Ecemunical Council

[benjamindt]

what Cardinal Marx or Kasper represent.

I’m honestly not up on the latest news apparently. What (using bullet points if possible) is it that these Cardinals represent that you don’t relate to?

 

[FollowChrist34]

I’m honestly not up on the latest news apparently. What (using bullet points if possible) is it that these Cardinals represent that you don’t relate to?

As synod council meets, ‘shadow council’ pushes acceptance of gay unions

One person who took part in the discussion stressed to CNA May 26 that “the tune was that of a pastoral opening on issues such as communion for the divorced and remarried, and the pastoral care of homosexuals.”

catholicnewsagency.com/news/bishops-synod-ponders-reform-of-rules-as-secretive-meeting-eyes-reform-of-pastoral-care-35545/

‘Flawed, Inadequate’: Synod Bishops Skewer Working Document

The document — officially called an instrumentum laboris — also fell short, “especially in its theology, clarity, trust in the power of grace, its use of Scripture and its tendency to see the world through overwhelmingly Western eyes,” the bishops said Friday.

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/flawed-inadequate-synod-bishops-skewer-working-document/#ixzz3o769Kzx5

The Rigging of a Vatican Synod?

In a television interview on October 16 with Catholic News Service, Cardinal Pell said the document was “tendentious, skewed, it didn’t represent accurately the feelings of the synod fathers.” He said “three-quarters” of those who discussed it afterward “had some problems with the document”. He added that “a major absence” in the document was scriptural teaching and “a treatment of the Church tradition”.

“It was as though there was an idealized vision of every imperfect situation”, Cardinal Pell said. “One father said to me…that he wouldn’t want his young adult children to read it because they’d be confused, and that was said in some of the working groups.”

The interim report “created an impression that the teaching of the Church has been merciless so far, as if the teaching of mercy were beginning only now”, said Polish Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki of Poznan.

catholicworldreport.com/Item/4131/the_rigging_of_a_vatican_synod.aspx

How about bulletin quotes?

Of course all of this is totally “google-able” and off topic…

 

[FollowChrist34]

what does it matter how much we have in common? Does it mean that we decide to not preach the truth to those who are closer to us because they’ll be fine since they’re almost there? Does it mean we pretend that someone who comes to the catholic forum and has this level of access to knowledge of the one true faith but continues to reject it is somehow excused for his or her rejection of the Church because they’re “close enough” or they were “born into it”?

I don’t think the “born into it” would’ve saved Saul of Tarsus. I don’t EVER remember Christ telling others to continue on with whatever they feel more comfortable with. I don’t remember Christ saying “if you go to a town and they reject you, they are saved because they didn’t reject you 100%”

I just don’t understand the point to all this, if the goal is not to teach and bring about the conversion of all non-catholics. (obviously i mean them converting, not us converting them)

What is the point of putting doctrine/dogma on the table as if we’re willing to discuss it and change it if it will only fill a few more seats on Sundays.

Shouldn’t any EC be about the differences between the churches and why it is wrong to continue teaching false doctrines and why they are false doctrines?

If you grow up baptist and you submerge yourself in a catholic forum and you read all the information and listen to all the arguments and you still reject the catholic church, what good is an EC?

I don’t want to get overly personal - but are you a convert by chance? (my guess is yes)

My answer to this: I think you are assuming too much on behalf of man and not giving God enough room to do his job. Yes he wants us to evangelize but not with lack of charity or presumption that we know the fate of all non-Catholics and nonChristians - if we do that we fall into error. Back to your Baptist above, the Catholic Church teaches that he is in imperfect communion with you; he is not damned. God will save him or he won’t. God will save you or he won’t. It’s God’s Church, not yours. If you want to attract people to the fullness of the Catholic Church, reflect its truth and charity, be a witness of light not a scourge of darkness.

 

[JonNC]

Precisely the point where I bow out and leave it to the Holy Spirit. No one comes to know God without the work of the Holy Spirit. We will never know who will be saved and who won’t, within the Catholic Church or without it.

To deny this is to reject Catholic teaching.

I agree that the Catholic Church is the true fullness of the Christian faith. I allow that Christians not in full communion and even nonChristians can be saved by the grace of God.

I have more in common with a “traditional” Protestant or Orthodox who opposes abortion, SSM, the HHS mandate, secular ideology (speaking generally in modern, practical terms) than I do with what Cardinal Marx or Kasper represent. (or Episcopalians, ELCA, non-denominational Evangelicals, some denominational Evangelicals)

There are many orthodox confessional Lutherans, and I suspect Anglicans, who feel exactly the same in reverse. In the ways you mentioned, I have far more in common with the Catholic Church than I do the ELCA or TEC.

Jon

 

[benjamindt]

How about bulletin quotes?

Of course all of this is totally “google-able” and off topic…

those are quite amazing. I’m always shocked when “catholics” can push such an obvious anti-christian agenda. very sad.

 

[benjamindt]

I don’t want to get overly personal - but are you a convert by chance? (my guess is yes)

My answer to this: I think you are assuming too much on behalf of man and not giving God enough room to do his job. Yes he wants us to evangelize but not with lack of charity or presumption that we know the fate of all non-Catholics and nonChristians - if we do that we fall into error. Back to your Baptist above, the Catholic Church teaches that he is in imperfect communion with you; he is not damned. God will save him or he won’t. God will save you or he won’t. It’s God’s Church, not yours. If you want to attract people to the fullness of the Catholic Church, reflect its truth and charity, be a witness of light not a scourge of darkness.

no, cradle catholic.

I understand what you’re saying, but what you are saying (i agree with) and what some seem to be wanting to see in an EC are not on the same plane. I’ve never thought it was “my” church, never attempted to usurp God’s abilities in any way. I’m not condemning anyone nor do i think i could even have a glimmer of understanding of the heart of any man, even myself. I don’t think it’s lacking charity to acknowledge the truth of our teachings and their unchangeability.

I think you’re making too many assumptions about what I may or may not be assuming. lol.

I worry that too many people want to attract others to the church by watering down the teachings or trying to gloss over them and obfuscate the truth. I don’t see an issue with charity and kindness and acknowledging the intentions of non-catholics. I only have an issue with anyone of any world view who thinks the direction we shuold go is toward a blending of doctrine/dogma, in other words, i totally reject the sacrifice of truth for the sake of a false “unity”

 

[Topper17]

Hi Stars,

Thanks for your response.

It’s not a revolt if your kicked out and then killed for your faith , and no the reformation NEVER wanted to destroy the church ( let’s please try to stay on topic )

I doubt if you are suggesting that Luther should not have been excommunicated. After all, the Church bent over backwards to work with him. However, it was not going to have more than 4 dozen of it’s doctrines challenged, rejected or denigrated. Historically, there has always been a consequence for that kind of doctrinal Rebellion. In reality, Luther excommunicated himself.

Anyway, how would one go about keeping modernists from infecting a council .
Keep the faith Topper, Starwars

Are you speaking of the kind of modernists who accept LGBT and women as clergy?

If you really want to keep ‘modernists’ out of our hypothetical council, then you would have to keep out those denominations which have slid too far in terms of Christian morals and doctrine.

By the way, notifying the CA team about their mistake

Good. I’ll await your report on their response.

God Bless You Stars, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi benj,

As I said before, this is no longer a thread about how to bring unity to Christians through the dissemination and teaching of truly Christian doctrine/dogma. This is a thread meant to overturn Catholic dogma and doctrine in order to make Christianity more inviting to non-Catholics, by serving up Truth in a buffet and telling everyone:

“It’s okay to just have some of it and reject the rest. You’re fine as long as you worship God. In fact, let’s just say Christianity is whatever makes you feel good and all the rest is relative nonsense. My my, what delicious reform this is.”

That effort to overturn Catholic dogma and doctrine occurs both inside and outside the Church. it seems to me that the goal of this effort is to reduce Christianity down to some kind of a lowest common denominator kind of faith.

We Catholics have a greater number of things which we hold to be true than do the vast majority of Protestants, (with the Sacraments as an example). Thus, in the interest of Christian Unity, or so it seems some believe, WE should ‘pare down’ OUR faith so as to make it more attractive to those who have a ‘reduced belief system’.

I think that this expectation that we should reduce our Christian Faith would be a huge barrier to a successful Ecumenical Council.

So many of our Protestant brethren won’t even commune or share an alter with those who bear the same name that they do. How in the world are they supposed to come to an Ecumenical Council and meet with the whole of Christianity?

God Bless You benj, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Hi benj,

That effort to overturn Catholic dogma and doctrine occurs both inside and outside the Church. it seems to me that the goal of this effort is to reduce Christianity down to some kind of a lowest common denominator kind of faith.

We Catholics have a greater number of things which we hold to be true than do the vast majority of Protestants, (with the Sacraments as an example). Thus, in the interest of Christian Unity, or so it seems some believe, WE should ‘pare down’ OUR faith so as to make it more attractive to those who have a ‘reduced belief system’.

Who these things. In fact, earlier in this thread, Benj made a similar claim which I disputed. Further, it is the Catholics here that say over and over the doctrine cannot change, that the CC cannot change.
One the one hand, non Catholics are often accused of being relativist, while on the other, accused of insisting others must change.
As is usually the case, it better to let others tell us what they believe, than speak for them.

I think that this expectation that we should reduce our Christian Faith would be a huge barrier to a successful Ecumenical Council.

Yet no one on this thread has made that expectation, except Benj.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

no, cradle catholic.

I understand what you’re saying, but what you are saying (i agree with) and what some seem to be wanting to see in an EC are not on the same plane. I’ve never thought it was “my” church, never attempted to usurp God’s abilities in any way. I’m not condemning anyone nor do i think i could even have a glimmer of understanding of the heart of any man, even myself. I don’t think it’s lacking charity to acknowledge the truth of our teachings and their unchangeability.

I think you’re making too many assumptions about what I may or may not be assuming. lol.

I worry that too many people want to attract others to the church by watering down the teachings or trying to gloss over them and obfuscate the truth. I don’t see an issue with charity and kindness and acknowledging the intentions of non-catholics. I only have an issue with anyone of any world view who thinks the direction we shuold go is toward a blending of doctrine/dogma, in other words, i totally reject the sacrifice of truth for the sake of a false “unity”

Mary.

 

[Topper17]

That wasn’t the question. I know that the CC labels certain beliefs often labeled as protestant as heresy. My question is, am I, ma baptized christian who has never been in communion with the Bishop of Rome, a heretic?

My response was extremely clear Jon. Protestantism is a heresy and in fact, this fact is supported by the identification of Protestantism as a heresy by an official Catholic Answers tract. I posted the actual text of the CA tract, and did so to get your reaction. Here it is again and I would like to get your reaction to the actual text:

The Great Heresies

…………let’s look at some of the major heresies of Church history and when they began.

“Protestantism (16th Century)

Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide (“by faith alone”— the idea that we are justified by faith only).

The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church “against” the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture.

The doctrine of private judgment has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to The Christian Sourcebook, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004”

This tract points directly to Luther’s doctrine of private judgment as being responsible for the massive doctrinal confusion and disagreement that we find in the “20-30,000” denominations. What do you say about the actual text of this CA tract?

It seems to me that the ONLY way that there could ever be a ‘successful’ Ecumenical Council would be if all of those tens of thousands of competing and conflicting denominations would pledge to give up their supposed ‘right’ to their individual and denominational interpretations, and pledge that they would abide by the doctrinal decisions of the whole council as being led by the Holy Spirit.

Do you think that your Lutheran communion would sign on for such a Council and let the Holy Spirit speak though that Council?

I’m not convinced, when I see posting such as the two that sparked my response, that there is indeed, truly, any humility from your side of the Tiber. Is our friend correct when he labels us apostate? Was the other poster right in claiming that** protestants**, not protestantism, are heretics?

You seemed to come immediately to their defense. What say you? Am I apostate, or a heretic, or neither?

As my response, I think that we could turn here to my favorite Protestant Historian and Theologian – Alister McGrath, from his book “Heresy, A History of Defending the Truth”
**
“As we noted earlier, Protestantism was rapidly branded as a heresy by the Catholic Church. Protestants responded with indignation, retorting that they had recovered orthodoxy from its medieval distoritions. What was Protestantism if not the recovery of the orthodox faith of the early church? **Yet Catholics had little difficulty in arguing that, while Protestantism might be perfectly capable of recovering earlier biblical interpretations, it lacked the means to determine whether what it had retrieved was orthodox or heterodox. And lacking any such capacity to discriminate such interpretations, Protestant were obliged to repeat the judgments of the Catholic Church on these matters. In turn, Protestants argued that, since they were committed to restoring the authentic teaching of the early church, this naturally extended to the church’s views on orthodoxy and heresy…….The problem is that ‘heresy’ is ultimately a teaching judged unacceptable by the entire church.” McGrath, “Heresy”, pg. 213-5

This is of course, from the perspective of a Protestant.

The problem is that the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations ALL believe that they are the ones who ‘do Christianity’ better than all the rest, including of course, what is correctly to be determined as ‘orthodox’ and ‘heterodox’. They ALL believe that they are the ones who have avoided heretical beliefs, and yet they all disagree doctrinally. This problem is the result of the heresy of Private Judgment and Sola Scriptura, which are two of the foundational principals of Protestantism. Once you start with something that flawed, it is absolutely certain that you are going to end up with a faulty theology. Furthermore, the only way that you can criticize the theology of others is to rely on the false doctrines of Private Judgment and Sola Scriptura.

 

[Duane1966]

Since we are talking about an ecemunical council, it does not matter who comes, and what they say, will not affect Catholicism one bit. Now if we were talking about an ecumenical council…

 

[JonNC]

My response was extremely clear Jon. Protestantism is a heresy and in fact, this fact is supported by the identification of Protestantism as a heresy by an official Catholic Answers tract. I posted the actual text of the CA tract, and did so to get your reaction. Here it is again and I would like to get your reaction to the actual text:

The Great Heresies

…………let’s look at some of the major heresies of Church history and when they began.

“Protestantism (16th Century)

Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide (“by faith alone”— the idea that we are justified by faith only).

The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church “against” the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture.

The doctrine of private judgment has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to The Christian Sourcebook, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004”

This tract points directly to Luther’s doctrine of private judgment as being responsible for the massive doctrinal confusion and disagreement that we find in the “20-30,000” denominations. What do you say about the actual text of this CA tract?

It seems to me that the ONLY way that there could ever be a ‘successful’ Ecumenical Council would be if all of those tens of thousands of competing and conflicting denominations would pledge to give up their supposed ‘right’ to their individual and denominational interpretations, and pledge that they would abide by the doctrinal decisions of the whole council as being led by the Holy Spirit.

Do you think that your Lutheran communion would sign on for such a Council and let the Holy Spirit speak though that Council?

As my response, I think that we could turn here to my favorite Protestant Historian and Theologian – Alister McGrath, from his book “Heresy, A History of Defending the Truth”
**
“As we noted earlier, Protestantism was rapidly branded as a heresy by the Catholic Church. Protestants responded with indignation, retorting that they had recovered orthodoxy from its medieval distoritions. What was Protestantism if not the recovery of the orthodox faith of the early church? **Yet Catholics had little difficulty in arguing that, while Protestantism might be perfectly capable of recovering earlier biblical interpretations, it lacked the means to determine whether what it had retrieved was orthodox or heterodox. And lacking any such capacity to discriminate such interpretations, Protestant were obliged to repeat the judgments of the Catholic Church on these matters. In turn, Protestants argued that, since they were committed to restoring the authentic teaching of the early church, this naturally extended to the church’s views on orthodoxy and heresy…….The problem is that ‘heresy’ is ultimately a teaching judged unacceptable by the entire church.” McGrath, “Heresy”, pg. 213-5

This is of course, from the perspective of a Protestant.

The problem is that the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations ALL believe that they are the ones who ‘do Christianity’ better than all the rest, including of course, what is correctly to be determined as ‘orthodox’ and ‘heterodox’. They ALL believe that they are the ones who have avoided heretical beliefs, and yet they all disagree doctrinally. This problem is the result of the heresy of Private Judgment and Sola Scriptura, which are two of the foundational principals of Protestantism. Once you start with something that flawed, it is absolutely certain that you are going to end up with a faulty theology. Furthermore, the only way that you can criticize the theology of others is to rely on the false doctrines of Private Judgment and Sola Scriptura.

Yes. I’ve read your quotes before, but my question was not about Protestantism, it was about the individual Protestant; me for example. I have been accused here of being a heretic and apostate. According to your communion’s teaching, knowing that I heave never been in communion with the Bishop of Rome, that I am baptized, which am I ?

I invite any learned Catholic can answer this.

Jon

 

[benjamindt]

Yes. I’ve read your quotes before, but my question was not about Protestantism, it was about the individual Protestant; me for example. I have been accused here of being a heretic and apostate. According to your communion’s teaching, knowing that I heave never been in communion with the Bishop of Rome, that I am baptized, which am I ?

I invite any learned Catholic can answer this.

Jon

what do you think is the definition of a heretic? From what I understand, heresy is a belief or opinion that is contrary to orthodox religious doctrine. Now, in relationship to your church, perhaps you do not have this issue, but with the Catholic Church, you obviously do not hold all the opinions and beliefs of the Church, otherwise you wouldn’t be Lutheran.

I can see how apostate might be a far stretch, because you clearly do not deny your own church teachings (i assume), but in regards to the Catholic Church, you do reject their claims in general do you not? Or at least a good majority of them?

I have been called a heretic many times by protestants in my life and as i understood them, i embraced that because i did in fact, reject and hold many a contrary belief/opinion in regards to their “doctrine”

Only God knows your heart. The only thing that matters, dear Jon, is that if you are continually presented with the Truth and that you truly love the Truth you will find your way to it, and the Catholic Church will rejoice if you ever come to the decision and desire to join us in the only Church that has the fullness of Christ.

 

[exnihilo]

Yes. I’ve read your quotes before, but my question was not about Protestantism, it was about the individual Protestant; me for example. I have been accused here of being a heretic and apostate. According to your communion’s teaching, knowing that I heave never been in communion with the Bishop of Rome, that I am baptized, which am I ?

You are most definitely not an apostate.

My understanding is that you would be a material heretic because you hold to beliefs contrary to the Faith. You would not be a formal heretic because you were never Catholic. Being a material heretic is not difficult. Many men are concerning their understanding of the Blessed Trinity. Modalism is a particularly popular and easy heresy to slip into. I of course am a former material heretic.

Being called a heretic is not very helpful of course. It might have been more powerful a charge in the past when the authority of the Church, even Protestant churches, was recognized. If you don’t recognize the authority of the Catholic Church then being called a heretic by a Catholic might not be too meaningful.

In my experience you are a very orthodox Christian. The only heretical beliefs would be regarding the authority of the Church and the Bishop of Rome. I’m not God of course, and would hope you’d be reconciled to the Church, but oh to have only heretics such as you!

 

[FollowChrist34]

There are many orthodox confessional Lutherans, and I suspect Anglicans, who feel exactly the same in reverse. In the ways you mentioned, I have far more in common with the Catholic Church than I do the ELCA or TEC.

Jon

Glad to hear. (I am just now reading all these posts, so I am little behind, almost afraid to keep going; I suspect this harmony will not be maintained .) Unlike others on the thread, I think this connection has significant value. We share the creed and the fundamentals of traditional, established Christian doctrine. As you point out, this is more than we share with other more “modern” Catholic Christians or other “modern” Christians. The Christ I worship will make of this what he will, but I think he knows us as his disciples. This is what I mean when I say that the Church is comprised of the sheep - disciples who are repentant sinners who accept Christ and follow his Word. However, I don’t claim to know whom Christ chooses to save.

 

[FollowChrist34]

no, cradle catholic.

I understand what you’re saying, but what you are saying (i agree with) and what some seem to be wanting to see in an EC are not on the same plane. I’ve never thought it was “my” church, never attempted to usurp God’s abilities in any way. I’m not condemning anyone nor do i think i could even have a glimmer of understanding of the heart of any man, even myself. I don’t think it’s lacking charity to acknowledge the truth of our teachings and their unchangeability.

I think you’re making too many assumptions about what I may or may not be assuming. lol.

I worry that too many people want to attract others to the church by watering down the teachings or trying to gloss over them and obfuscate the truth. I don’t see an issue with charity and kindness and acknowledging the intentions of non-catholics. I only have an issue with anyone of any world view who thinks the direction we shuold go is toward a blending of doctrine/dogma, in other words, i totally reject the sacrifice of truth for the sake of a false “unity”

Fair enough - apologies if I made too many assumptions. When I was a kid, my father once told me to watch out for Jehovah’s Witnesses who “witness” to you on the door step or street corner because if you reject the witness you are damned. (He didn’t believe it - he was saying that that is what they believe.) To this day, that rubs me the wrong way. So I associate “militant” proselytizing with hardcore (i.e. slightly nutty if I am honest) Protestantism. Going back to our wagons metaphor, I would put Christ’s wagon headed to Oregon and this proselytizing wagon headed to Mars (Protestant or Catholic variety).

The Pope’s take:
patheos.com/blogs/kathyschiffer/2013/10/proselytize-no-evangelize-yes-said-pope-francis/

The irony is I totally understand where you are coming from. You are worried about watering down doctrine. I am too. I think we are resisting the same thing - within and without the Church. What I am saying is that we have many Protestant and Orthodox allies in this cause, who are also passionately defending creed and traditional Christian doctrine. We are squabbling with these individuals in my mind often over theological issues and Church practices. Many are big, no doubt - real presence in the Eucharist, for example. But I do bow to the mystery of God’s work here - look at the Baptist Church who forgave that white supremacist mass killer. I don’t know if I could do that; I struggle to forgive those in my life who have done much less. Those Baptists have never taken a Eucharist and they don’t think the Pope is the vicar of Christ. I cannot stand here and say I don’t think they are Christians, when they demonstrated under those circumstances a gift of God’s grace that frankly exceeds mine. Just an example - this is why I step lightly here. (and no I am not thinking about becoming a Baptist and spending the next ten years telling Catholics they are in error and likely going to hell )

 

[Topper17]

Yes. I’ve read your quotes before, but my question was not about Protestantism, it was about the individual Protestant; me for example. I have been accused here of being a heretic and apostate. According to your communion’s teaching, knowing that I heave never been in communion with the Bishop of Rome, that I am baptized, which am I ?

I invite any learned Catholic can answer this.

I am happy that you have gotten an answer to your question:

**You are most definitely not an apostate.

My understanding is that you would be a material heretic because you hold to beliefs contrary to the Faith. You would not be a formal heretic because you were never Catholic. **

Please understand Jon that it is very common to be a material heretic and in fact I myself was one once.

Now that you have the answer you requested, I would still like to get your reaction to the CA tract which describes Protestantism as a heresy, and especially how this judgment as being a heresy would (or should) apply to Lutheranism overall.

 

[Peter_J]

But I do bow to the mystery of God’s work here - look at the Baptist Church who forgave that white supremacist mass killer. I don’t know if I could do that; I struggle to forgive those in my life who have done much less. Those Baptists have never taken a Eucharist and they don’t think the Pope is the vicar of Christ. I cannot stand here and say I don’t think they are Christians, when they demonstrated under those circumstances a gift of God’s grace that frankly exceeds mine.

You make a good point, and one that is badly needed.

Too many people (and I wish I could say it’s only on the internet but it isn’t) on both sides just don’t recognize that there can be good on the other side. It’s like something I remember from Scott and Kimberly Hahn’s book Rome Sweet Home: a Catholic friend of theirs, upon hearing about good aspects of some Protestant churches, replied scornfully “I think it is because they don’t have the Eucharist, so they have to fill their church with something else.”

 

[JonNC]

I am happy that you have gotten an answer to your question:

Please understand Jon that it is very common to be a material heretic and in fact I myself was one once.

Now that you have the answer you requested, I would still like to get your reaction to the CA tract which describes Protestantism as a heresy, and especially how this judgment as being a heresy would (or should) apply to Lutheranism overall.

My reaction is as it’s always been ( no, it is not news or new to me), ambivalence.

On the one hand, what the Catholic Church, or the Baptist or Methodist, etc think about what I as a Lutheran believe does not impact my faith. Sure, the words are offensive, but the harsh, offensive condemnations in both directions will no longer apply when reconciliation is achieved. That can’t be done by me, so I do not let it influence my interactions here. It does no good to go on polemical tirades about it.
On the other hand, it is bothersome because it is indicative of the division between us, which is opposed to Christ’s call.

Jon