around 132 a.d. - after the destruction of the Temple and the diaspora.

St. Jerome was not alone in this however. Even as late as Luther’s time, Catholics continued the dispute regarding the D-C’s, notably Cardinal Cajetan. they were even subject of debate at the Council of Trent, from what I understand.

In the time of Christ, the prevailing Jewish canon was Septuagint (or its Hebrew counterpart). With the Qumran texts, it is now known the the Septuagint was accurately translated from a Hebrew equivalent that was not the same as what was to become the Jewish canon. It is estimated that 300 of the roughly 350 references in the New Testament to the Old were from the Septuagint. The Septuagint, the canon used by the Apostles, included all the Deuterocanonicals.

If the Aopstles used it, then your reference concerning St. Jerome seems thin.

Now, as I’ve often said here, I’m not convinced that Luther’s concerns are enough to consider them less than scripture, as founded in the historic Church though they may be. They should certainly be included, as Luther did.

Martin Luther lead that movement.

Led that movement, I think, gives him more credit than is due. He was cetainly within his privilege, pre-trent, to dispute their canonicity, as many before him did.

Jon

 

[SirStephen]

On the last post, I meant to also say (but the program would not let me enter) the following:

In fairness to Luther, however, the purely anti-Catholic component of this movement leading to the near complete exclusion of the Deuteros came much later and from predominantly English and Scottish Protestants.

Jon,

Good to know you! In fairness to Voris, Lutheranism is still designated a heresy. On your question as to whether my in-laws “stay calm,” of course not! They are Wisconsin Synod and I am the face of Satan incarnate. Having said that, they’ve had to buy beer as much as I have when making wagers.

On your point about an “exaggerated criticism of Catholics?” Maybe! There are times when the Church needs to speak with a pastoral voice. Then again, there are times when that voice needs to be that of leaders charging their flock. The second has been lacking. If I gage my Protestant friends correctly, they would tend to say the same thing within their communities. I was once in a situation where I got into a firefight with a seasoned Jesuit on an issue where he wanted to smooth over a key point (on an issue that was serious and concerned life and death) where - get this - an ordained Bob Jones University grad had to come to my aid in correctly stating that Catholic Canon that he was aware of that the Jesuit felt inconvenient.

I very much support ecumenism but have become somewhat dubious of interfaith activities. In this, I make a distinction.

All the best!

 

[JonNC]

=SirStephen;10043573]On the last post, I meant to also say (but the program would not let me enter) the following:

In fairness to Luther, however, the purely anti-Catholic component of this movement leading to the near complete exclusion of the Deuteros came much later and from predominantly English and Scottish Protestants.

Agreed. For me, the indictment of American Lutherans is that, up until now, we’ve allowed their publishers to control our Bibles. Luther, I think, would object to this.

Jon,

Good to know you! In fairness to Voris, Lutheranism is still designated a heresy. On your question as to whether my in-laws “stay calm,” of course not! They are Wisconsin Synod and I am the face of Satan incarnate. Having said that, they’ve had to buy beer as much as I have when making wagers.

In all honesty, they are quite wrong. If they were to take a brief look at post-Vat II Rome, it is quite different than the one Melanchthon wrote his famous treatise against.

I would not debate that the Catholic position regarding Lutheranism, in general, is that it remains in some was heretical. I wouldn’t debate that, but I would disagree.

I will comment more later.

Indeed, it is a pleasure “meet” you as well.

Jon