Divorced Catholics, LGBT ‘Embraced’ at First-in-Nation Synod in San Diego

[TCEL]

Yes he would want people to be Catholic. That’s a given. Again it was most likely intense all-consuming fear and not malice that started all this. According to our current Catechism mental illness can greatly reduce or even diminish culpability. So there certainly is a good chance he made it after all. But certainly if he’s in heaven he’d be working to lead souls to the Catholic Church. Maybe this is his way of doing so? Making little steps towards full communion starting with those he led astray? Who knows. We won’t until the next life.

I think this is well-stated, and it addresses the concerns that people like myself simply want to see acknowledged. Truth matters. I am concerned with all the blatant attempts to wrest, spin, and relativize the truth. Ideas have consequences. Dialogue is a two way street. It would be wonderful if Pope Francis’ gesture makes genuine dialogue more accessible, where hearts are softened and we can examine actual data, where we submit to truth, and not make truth submit to us. I hope other people have seen this happen. It would give me encouragement.

 

[TMC]

Hard feelings? How about a clear and concise distinction between Truth and falsehood? Everything is so PC these days, it’s difficult to tell where the Truth ends and a lie begins. I’m all for embracing Lutherans - however, why not clearly state where the various Lutheran positions (there are multiple Lutheran groups that disagree on essential issues) fall short of Catholic truth?

Why not follow the Pope’s lead and focus on our common love for Christ and common goal to establish His kingdom? That’s not “PC”, its Christian.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Why not follow the Pope’s lead and focus on our common love for Christ and common goal to establish His kingdom? That’s not “PC”, its Christian.

You mean you can’t do both at once

 

[TCEL]

Why not follow the Pope’s lead and focus on our common love for Christ and common goal to establish His kingdom? That’s not “PC”, its Christian.

Once we move past our theoretical common love for Christ, which I can believe and acknowledge, our common practical goals in establishing His kingdom often end with opposing applications.

The reason it’s worth pointing out theoretical differences is because they lead to practical differences.

 

[billy15]

If Luther were in heaven right now he would admit he was a staunch heretic and that his actions lead to countless division. He would want all his followers to become Catholics as soon as possible. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. To play Luther and the heretics(Arius, Jansen, ex.) as heroes is scandal and to “celebrate” their heretical actions is even worse.

It’s good to have dialogue with Protestants, come together to work for a common good (ex.against abortion & same sex marriage), and work for unity, but sometimes I think people cross the line.

I agree. Dialogue is a wonderful thing, and I’ve done so with some of my Lutheran brothers and sisters. It’s always been amicable. That’s why I’m curious were all this “hate” and “venom” that’s going Luther’s way is supposedly coming from. At least for me, I don’t hate Luther, but I hate the division in the Body of Christ that has occurred as a result of his choices.

While we should value dialogue, we should realize that this dialogue must eventually lead to action. And that action is a return to full communion with the Church established by Jesus; the Church that proclaims the Gospel. St. Paul is pretty clear in Galatians:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel—not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:6-9).

There are more than a few things Luther said that dont square up with the Gospel, I.e. The papacy. Let’s pray for healing of all divisions for sure

 

[Brendan]

The first two sentences of 1790 are plain and clear.

There is no doubt. But still, many people misunderstand what the Church means by ‘certain judgement’. It is not a subjective reality ( which is the opposite of certitude). It is not a judgment that the person feels a level of certitude about, it is one that the objectively certain.

A prime example would be same sex marriage. A large number of people feel certain that such a state truly is marriage. But it is not objectively true. Any judgement in favor of same sex marriage would be, by definition, not a certain judgement. And thus there is no compulsion to obey it. And a Catholic would be on sound moral ground to use legal means to prevent the person from acting on such a judgement. Hence why the Church, including Pope Francis, have attempted to maintain laws against such actions.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

If I am not mistaken, the excommunication has never been lifted - by St. John Paul II or any other pope.

Of course it is not lifted. There is nothing to lift. Whether it is Martin Luther or Marcel Lefebvre, there is nothing left to lift. They are both dead. This is so fundamental and rudimentary to theology, well addressed many times, that it is shocking there is even need for me to answer this, which has been answered already so splendidly by Pope Francis and by Pope Benedict before him and by Cardinal Koch. They have spoken in recent months/years as to why this could not be done…it is outside the realm of the possible, ecclesiologically speaking.

In post #24, you endeavoured to put a statement into my mouth that I would never, as a priest and as a theologian, say. Such a tactic is profoundly offensive.

Yes, we agree, Don Ruggero. Luther was a heretic, but present day Lutherans are neither /…/

In post 23, you wrote

What I am hearing from Cupich and McElroy - Pope Francis’ two most visible picks for bishop in the United States - seems to be the promotion of falsehood (perhaps unintentionally) by stating half-truths.

It is not your place to name and judge prelates of the Church.

Do not make derogatory remarks against Catholic clergy

Given the rules of this forum, I would hope such statements – promotion of falsehood by stating half-truths – would not be allowed to stand. I cannot fathom how such a statement, against two highly placed prelates, could be considered anything but derogatory.

Certainly, as a priest and a theologian, I stand to defend these prelates who are entitled to more than respect to the clergy…they are entitled to deference as successors of the Apostles, members of the College of Bishops.

The only legitimate response regarding – let us be clear: not “Cupich” but His Eminence Cardinal-designate Cupich is one of profound gratitude to the Vicar of Christ for his gift to the American Church by elevating to the College of Cardinals both the Archbishop of Chicago as well as the Archbishop of Indianapolis – so from this new position, these two Cardinals chosen by Pope Francis for the United States, Their Eminences, may be better placed to give guidance to their brother bishops of the United States as well as, with their brother bishops, to shepherd and govern the Catholics of the United States and chart the course for the Church in America for many years to come.

With regard to His Excellency, the Bishop of San Diego, the one who is the actual shepherd of Catholic Answers, seeing as they are under his jurisdiction and have leave by his gracious gift to operate their apostolate as an organisation bearing the name Catholic, I have every confidence that Catholic Answers rejoices to have the oversight of such a wonderful bishop and that they see themselves as fortunate beneficiaries of having him as Bishop of San Diego. I am sure they indeed welcome his guidance and oversight…whom they would never describe as speaking “half-truths” or endorse such a dreadful characterisation.

Beyond this, if the moderator of this forum gives me leave to address matters out of scope of the original post, I would be very happy to explain why it is we do not look today to Pope Leo X with regard to Martin Luther…we look to Pope Leo’s successors, who have modified their predecessor’s judgment by what they have said, what they have published, the analyses that they have ordered and which they have formally received – and also by the actions of PCPCU.

Also, it is worth remarking that when, for example, the Council Fathers at Vatican II affirmed a dogmatic enunciation of the Fathers of Trent, they did so by also declaring that the dogma was correct but that the liturgy itself was in need of urgent and immediate reform and renewal in every aspect. Thus, one must look at what is actually said. And to subsequent documents that have emerged from Holy See.

In summary answer to other points posed to me in a thread that seems now to be going a little bit of everywhere: a Catholic may not simply look to some statement of the past and say “I am following this” when, in fact, other dispositions now govern and which are to be given assent…whether we are talking about the PCTL or CDWDS or CIVCSVA or PCPCU…or, indeed, the Holy Father speaking himself and not through one of his dicasteries.

 

[dans0622]

No. What we would be in agreement on is exactly what was proclaimed by the Holy See in 1983:

Martin Luther is a “Witness of Jesus Christ” and a “Witness of the Gospel” from the perspective and judgment of Rome in the 20th and the 21st century.

Since you are a faithful Catholic, I trust you are in complete and total to Pope Saint John Paul II on the conferral of those titles – and that in all things you completely submit yourself to the superior knowledge and judgment of the Successor of Peter.

While there is obviously a “new” tenor to the way the Church interacts with non-Catholics, it seems to me that the use of words/phrases such as “proclaimed by the Holy See”, “judgment of Rome”, “conferral of those titles” overstates things. That 1983 document is not quite that authoritative.

I don’t see why we can’t have a both/and perspective here, instead of an either/or. Luther was wrong about some things and Catholics were wrong about some things. Luther was right about some things and Catholics were right about some things.

Even in the documents of the Council of Trent, this realization can be seen (even though words such as “Luther is right in that…” won’t be found).

Dan

 

[TMC]

You mean you can’t do both at once

I am talking about the focus of the interaction. You can have multiple concerns and goals, but the focus of some seems to be on being angry and listing out grievances, rather than on working together to build toward common goals. The Church is working toward the latter, and willing to let the former go after 500 years.

 

[TMC]

Once we move past our theoretical common love for Christ, which I can believe and acknowledge, our common practical goals in establishing His kingdom often end with opposing applications.

The reason it’s worth pointing out theoretical differences is because they lead to practical differences.

My love for Christ is not theoretical, and neither is the Lutherans’ love for Christ. Most of the theological differences between us are theoretical, however. What practical differences do you see that trouble you?

 

[Thomas_White]

There is no doubt. But still, many people misunderstand what the Church means by ‘certain judgement’. It is not a subjective reality ( which is the opposite of certitude). It is not a judgment that the person feels a level of certitude about, it is one that the objectively certain.

A prime example would be same sex marriage. A large number of people feel certain that such a state truly is marriage. But it is not objectively true. Any judgement in favor of same sex marriage would be, by definition, not a certain judgement. And thus there is no compulsion to obey it. And a Catholic would be on sound moral ground to use legal means to prevent the person from acting on such a judgement. Hence why the Church, including Pope Francis, have attempted to maintain laws against such actions.

Yes, a person is culpable for their sins.

 

[TCEL]

My love for Christ is not theoretical, and neither is the Lutherans’ love for Christ. Most of the theological differences between us are theoretical, however. What practical differences do you see that trouble you?

By “our,” I meant both Catholic and Lutheran. As far as what troubles me, it depends on the specific group. Amongst the more liberal groups, the sexual ethics are concerning, and amongst the more conservative groups, beliefs that the Eucharist isn’t a sacrifice is concerning (to name the first that comes to mind). I’m concerned by the influence of nominalism on much of Protestant thought, since it undermines the relationship between faith and reason. How can we dialogue effectively if those kinds of differences undergird our subconscious? Our principles often lead in very different directions because of that. However, this isn’t a blanket statement. Like I said, it depends on which strain and which individual we are talking with. It was actually reading an article authored by a Lutheran on the subject of contraception that crystallized and elucidated Church teaching for me. That kind of dialogue is fruitful.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

While there is obviously a “new” tenor to the way the Church interacts with non-Catholics, it seems to me that the use of words/phrases such as “proclaimed by the Holy See”, “judgment of Rome”, “conferral of those titles” overstates things. That 1983 document is not quite that authoritative.

I don’t see why we can’t have a both/and perspective here, instead of an either/or. Luther was wrong about some things and Catholics were wrong about some things. Luther was right about some things and Catholics were right about some things.

Even in the documents of the Council of Trent, this realization can be seen (even though words such as “Luther is right in that…” won’t be found).

Dan

Dan:

I confess that I am having trouble understanding.

In your position, you would, of course, receive the communiques from PCTL. When PCTL communicates, I presume and trust that your immediate response is to instantly comply. We would surely agree that no other response would be appropriate.

The issues you query me about have been run through PCPCU since 1983…and before. The response is that we are to have the orientation and the mind of PCPCU and, actually, that of ITC for these matters.

Would you not agree?

 

[Thomas_White]

There is no doubt. But still, many people misunderstand what the Church means by ‘certain judgement’. It is not a subjective reality ( which is the opposite of certitude). It is not a judgment that the person feels a level of certitude about, it is one that the objectively certain.

A prime example would be same sex marriage. A large number of people feel certain that such a state truly is marriage. But it is not objectively true. Any judgement in favor of same sex marriage would be, by definition, not a certain judgement. And thus there is no compulsion to obey it. And a Catholic would be on sound moral ground to use legal means to prevent the person from acting on such a judgement. Hence why the Church, including Pope Francis, have attempted to maintain laws against such actions.

It is complex. There is this by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) concerning anamensis:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

 

[TMC]

By “our,” I meant both Catholic and Lutheran. As far as what troubles me, it depends on the specific group. Amongst the more liberal groups, the sexual ethics are concerning, and amongst the more conservative groups, beliefs that the Eucharist isn’t a sacrifice is concerning (to name the first that comes to mind). I’m concerned by the influence of nominalism on much of Protestant thought, since it undermines the relationship between faith and reason. How can we dialogue effectively if those kinds of differences undergird our subconscious? Our principles often lead in very different directions because of that. However, this isn’t a blanket statement. Like I said, it depends on which strain and which individual we are talking with. It was actually reading an article authored by a Lutheran on the subject of contraception that crystallized and elucidated Church teaching for me. That kind of dialogue is fruitful.

I am not sure I believe that our principles lead in such different directions. But even if they did, how do we even discuss those issues in an atmosphere of hostility that begins with calling Luther a heretic? We can build on commonalities and see where that gets us. So many on this forum seem to want to attack and name call, instead of working together in a Christian manner. I don’t see that behavior in the real world, BTW, thanks be.

 

[billy15]

What is this “atmosphere of hostility”? I ask seriously. This isn’t the first time you’ve accused people on this forum of doing so. I can’t speak for other people on other threads, but where have you seen hatred, venom, or hostility on this thread. Quote a section of you must, but I see none. The word “heretic” seems to have a dirty connotation to many people’s ears today, but the word isn’t hostile in itself, and I don’t understand why we have to tiptoe around and not say this word. Popes have used this word for centuries, from Leo X all the way up to popes in the 20th and 21st centuries. Here is the definition of heresy from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; "

This is pretty straightforward. Where is the hostility? I, for one, used the word “heretic” in its proper context. I shouldn’t have to break it down, but I will for clarity’s sake.

1. Martin Luther denied the authority of the papacy, denied certain books of Holy Scripture were divinely inspired, did not believe that good works along with faith and God’s grace saves us, and also denied other Church teachings.
2. The above examples that Luther denied are truths which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
3. Luther obstinately denied these truths of the Church following his baptism, nor did he have faith in these teachings.
4. Therefore, by definition, the denial of these truths made Luther guilty of heresy, and in fact, a heretic for denying these divinely revealed truths.

No hostility there. Just facts. Because he’s been called a heretic doesn’t mean he’s being insulted. If you read the last paragraph I quoted if Leo X’s bull, you’ll see that he is in complete harmony with what Pope Francis is doing; extending the olive branch to dialogue and healing.

I don’t know what religion you are TMC, but there are important parts of the Christian faith that Luther denied. This is not negligible. It’s great that we can discuss commonalities and use that as a bridge… But we can’t stop there. Painful divisions separate us, and souls do hang in the balance. Both Lutherans and Catholics can theoretically be wrong in their theology, but both are not right. One of these faith traditions is a lie, and we all know how the “father of all lies” is.

We’ve been building on our commonalities a lot in the recent decades, and we can clearly see where that has gotten us… Presently, we are not in communion. We can’t gloss over the differences and focus only on the commonalities, and we can’t dwell only on the differences and forget we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. There has to be a middle ground that takes the differences and commonalities into account without ignoring either. Until Protestants come back into communion with the Catholic Church, all Catholics should rightly be pained and pray fervently for that reunion.

 

[TMC]

What is this “atmosphere of hostility”? I ask seriously. This isn’t the first time you’ve accused people on this forum of doing so. I can’t speak for other people on other threads, but where have you seen hatred, venom, or hostility on this thread. Quote a section of you must, but I see none. The word “heretic” seems to have a dirty connotation to many people’s ears today, but the word isn’t hostile in itself, and I don’t understand why we have to tiptoe around and not say this word. Popes have used this word for centuries, from Leo X all the way up to popes in the 20th and 21st centuries. Here is the definition of heresy from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; "

This is pretty straightforward. Where is the hostility? I, for one, used the word “heretic” in its proper context. I shouldn’t have to break it down, but I will for clarity’s sake.

1. Martin Luther denied the authority of the papacy, denied certain books of Holy Scripture were divinely inspired, did not believe that good works along with faith and God’s grace saves us, and also denied other Church teachings.
2. The above examples that Luther denied are truths which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
3. Luther obstinately denied these truths of the Church following his baptism, nor did he have faith in these teachings.
4. Therefore, by definition, the denial of these truths made Luther guilty of heresy, and in fact, a heretic for denying these divinely revealed truths.

No hostility there. Just facts. Because he’s been called a heretic doesn’t mean he’s being insulted. If you read the last paragraph I quoted if Leo X’s bull, you’ll see that he is in complete harmony with what Pope Francis is doing; extending the olive branch to dialogue and healing.

I don’t know what religion you are TMC, but there are important parts of the Christian faith that Luther denied. This is not negligible. It’s great that we can discuss commonalities and use that as a bridge… But we can’t stop there. Painful divisions separate us, and souls do hang in the balance. Both Lutherans and Catholics can theoretically be wrong in their theology, but both are not right. One of these faith traditions is a lie, and we all know how the “father of all lies” is.

We’ve been building on our commonalities a lot in the recent decades, and we can clearly see where that has gotten us… Presently, we are not in communion. We can’t gloss over the differences and focus only on the commonalities, and we can’t dwell only on the differences and forget we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. There has to be a middle ground that takes the differences and commonalities into account without ignoring either. Until Protestants come back into communion with the Catholic Church, all Catholics should rightly be pained and pray fervently for that reunion.

I was referring to many threads discussing Luther on this forum, not just this one. But this post is not a bad example. You repeatedly called Luther a heretic and suggest he is in league with Satan (the father of lies). Then you say with a straight face that is not meant as an insult. Of course the clear implication is that those that follow the heretic who is supposedly working with (or inspired by) Satan are also heretics that are (knowingly or not) working for Satan. Hard to build unity on that foundation.

The Pope and the Church are seeking to build something positive with the Lutherans, and the reaction of some here is decidedly hostile to the Pope’s efforts. That leads me to wonder why?

 

[Convert_in_99]

I was referring to many threads discussing Luther on this forum, not just this one. But this post is not a bad example. You repeatedly called Luther a heretic and suggest he is in league with Satan (the father of lies). Then you say with a straight face that is not meant as an insult. Of course the clear implication is that those that follow the heretic who is supposedly working with (or inspired by) Satan are also heretics that are (knowingly or not) working for Satan. Hard to build unity on that foundation.

The Pope and the Church are seeking to build something positive with the Lutherans, and the reaction of some here is decidedly hostile to the Pope’s efforts. That leads me to wonder why?

 

[billy15]

I was referring to many threads discussing Luther on this forum, not just this one. But this post is not a bad example. You repeatedly called Luther a heretic and suggest he is in league with Satan (the father of lies). Then you say with a straight face that is not meant as an insult. Of course the clear implication is that those that follow the heretic who is supposedly working with (or inspired by) Satan are also heretics that are (knowingly or not) working for Satan. Hard to build unity on that foundation.

The Pope and the Church are seeking to build something positive with the Lutherans, and the reaction of some here is decidedly hostile to the Pope’s efforts. That leads me to wonder why?

You keep throwing that word around, “hostile” and I’m doing nothing if the sort, honestly. I would hope you wouldn’t take offense to Christ’s words in the Gospels, or Paul’s words in his letters. Jesus said its better that a person tie around a millstone around his neck and jump in a lake than to lead others astray from Him. That sounds pretty harsh… But if we believe that Christ founded one Church, then we can’t say that all Christain churches share the fullness of that truth.

I’ve talked with several Lutherans and Protestants about our differences and commonalities, and it’s always cordial. Pope Francis is doing some great work in reaching out to our Protestaht brethren. But differences remain. Like I said, in this case either the Catholics are right or the Lutherans are. True unity comes from realizing our errors and reconciling. If the Catholic Church is wrong, I would want to know! I’d renounce it and enter into full communion with the slither and if that’s the case! Jesus is the Truth the Way and the Life. Not plural. I won’t buy into any “I’ll follow my own path to God, and you follow yours” stuff. There’s only one Gospel; any deviation from it is a lie. That’s not an insult, just the truth. If my Catholic Faith is wrong, then I’d want to be told and convinced so I could be in full communion with Christ again.

Obviously, I believe the Church to be true. I had a great conversation at my house over three days with a Jehovah’s Witness couple. At the end of our cordial discussion, we agreed that one of us was wrong (or both). Both our interpretations of the Gospel could not and are not correct. But we both left with great respect for each other. We were both uncompromising in what was true.

When you said that the foundation that I was starting from was that non-Catholic Christains were (knowingly or unknowingly) working for Satan, all j could do was shake my head. That is NOT the foundation I’m working from, and you’ve characterized me unfairly and erroneously. The foundation I start from is our common baptism, and with JWs, the foundation is our mutual love for God. Another mistake you made is you calling all present day Lutherans heretics. I don’t believe that at all. A heretic has to first be Catholic. All these descendants never made a post-baptismal denial because they weeny baptized Catholic!

Furthermore, they’re culpability may be diminished as pointed out in Lumen Genitumftom the Vatican 2. I’m not condemning anybody because im not God, I can only entrust those outside of the Church to God’s mercy with my prayers, and on my part, continue to dialogue. But in that dialogue, I will speak the hard truths and not compromise in my belief that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus. I’m with Him. We were warned not to follow different Gospels from Paul. I will follow the Gospel that has the fullness of the Truth, and I can only pray that all come into full communion with they body of Christ…

 

[TMC]

You keep throwing that word around, “hostile” and I’m doing nothing if the sort, honestly. I would hope you wouldn’t take offense to Christ’s words in the Gospels, or Paul’s words in his letters. Jesus said its better that a person tie around a millstone around his neck and jump in a lake than to lead others astray from Him. That sounds pretty harsh… But if we believe that Christ founded one Church, then we can’t say that all Christain churches share the fullness of that truth.

I’ve talked with several Lutherans and Protestants about our differences and commonalities, and it’s always cordial. Pope Francis is doing some great work in reaching out to our Protestaht brethren. But differences remain. Like I said, in this case either the Catholics are right or the Lutherans are. True unity comes from realizing our errors and reconciling. If the Catholic Church is wrong, I would want to know! I’d renounce it and enter into full communion with the slither and if that’s the case! Jesus is the Truth the Way and the Life. Not plural. I won’t buy into any “I’ll follow my own path to God, and you follow yours” stuff. There’s only one Gospel; any deviation from it is a lie. That’s not an insult, just the truth. If my Catholic Faith is wrong, then I’d want to be told and convinced so I could be in full communion with Christ again.

Obviously, I believe the Church to be true. I had a great conversation at my house over three days with a Jehovah’s Witness couple. At the end of our cordial discussion, we agreed that one of us was wrong (or both). Both our interpretations of the Gospel could not and are not correct. But we both left with great respect for each other. We were both uncompromising in what was true.

When you said that the foundation that I was starting from was that non-Catholic Christains were (knowingly or unknowingly) working for Satan, all j could do was shake my head. That is NOT the foundation I’m working from, and you’ve characterized me unfairly and erroneously. The foundation I start from is our common baptism, and with JWs, the foundation is our mutual love for God. Another mistake you made is you calling all present day Lutherans heretics. I don’t believe that at all. A heretic has to first be Catholic. All these descendants never made a post-baptismal denial because they weeny baptized Catholic!

Furthermore, they’re culpability may be diminished as pointed out in Lumen Genitumftom the Vatican 2. I’m not condemning anybody because im not God, I can only entrust those outside of the Church to God’s mercy with my prayers, and on my part, continue to dialogue. But in that dialogue, I will speak the hard truths and not compromise in my belief that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus. I’m with Him. We were warned not to follow different Gospels from Paul. I will follow the Gospel that has the fullness of the Truth, and I can only pray that all come into full communion with they body of Christ…

How can you call someone a heretic and suggest they are working with Satan and not call that hostile? is that not condemning language? I can tell you a charge of heresy is not generally received positively. You now say you did not try to connect Luther with Satan, but that is exactly what you did. You said that Lutheranism was based on lies, and said we should remember who is the father of lies. What else does that mean? Perhaps you now regret doing so, but those were your words, not mine.

Now you seem to be retreating to a more ecumenical position, in part by invoking the teachings and statements of the Church, but it is the Church that is seeking closer relations with Lutherans (which has been criticized in this thread and elsewhere). It is also the Church that has named Luther “Witness of Jesus Christ.” Do you think the Pope has forgotten the “hard truths,” as you put it?

At the end of the day, we can focus on negativity, differences, and 500 year old grievances. Or we can do what the Pope is doing and focus on commonalities and working together. My point is that we should join the Pope in doing the second, and let the first go.