P
Peter_J
Guest
Would you *tell *them that your intention is to convert them?
- Status
J
johnnyc176
Guest
That is what I question. If my prayer life includes intercessory prayer to the saints and our Blessed Mother will I be able to call upon them at an inter faith prayer service?
A
ajaxbogs
Guest
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
You evade my question (as expected). I’m pretty sure the book in question is not a Vatican document. I ask for wine, and you give me water.
I CANNOT wrap my mind around the Trinity, but I accept it because the Church tells me it is so. I CAN wrap my mind around Arianism (a sort of anti-Trinity), but I reject it because the Church rejects it. My mental capacity (or lack thereof) really has nothing to do with it. I accept things I cannot understand, and I reject things that I can understand.
I will accept anything that the Catholic Church encourages me to accept. If you have SOMETHING (anything, please!) to that effect, please state it (and don’t tell me to go off and read 200 pages of some guy’s opinion, which is nothing but an evasive cop-out I am not intimated by the page count of some book by some guy). If you have something to offer, I expect that I ought to be able to read it on the Vatican’s website, so a link would be appreciated. Anything less is, well, less.
If the Church teaches or promotes something, it ought to be SOMEWHERE on the Vatican website. All I am asking for is a link. A simple link. That’s all. You give me that one simple link and I am on your side, all the way. I don’t think I’m asking for much, yet you decline to give me what I ask for. If a protestant came to me and said that he would convert if I could find something on the Vatican’s website about Eucharist, I could bury him in links. I’m just asking for one.
It’s really quite simple: I accept what the Church TELLS me to accept. When I say “Church,” I am not including a small minority of diverse and squabbling protestant denominations whose beliefs are scarcely more than a century old.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Interesting, but I have to wonder: if Lutherans were in fact going to “rejoin the church” (or however we might call it), then why Rome and not Constantinople?
G
Goya
Guest
Exactly right. Without authority, all we get is ‘whatever feels right’; aka protestantism. Even the ‘conservative’ sects of protestantism (e.g. Lutheran, or Episcopalian) yield to some kind of authority–albeit, authority that was derived from cherry picking by the founders of a given sect (e.g.–Martin Luther, or King Henry/the Trinity, the Bible, but not Apostolic succession).
That’s just NOT the church that Christ bequeathed to us.
Good question. It’s a question Lutherans ask when they do decide to move. Dr. Michael Root became Catholic, while Jaroslav Pelikan became Orthodox. My own sense is, on the one hand, we are Western Christians, while on the other hand we have concerns about the supremacy of the papacy.
Jon
Can’t speak for Anglicans, but for the well-catechized confessional Lutheran, it has nothing to do with “what feels right”. It has to do with doctrine. You may not like our doctrine, but it doesn’t have anything to do with what it feels like. You’re right, however, that we yield to authority - scripture and the confessions, and the leadership of our synod.
Exactly right. Without authority, all we get is ‘whatever feels right’; aka protestantism. Even the ‘conservative’ sects of protestantism (e.g. Lutheran, or Episcopalian) yield to some kind of authority–albeit, authority that was derived from cherry picking by the founders of a given sect (e.g.–Martin Luther, or King Henry/the Trinity, the Bible, but not Apostolic succession).
That’s just NOT the church that Christ bequeathed to us.
No cherry-picking, and no reliance on “feelings”.
As for Apostolic Succession, both Lutherans and Anglicans have it, the Vatican’s view of it notwithstanding.
Jon
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
The Great Schism (the leadership split between East and West) happened in 1054 - many centuries before the Protestant rebellion. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli were all Latin Catholics (Luther was an Augustinian priest).
Martin Luther was a Latin Catholic, and he had no formal relationship with any Eastern Church. Lutherans cannot “rejoin” a Church that their founder was never a member of.
But it is an interesting question - what if a Lutheran denomination wanted to unite with Catholicism, but only with Eastern Catholicism? They cannot really “rejoin” this Communion, though they could “join” it (and completely accept everything it teaches, rejecting Luther’s inventions).
I know who you are, and I know that you are more “Catholic” than many Catholics. You also represent the Faith that most Catholic Faith that many Catholics would consider to be protestant.
G
Goya
Guest
Luther did the cherry picking–according tho his feelings.
…and the ‘authority’ to which you refer (i.e.–scripture and confessions)–are themselves, subject to interpretation…and the ‘leadership synod’ conspicuously lacks apostolic succession–unless you count Luther, as an apostle.
A
ajaxbogs
Guest
What I addressed is (from previous posts) the insinuation that the Catholic Charismatic movement may be comprised of some “rogue” bishops, priests and laity. The book I referred to is not meant to be an official Vatican stance on the movement, but to show that the “head” bishops embrace and provide guidance to it. The book contains word for word documents spoken by the Holy Fathers (“water” in your words) to the international Catholic Charismatic community, not just some "opinions’ by the author. But I guess if you’re not willing to even glance at the book (even Google it) we have nothing to talk about.
Luther the man doesn’t determine Lutheranism, but I would say no more than others on both sides of the Tiber.=Goya;11717121]Luther did the cherry picking–according tho his feelings.
Actually, within Lutheranism, succession as in the bishopric laying on of hands does continue. And in some cases, just as has happened in the Catholic Church in the past, there has been presbyter laying on of hands. But in either case Apostolic Succession is more about teaching than hands, and we are solidly in line with the apostles.…and the ‘authority’ to which you refer (i.e.–scripture and confessions)–are themselves, subject to interpretation…and the ‘leadership synod’ conspicuously lacks apostolic succession–unless you count Luther, as an apostle.
In the realm of Ecumenism, ordination will not, I believe be a limiting issue, at least not for Lutherans.
Jon
P
Peter_J
Guest
Whoa, hold on. Does this mean that Luther isn’t to Lutheranism what the Pope is to Roman Catholicism? 
He would spin in his grave at the mere suggestion.Whoa, hold on. Does this mean that Luther isn’t to Lutheranism what the Pope is to Roman Catholicism?
Jon
G
Goya
Guest
No. Luther is to Lutheranism, as Jesus Christ is to Catholicism–it’s founder.Whoa, hold on. Does this mean that Luther isn’t to Lutheranism what the Pope is to Roman Catholicism?
G
Goya
Guest
JonNC;11718573]
What you’re talking about–or referring to–is spreading of the Gospel–not ‘Apostolic Succession’–but every protestant sect thinks they have it figured out ‘how the Apostles did it’–while they refuse to honor how the Apostles actually did it.
Of course not. He’s dead.
Not according to the Church Fathers. Sorry–not according to the Church Fathers of the Catholic Church–that is, the guys who actually succeeded the Apostles. (…I don’t know–nor do I care–about the ‘church fathers’ who succeeded Martin Luther).Actually, within Lutheranism, succession as in the bishopric laying on of hands does continue. And in some cases, just as has happened in the Catholic Church in the past, there has been presbyter laying on of hands. But in either case Apostolic Succession is more about teaching than hands, and we are solidly in line with the apostles.
What you’re talking about–or referring to–is spreading of the Gospel–not ‘Apostolic Succession’–but every protestant sect thinks they have it figured out ‘how the Apostles did it’–while they refuse to honor how the Apostles actually did it.
Just patently absurd.No. Luther is to Lutheranism, as Jesus Christ is to Catholicism–it’s founder.
Unless you can find a Lutheran who is at least catechized moderately well who would claim such tomfoolery, the charge is polemical nonsense.
Jon
Understood.
Nor would I expect you to.
What I’m talking about is apostolic teaching. As for succession, our confessions are clear in their support in it. And since this is about ecumenism, the Ecumenical dialogue between Catholic leaders and Lutheran leaders in America have some strong convergence on the topic.
nccbuscc.org/seia/koinonia.shtml
Jon
P
Peter_J
Guest
No. Luther is to Lutheranism, as Jesus Christ is to Catholicism–it’s founder.
Seriously, though, many of our fellow Catholics really do speak of Martin Luther as if he is infallible in the eyes of Lutherans. (I wonder how the world would be different if we each decided not to speak about things we are completely ignorant of?
)
G
Goya
Guest
Why would I need to find a Lutheran to claim such ‘tom-foolery’? It is what it is–Martin Luther founded Lutheranism. That Lutherans would never acknowledge it, is about as persuasive as Scientologists (what ever they call themselves) denynig that they are members of a cult.Just patently absurd.
Unless you can find a Lutheran who is at least catechized moderately well who would claim such tomfoolery, the charge is polemical nonsense.
Jon
- Status