Did the Protestant Reformation do anything good?

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

And… you are in my prayers, too.

Now, concering your post … hmmmmm this sounds more like wishful thinking rather then an expression of what is actually going on. 30,000+ groups, assemblies, congregations, unions, affiliations, sects, etc - all claiming to the the Chruch founded by Christ - have come up with novel ways of addressing SS.

I don’t know of any Church that both follows sola scriptura and argues that the final authority/interpretation of scripture should be put into the hands of each and every sola scriptura proponent…it is not how I think it should work. We are to be members of a body and subject to our leaders and other members. In turn, our leaders must be worthy of leading and are to lead by serving and not lording. I think that it is safe to say that what you describe was never Jesus’s plan for Christianity.

If it is not in the hands of each and every SS proponent - then just whose hands is it in? I have heard many times abour various differences that have been the stated cause why members leave one church and join another. That ‘Preacher A’ said this and I don’t agree with that so I am going to go to ‘Preacher B’ and hear what he has to say.

As far as I can tell - there is division and anarchy - with everyone yelling that they are right and the other guys are wrong - and the only thing they can agree on is that the Catholic Church is wrong!

Not to travel too far afield, but I would say 50 years ago homosexuality was uniformly condemned by virtually all Protestant groups - as was marital infidelity. Today, we see what was so clear in scripture to our grandfathers and fathers - looks very unclear now. I heard yesterday that one of Protestant groups (gett’en old and just can’t remember which one…) released the requirement for marital fidelity as one of the criteria for being a minister. Seriously, if you wait around another 10 years I am sure that Gnostics will have made great in-roads into destroying most Christian beliefs…

The Magisterium of the Cathoic Church - the Pope and the Bishops united with our Holy Father provide the authoritive and definitive teaching about God’s message of salvation because Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would always be with the Church. This is just the opposite of what we see with these 30,000+ groups all teaching something different and changing their tune as the years go by.

God bless

.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Do you think the Protestant Reformation did anything good? I personally thing it was one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the human race, but could’ve been avoided. And if it were avoided, things would be a lot better off today. Why did it happen, and what could have been done to stop it, and what can be done now to reverse the damages wrought by it?

No.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hello, guanophore…long time. Part of my point was showing that you and I (for example) disagree so dramatically on what was good and what was bad about the 16th Century CC that it is difficult to have any sort of discussion as to whether the PR did any good. Take the belief about a real bodily presence (RBP) in the Eucharist for example. You think it a wondrous thing. I think that it is a corruption.
and we would disagree on this too…and so any divergence of what (in your opinion) Christ set up would be bad and I would have to weigh the good against the bad of any such divergence.

this isn’t the first time that you have asked me this…please refer to my previous answer…maybe CopticChristian could track it down for you

.it likely just reverts to the Catholics declaring that the CC is doctrinally right in all it officially does and anything that diverges from that is bad…Speaking of curious, I am curious about two things:

?

I believe I have a handle on Radicals approach. This post here is the most telling. Radical believes that Catholics like Zwingli, Calvin, Luther and others still need Reform. The mindset is 16th century.

Radical believes in union in some way. This is from a prior posting.

I don’t know about the evangelization bit…my hope is that these debates within our christian family will lead to a greater understanding that will, in turn lead to a greater unity. I seem to flip-flop between optimism and pessimism in this regard.

Radical wants unity. The problem is that the OHCAC believes that unity is through the Eucharist, the very proposition Radical attacks. The OHCAC vs Reform. LiturgyWord+LiturgyEucharist to be reformed by LiturgyWord. Without the Eucharist there is not possibility of union or reform whatever that might be.

Radical can understand that there is something called a Church but cannot translate that beyond the building on the block. The notion of a home, community, city, county, state, United States does not somehow compute with Radical.

I don’t know of any Church that both follows sola scriptura and argues that the final authority/interpretation of scripture should be put into the hands of each and every sola scriptura proponent…it is not how I think it should work. We are to be members of a body and subject to our leaders and other members. In turn, our leaders must be worthy of leading and are to lead by serving and not lording.

I am sure that Radical has read the catechism on the Eucharist. I suggest a reread with focus on the word unity. To worship together as one body of Christians in any way is a single act. To worship with those that have only the Liturgy of the Word cannot be done.

1346 The liturgy of the Eucharist unfolds according to a fundamental structure which has been preserved throughout the centuries down to our own day. It displays two great parts that form a fundamental unity:

• the gathering, the liturgy of the Word, with readings, homily and general intercessions;
• the liturgy of the Eucharist, with the presentation of the bread and wine, the consecratory thanksgiving, and communion.

The liturgy of the Word and liturgy of the Eucharist together form “one single act of worship”;172 the Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and of the Body of the Lord.173

Radical may or may not be aware and I am baffled by Radicals approach. In the only thread started:

There are pages that outline Radicals approach to denial of the Real presence thus proposing a self defeating attempt at any dialogue in unity.

On the Corruption from the Original Non Real Presence Church, to the V century Real Presence Church

Tertullian, Alexandria and Carthage

Radical has a real stumbling block as evidenced by being the first to post in the thread started by Nicea 325, The Real Presence. Reading the post by Radical reveals the desire to share this knowledge of Tertullian, Alexandria and Carthage. This knowledge is seen if the thread on the corruption is read. Here is the problem. Radical is recalcitrant to change and alternate opinion. If you read that posting on the corruption when the answer as to what Radical presents concerning Tertullian by Pneuma is stated,

Tertullian is teaching me, helping me to understand better what RP means. I hope you understand what I’m trying to explain.

This is the equivalent of what Guanaphore and others provide for Radical. This is the Reply to Pneuma.

I understnd you, but I think you do not understand Tertullian

Radical is saying, I just haven’t convinced you, you just don’t see it my way, let me continue to explain why you should see it my way. I see a real desire to know, to share, to want to understand but as stated in the beginning as Guanaphore points out a blind mindset, set in the 16th century.

I could never propose to a Protestant I want union and tell them from the get go that the Bible is not the word of God. How far would that go?

You cannot come to Catholic answers wanting unity and attack the unity that binds, The Eucharist, the Real Presence.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Hiskid1973,

Somehow, the famous quote by R. King, “Why can’t we just get along?” was ringing in my ears as I read your post. Let me explain…

People pitch this like some blame against protestant christians or some how they’re defective. Your either “in Christ” or not. Same Spirit, no separation. Seeds were planted and division reaped centuries before…The gospel spread around the world.Even to this day people come to Christ daily. The great commission was never hindered. The church grew and the gospel spread apart from just the Rome see and those in accord with it…Splits/divisions were happening with I’m of Paul and I am Appollos and went on
from there…Be interesting to know all that went on in the early days…But when we see
Him face to face that will not matter.

Actually, all of those baptized in the name of the Trinity are in Christ. But, if not in the Catholic Church and not participating in the Sacraments - they are not fully in Christ. So, it is not quite like an either or situation as you have presented.

Concerning the spread of the Gospel, the question is: “Whose Gospel?” Without the Christ promised guidance of the Holy Spirit - we find the major error of the PR to be SS where anyone can be their own teaching authority on Scripture. And, while you may not see this as a problem - just look back into your own history and see the changes that have been made. 50 years ago, all churches that claimed that they were following Christ, strongly condemned homosexuality and abortion. Just look around - the Scripture hasn’t changed at all - just the various and different interpretations of what plain words clearly say so that these words have been rendered meaningless.

While you are at it, the so-called ‘Prosperity Gospel’ is of recent vintage. Some the quote from Christ about having no place to lay His head never gets preached about - I am guessing - with these guys.

Yes, Paul commented on splits and divisions as a problem that needed to be addressed and overcome - not relished in. This is a major difference from the unity that Christ and Paul worked for during their ministries.

As you look around and see how the same Scripture is taught so tht 30,000+ groups can’t really agree on anything (there is no 'core belief system ’ that the various Protestant groups subscribe to). So, just preaching the Gospel is not as simple - or as virtuous - as it may first appear.

God bless

 

[CopticChristian]

In your opinion. One day we will know why your See further schismed…God is still working and the gospel is still being preached.

You might want to take a pole on that. I am sure there are others that would find that you do not understand what you have written to infer that division is based on what you wrote.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Robert in SD,

I appreciate it if you would develop your answer a little more.

Thanks

No.

 

[CopticChristian]

I note that it was said that Jesus was slain from the beginning of creation…so I guess one could say that Christ’s crucifixion was planned by God for some time, but I would be reluctant to say that the sin (that necessitated the cross) was God’s plan. Likewise, it would be fair to say that God, for some time, planned to provide his written word for the Church, but I would be reluctant to say that the sin (that left scripture as the only very reliable source of his word) was part of God’s plan.
I’ll put you down as a “Possibly, for Bob and Martha”…but “not so much” for you.
…and I’ll put you down as a “yes, for certain Bobs and certain Marthas”

I am all for fiction, reality, now that is another thing.

 

[Hiskid1973]

You might want to take a pole on that. I am sure there are others that would find that you do not understand what you have written to infer that division is based on what you wrote.

OK.I’m back with full attention to your comment…I am a 60yr old male who had head
trauma from a fall off a railcar…My thoughts scatter as I write so I apologise for the confusion. That comment/verse ref. wasn’t really thought out as to what my thoughts were with men’s fallibility. I do still think Rome erred when it broke fro the rest of the sees and never fixed it. The result was further schism. Christ is still on the throne, the gospel message of His plan for salvation still goes on today…

 

[1voice]

Quote:
The truth is the truth … and on the issue of sola fide (in love) … Luther stood on the side of truth

No, he didn’t. Luther made a particular way of articulating justification by faith a church-dividing issue. Catholics at the time said that his doctrine of justification wasn’t a huge problem (see David Bagchi, Luther’s Earliest Opponents). It was only after Luther and other Protestants had made it one that Trent responded in kind. And Luther’s theology was not perfect–his doctrine of justification was one-sided and had plenty of holes that needed patching. You are taking Pope Benedict’s statement in a far more extreme sense than the Pope meant it, as if Luther’s doctrine was just fine as it stands. It is correct if properly interpreted and nuanced and balanced with the rest of Catholic orthodoxy. But Luther didn’t do that.

To say that God imputes righteousness to people solely based on faith and that works play no direct role in deciding whether a person is finally accepted by God as righteous is unorthodox, always has been unorthodox, and is in no way endorsed by Pope Benedict. Yet this is what Luther said. We can now see that it was simply an overly polemical desire to safeguard a genuine theological insight, but it remains unorthodox and the Catholic Church of the 16th century was right to reject it.

Edwin

Your comments here got me to thinking and reading … I never quite understood the difference between the Catholic view of justification/ salvation and the Protestant view. I always thought … Whats the big deal?
I was amazed at what I found … the differences are huge.

 

[guanophore]

I understand the difference… Your point is that Luther couldnt have been a man of God based (in part) on his attitude toward the Jewish people …

No, not at all. He was clearly a man of God. He poured his entire life and energies into religious life, theology, and preaching/writing.

What I said was that his rage and hatred is not the fruit of a HOLY SOUL. Anyone can be a disciple of Christ, but many of us lack the virtues that can be held up as an example of holiness. I don’t think that anyone reading his rantings would hold these attitudes forth as an expression of holiness. They do not reflect a Christlike attitude.

I put the word ’ tradition’ in quotes to illustrate the fact that his thoughts were right in line with a long line of Church fathers that applauded that kind of thinking…

I am eager to see the links to substantiate this.

I am aware of some significant anti-semitic polemic. These are reflections of human prejudice, and are not the doctrine of the Church.

and it did not in any way disqualify them from holding status.

ARe you saying that persons who are anti-Semitic are “holy souls”?

You and I can agree that it was not good Christianity … but it was not a disqualifier within the established norms of the CC … right up through World War 2.

Disqualifier for what? I think you have a lot to learn about the Pope during HItlers time, and what he established as “norms”.

Human customs, right or wrong, are not on par with Sacred Tradition, which is the Word of God alive and well in His Church. The Church does not teach or support anti-Semitism.

 

[joe370]

Do you think the Protestant Reformation did anything good? I personally thing it was one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the human race, but could’ve been avoided. And if it were avoided, things would be a lot better off today. Why did it happen, and what could have been done to stop it, and what can be done now to reverse the damages wrought by it?

I don’t think that the reformation reformed the Catholic Church, doctrinally speaking that is, although it certainly spurred the CC along giving way to a very necessary house cleaning. Can you imagine if the Luther’s and Zwingli’s of the reformation would have persevered with patience and simply trusted in the providence of God, as did the Assisi’s and Laboure’s did? Phew…No doubt that necessary house cleaning (God’s House) - would have occurred anyway, only according to God’s timetable, thereby making available to so many more God loving Christians, the holy Eucharist. Just food for thought…

 

[guanophore]

…Speaking of curious, I am curious about two things:

a) what would you concede was bad about the CC at the time?; and

Nothing. The CC is the pure and holy Bride of Christ. She is infallible, and without stain. This is so because Jesus is her Head, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. Her divine elements make her sanctified.

Eph 5:25-30
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body.

The corruption in the fallible members joined to her, however, is too extensive to list. Luther had valid grievances, as did Hus, and Wycliffe, etc. There were people in positions of authority, such as Tetzel and Pope Leo that were interested in profit (simony) and secular power. The Medici popes were scandalous.

b) could you bring yourself to admit that the PR was a good thing for the likes of the Bobs and Marthas of this world?..or is it your assumption that all devout separated brethren in the world (as we know it) would have automatically been equally (or better) devout full brethren in the hypothetical world w/o the PR?

No. Subtracting from the teaching of Christ does not benefit anyone. Partial Truth is even more dangerous than no revelation at all.

The book of Jude is a strong statement against those who depart from the One Faith.

 

[CopticChristian]

OK.I’m back with full attention to your comment…I am a 60yr old male who had head
trauma from a fall off a railcar…My thoughts scatter as I write so I apologise for the confusion. That comment/verse ref. wasn’t really thought out as to what my thoughts were with men’s fallibility. I do still think Rome erred when it broke fro the rest of the sees and never fixed it. The result was further schism. Christ is still on the throne, the gospel message of His plan for salvation still goes on today…

I am a 65 year old man. I have fallen and hit my head. I recall on the days I did that my mind wasn’t what it could be. My thoughts scatter to this day. I understand that you believe that Rome, The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church has errored. Rome did not break from sees. I understand that you have a perspective. Love God. Love You. Amen

 

[CopticChristian]

Quote:
The truth is the truth … and on the issue of sola fide (in love) … Luther stood on the side of truth

Your comments here got me to thinking and reading … I never quite understood the difference between the Catholic view of justification/ salvation and the Protestant view. I always thought … Whats the big deal?
I was amazed at what I found … the differences are huge.

Can you tell me your understanding of what the differences are that are huge?

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t think that the reformation reformed the Catholic Church, doctrinally speaking that is, although it certainly spurred the CC along giving way to a very necessary house cleaning. Can you imagine if the Luther’s and Zwingli’s of the reformation would have persevered with patience and simply trusted in the providence of God, as did the Assisi’s and Laboure’s did? Phew…No doubt that necessary house cleaning (God’s House) - would have occurred anyway, only according to God’s timetable, thereby making available to so many more God loving Christians, the holy Eucharist. Just food for thought…

Priests are educated people. I have a most difficult time understanding, believing, accepting that one day a priest woke up and said the Eucharist is not the Eucharist and we only need two sacraments and what they mean we will debate. I cannot for the life of me understand the minds of these guys. I understand the notion of cleaning house. This is demolition.

 

[guanophore]

yes, and that is the reality that he had to deal with
when you overly simplify what is right, then you might be able to avoid calculating consequences. However, when doing the right thing involves trying to maintain unity while eliminating error, you just might have to weigh things out (if the hierarchy clings to the error) as** I don’t see **that the good of unity trumps all other concerns.

We can add that to the list of stuff you “don’t see”. Your failure to see it, though, does not make it disappear from view of those who have maintained the Apostolic faith.

Eph 4:1-6
1 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

One, One, One…

Eph 4:12-16
2 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all **attain to the unity of the faith **and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.

1 Peter 3:8-9

8 Finally, all of you,** have unity **of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.

John 17:11-12
Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

It seems to me that unity is pretty important according to the Scriptures.

 he was also wrong in not recognizing all the error that existed....and if he had, schism would have been even more difficult to avoid.

Despite inventing some new doctrines, and thus separating himself from the One Faith, Luther did retain a majority of Apostolic Teaching. Reform was needed, but he mistakenly thought it was the Teaching of Jesus, not the corruption of man that needed reform.

The Teaching of Jesus was deposited “once for all to the saints” through the Apostles. The Apostles appointed Bishops, who were charged with the preservation of the Gospel. One of the Apostolic directives is:

1 Tim 1:3

3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine…

Different doctrine is not permitted. What creates unity is adherance to the Truth. Unity is not something that must be “created” by man, but it exists naturally when each individual clings to Christ, and is in harmony with His Teaching placed in the Church.

 

[guanophore]

People pitch this like some blame against protestant christians or some how they’re defective.

This would be very inappropriate. We are never to blame others, or consider them “defective”. What is taught by the Church is that the ecclesial communities are defective because they lack one or more of the signs of the Church taught by the Apostles.

Usually, members of them have defects of faith, in that they are improperly catechized, or have unwittingly embraced heresies. A person can be fervent in faith, yet deficient. We see an example in the NT.

Acts 19:1-7
19:1 While Apol’los was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve of them in all.

These are described as “disciples” They were clearly firm in their faith, and yet, were lacking part of the Truth.

Another example is Apollos:

Acts 18:24-27

24 Now a Jew named Apol’los, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aq’uila heard him, they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately.

Most Protestants stand in the tradition of Apollos. They are fervent in faith, well versed in the Scriptures, but are lacking part of the Truth.

Your either “in Christ” or not. Same Spirit, no separation.

I think that the above Scriptures clearly show that it is quite possible to be a fervent disciple, yet suffer deficiencies. For that reason, some are not perfectly joined to Christ. They are separated by lacking part of the Truth. Adherance to Truth is what brings about unity. To the degree some parts of the Truth are rejected, separation exists. The more Truth rejected, the greater the separation.

Seeds were planted and division reaped centuries before..The gospel spread around the world.Even to this day people come to Christ daily. The great commission was never hindered.

Lack of holiness in the disciples always hinders the great commission. When people look at a person of faith and see corruption, they are not led to Christ.

The church grew and the gospel spread apart from just the Rome see and those in accord with it…Splits/divisions were happening with I’m of Paul and I am Appollos and went on from there…Be interesting to know all that went on in the early days…But when we see
Him face to face that will not matter.

You can learn a lot about “what happened in the early days” by reading the history of your faith, and the Early Fathers. You will find that they are quite Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

OK.I’m back with full attention to your comment…I am a 60yr old male who had head
trauma from a fall off a railcar…My thoughts scatter as I write so I apologise for the confusion.

May you daily be transformed by the renewing of your mind.

That comment/verse ref. wasn't really thought out as to what my thoughts were with men's fallibility. I do still think Rome erred when it broke fro the rest of the sees and never fixed it. The result was further schism. Christ is still on the throne, the gospel message of His plan for salvation still goes on today..

Yes, division does tend to propogate further division. There is a vast difference, though, between schism and Protestantism. Schism does not include the rejection of the doctrines of Christ. The CC recognizes and affirms all the signs of the True Church in our Eastern Brethren. This cannot be said about the ecclesial communities emanating from the Reformation.

Yes, God’s plan of salvation continues, and the HS works through these ecclesial communities to bring people to Himself.

 

[1voice]

Can you tell me your understanding of what the differences are that are huge?

Scroll about half way down to the 4th highlighted topic to find the specific differences … titled “how does the biblical, historic Protestant presentation of justification by faith alone contradict Roman Catholic teaching?”

… The entire article is clear and fascinating.

the-highway.com/articleJan98.html

 

[CopticChristian]

Scroll about half way down to the 4th highlighted topic to find the specific differences … titled “how does the biblical, historic Protestant presentation of justification by faith alone contradict Roman Catholic teaching?”

… The entire article is clear and fascinating.

the-highway.com/articleJan98.html

I have seen this website. It is slanted, confusing and makes it more complicated than necessary. It is describing to someone that accepts Justification, Sanctification, Glorification a contrast. The reality is that Sanctification is not agreed on by all Protestants. Calvin made it up to support his monergistic one time justification. Justification is a process as Paul, Hebrews and James talk about concerning Abraham.

Justification for the Calvinist is being declared innocent as a guilty criminal, externally imputed righteousness. Sanctification is then being set apart.

Justification for me is beind infused with grace, by Faith I have been saved so that Faith can work in love. It is all unmerited. It is all a work of God start to finish. Any merits are as a result of the grace that allows us to do anything pleasing and like a good Father we get an allowance. We are declared, like John says, to be children of God imputed intrinsically.

I don’t like seeing my God as having a bunch of Guilty criminals running around just looking like they are righteous. Do you?

“For we understand that a man who is justified is not already righteous, but moving toward righteousness” Luther’s Works, 34, 52, cited in Althaus, p.237, n 63

Our justification is not yet complete…It is still under construction. It shall, however, be completed in the resurrection of the dead” Weimarer Ausgabe, 391, 252, cited in Althous, p. 237, n.63

Protestants James D. G. Dunn, E. P. Sanders and Dale Moody agree that Justification is not a one time event rather a process.

Lutherans and Methodists have joined in a joint declaration. This website is out of the loop.

ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
by the Lutheran World Federation
and the Catholic Church
Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification signed at Augsburg on 31 October 1999

19.We confess together that all persons depend completely on the saving grace of God for their salvation. The freedom they possess in relation to persons and the things of this world is no freedom in relation to salvation, for as sinners they stand under God’s judgment and are incapable of turning by themselves to God to seek deliverance, of meriting their justification before God, or of attaining salvation by their own abilities. Justification takes place solely by God’s grace.

31.We confess together that persons are justified by faith in the gospel “apart from works prescribed by the law” (Rom 3:28). Christ has fulfilled the law and by his death and resurrection has overcome it as a way to salvation. We also confess that God’s commandments retain their validity for the justified and that Christ has by his teaching and example expressed God’s will which is a standard for the conduct of the justified also.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

THE WORLD METHODIST COUNCIL STATEMENT OF ASSOCIATION
WITH THE JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
(accompanied by the Official Common Affirmation signed by Representatives of the
Catholic Church, the Lutheran World Federation and the World Methodist Council)
Seoul, South Korea, 23 July 2006
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/meth-council-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20060723_text-association_en.html