Ecumenism with Lutherans

[spedteacherita]

Thank you, Father, for you wisdom and education here. I know that I should not be taking what is said to heart but remember that the heart of the Catholic Church is not to demean and divide its Protestant Christian brothers and sisters. I will remember what you have written here and not take the debates to heart.

My intent, and I know that the intent of other non-Catholics here is not to demean our Catholic brothers and sisters but to understand the beliefs and traditions have come about.

God bless you and thanks!

Rita

 

[NuclearReceptor]

It seems Lutherans (and evangelical Protestants) are not ready to give up on sola scriptura (and other differences).

Through dialog, we acknowledge history. We acknowledge differences. We acknowledge unity in Christ.

So what’s the next course of action for full Communion? How do we get over the differences on Tradition, tradition, priesthood, Mass as Sacrifice, Marian devotion, papal authority, etc?

Somewhere in human history, error was propagated and believed subsequently. How do we undo those errors?

It seems Lutherans are not ready to budge. And the Catholic Church cannot compromise on essentials.

Oh dear…

 

[JonNC]

It seems Lutherans are not ready to budge. And the Catholic Church cannot compromise on essentials.

Why would you then expect them to compromise? Compromise leads to a false unity built on sand.
Unity requires convergence

 

[NuclearReceptor]

Tradition, tradition, priesthood, Mass as Sacrifice, Marian devotion, and papal authority might be essential items that cannot be compromised. But Lutherans do not accept them. So we’re kind of stuck.

Question: What does it take for full Communion, the end goal of dialog?

 

[De_Maria]

I don’t. Our Popes do not preach ecumenism at the expense of Truth.

 

[niceatheist]

Don_Ruggero:

Now my question to you is: Are you, in fact, in complete submission to the authority of the hierarchy with regard to their authoritative declarations at and after Vatican II on how the Church proceeds on our relations with our sisters and brothers who are baptised into the one Body of Christ, but are non-Catholic? Or do you dissent from these? Because if you are in dissent, you are not a lay person I have any wish to have any contact with at all – rather your pastors, obviously, need to provide you with remedial catechesis

Martin Luther was a Catholic priest, not a mere layman, who refused to submit to the authority of the Church. His refusal resulted in the fracturing of Western Christianity. How can we be upset at mere lay Catholics who bristle at the celebration of a dissident who caused schism? How can we not want to dialog with them if we are at the same time celebrating Martin Luther?

Do you really think Martin Luther alone caused that schism? First of all, he wasn’t the first, and the Hussites and the entire Bohemian Reformation was a pretty clear signal to the Church that there was a serious problem in Central Europe, which the Church and secular authorities at the time responded to by basically executing or terrorizing anyone who stuck their head up. Then factor in the Church’s irritating a lot of German Princes by constantly meddling (as they saw it) in their affairs, and well, you have a situation where eventually something was going to happen. Luther’s 95 Theses is the proximal cause of the Reformation and schism with Rome, but it’s just the focal point. He, unlike Jan Hus or John Wycliffe, was in the right place at the right time.

 

[niceatheist]

Tradition, tradition, priesthood, Mass as Sacrifice, Marian devotion, and papal authority might be essential items that cannot be compromised. But Lutherans do not accept them. So we’re kind of stuck.

Question: What does it take for full Communion, the end goal of dialog?

I don’t think anyone on either side of the Ecumenical movement believes there is an end goal as such. Obviously full communion is a lovely idea, but if even the Catholic and Orthodox churches can’t get there, then imagining Lutherans and Catholics reuniting, when both sides have some pretty core bedrock differences, seems impossible.

I think the value of Ecumenical movement is in the talking, even if all the differences never get bridged. Two parties can move closer together, even if they never quite meet. It’s certainly better than what I’m seeing here, with one side condemning the other as schismatic heretics, which sounds as absurd as some Protestants shaking their fists at the “whore of Babylon” and talking about Papist plots.

 

[De_Maria]

Thus Pope Benedict expresses the mind and attitude of Rome today – not what I have read in many of the posts on this thread

I don’t see anything there about setting truth aside, do you?

 

[De_Maria]

JonNC:

Come around to what?..still wrong.

Are you implying that LCMS numbers are insignificant?

They oppose the JDDJ on theological grounds, grounds I disagreed with when I was a member. But the LCMS is much smaller than the ELCA, and the ILC is much smaller than the LWF.
(I assume you’ve heard of these organizations. ). Regardless, your statement is incorrect.

Are you implying that LCMS numbers are insignificant?

Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod - Wikipedia
Wikipedia › wiki
The LCMS has congregations in all 50 U.S. states and two Canadian provinces, but over half of its members are located in the Midwest. It is a member of the International Lutheran Council and is in altar and pulpit fellowship with most of that group’s members.
Members: 2,060,514 baptized; 1,609,100 confirmed
Congregations: 6,101
Origin: April 26, 1847; Chicago, Illinois
Founder: C. F. W. Walther
[

 

[exnihilo]

Do you really think Martin Luther alone caused that schism? First of all, he wasn’t the first, and the Hussites and the entire Bohemian Reformation was a pretty clear signal to the Church that there was a serious problem in Central Europe, which the Church and secular authorities at the time responded to by basically executing or terrorizing anyone who stuck their head up. Then factor in the Church’s irritating a lot of German Princes by constantly meddling (as they saw it) in their affairs, and well, you have a situation where eventually something was going to happen. Luther’s 95 Theses is the proximal cause of the Reformation and schism with Rome, but it’s just the focal point. He, unlike Jan Hus or John Wycliffe, was in the right place at the right time.

Of course he didn’t cause the schism alone. But people even to this day identify him as their leader. Some even do so by using his name as part of their denomination name. There are still followers of Hus so he too is still a leader to many.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

Do you really think Martin Luther alone caused that schism? First of all, he wasn’t the first, and the Hussites and the entire Bohemian Reformation was a pretty clear signal to the Church that there was a serious problem in Central Europe, which the Church and secular authorities at the time responded to by basically executing or terrorizing anyone who stuck their head up. Then factor in the Church’s irritating a lot of German Princes by constantly meddling (as they saw it) in their affairs, and well, you have a situation where eventually something was going to happen. Luther’s 95 Theses is the proximal cause of the Reformation and schism with Rome, but it’s just the focal point. He, unlike Jan Hus or John Wycliffe, was in the right place at the right time.

Of course he didn’t cause the schism alone. But people even to this day identify him as their leader. Some even do so by using his name as part of their denomination name. There are still followers of Hus so he too is still a leader to many.

So then, let’s take a step back. The Church had plenty of warnings that there was a crisis in Central Europe, and surely must have known there were restive German princes as well. I’d say the Reformation, or something like it, was inevitable. Factor in some pretty legitimate complaints about the Church’s moral stature at the time, and if not Luther, then someone else.

 

[JonNC]

Tradition, tradition, priesthood, Mass as Sacrifice, Marian devotion, and papal authority might be essential items that cannot be compromised. But Lutherans do not accept them. So we’re kind of stuck.

Question: What does it take for full Communion, the end goal of dialog?

Compromise doesn’t work. I already said that. It would be up to the leadership to determine when convergence is achieved.

 

[niceatheist]

NuclearReceptor:

Tradition, tradition, priesthood, Mass as Sacrifice, Marian devotion, and papal authority might be essential items that cannot be compromised. But Lutherans do not accept them. So we’re kind of stuck.

Question: What does it take for full Communion, the end goal of dialog?

Compromise doesn’t work. I already said that. It would be up to the leadership to determine when convergence is achieved.

What if the goal were more limited? What if it wasn’t compromise or a reuniting of some disparate elements of Christianity? What if the journey was more important than the destination, and creating a dialogue to try end the five centuries of bitterness, name-calling and rancor that has so often been the fruits of the split were a worthy enough goal, even if Lutherans and Catholics never end up in full communion?

 

[exnihilo]

So then, let’s take a step back. The Church had plenty of warnings that there was a crisis in Central Europe, and surely must have known there were restive German princes as well. I’d say the Reformation, or something like it, was inevitable. Factor in some pretty legitimate complaints about the Church’s moral stature at the time, and if not Luther, then someone else.

That is a counterfactual. It may have occurred, but what did occur was led by Luther and a few others. Had Luther himself repented at some point maybe the split wouldn’t have happened. But again, we don’t know. We only know what did happen.

 

[De_Maria]

It is written:
Matthew 18:7New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

7 [a]Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!

 

[De_Maria]

Thats the way I see it. Again, it is written:
Mark 9:40New International Version (NIV)

40 for whoever is not against us is for us.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

So then, let’s take a step back. The Church had plenty of warnings that there was a crisis in Central Europe, and surely must have known there were restive German princes as well. I’d say the Reformation, or something like it, was inevitable. Factor in some pretty legitimate complaints about the Church’s moral stature at the time, and if not Luther, then someone else.

That is a counterfactual. It may have occurred, but what did occur was led by Luther and a few others. Had Luther himself repented at some point maybe the split wouldn’t have happened. But again, we don’t know. We only know what did happen.

All I’m saying is that there had been reform movements prior to The Reformation, and most certainly that there is a bit of a history of hard feelings between the Church and some rulers (ie. Henry II’s (in)famous “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?”, or the more apt Investiture Controversy).

Since Luther wasn’t the first to promote at least some Reformist ideals, he wasn’t going to be the last, and considering that it was pretty obvious from the swift response of some German princes to the Reformation was to immediately declare themselves Protestants and sever their ties with Rome, I’d suggest there’s at least some evidence there that things weren’t all roses in Central and Northern Europe as far as the Church’s relationship with some German rulers.

 

[PickyPicky]

And then you might just hope to reach one day between some of the ecumenical partners something like the Bonn Agreement between Anglicans and Old Catholics:

1. Each communion recognizes the catholicity and independence of the other and maintains its own.

2. Each communion agrees to admit members of the other communion to participate in the sacraments.

3. Full communion does not require from either communion the acceptance of all doctrinal opinion, sacramental devotion or liturgical practice characteristic of the other, but implies that each believes the other to hold all the essentials of the Christian faith.

 

[niceatheist]

And then you might just hope to reach one day between some of the ecumenical partners something like the Bonn Agreement between Anglicans and Old Catholics:

1. Each communion recognizes the catholicity and independence of the other and maintains its own.

2. Each communion agrees to admit members of the other communion to participate in the sacraments.

3. Full communion does not require from either communion the acceptance of all doctrinal opinion, sacramental devotion or liturgical practice characteristic of the other, but implies that each believes the other to hold all the essentials of the Christian faith.

So something akin to the detente between the Catholic and Orthodox churches then? That is interesting, and seems a laudable, and more importantly, reachable goal

 

[JonNC]

Are you implying that LCMS numbers are insignificant?

I’m not implying anything. I’m saying that you are factually wrong when you wrote; _From all I’ve read, the vast majority of Lutherans reject the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue. _. You used the term "vast majority ". The LWF is the largest body of groups calling themselves Lutheran. You are factually wrong.

Then again, since 1999, the ELCA has continued to move away from orthodox Lutheran teaching, further away from Catholic teaching, particularly with active homosexuals in the priesthood, etc.