Ecumenism with Lutherans

  • Thread starter Thread starter whyeyeman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes — would that be a real problem for RC and EO do you think, if they really wanted to get there?
 
De_Maria said:
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.
Click to expand...
Here is the context of that:

“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us.
 
JonNC said:
40.png
De_Maria:
Are you implying that LCMS numbers are insignificant?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Well, I did read it but I can’t find it so, I can’t prove it.
 
Full convergence/unity cannot be achieved until some pretty foundational aspects of faith are agreed upon.

There is disagreement because at some point, people introduced errors into the Church.

Those errors have become embedded in certain ecclesial communities.

Dialog thus far acknowledges our differences and commonalities.

Okay then. What’s the goal? Just to keep talking? That can’t be the goal.
 
NuclearReceptor said:
Full convergence/unity cannot be achieved until some pretty foundational aspects of faith are agreed upon.

There is disagreement because at some point, people introduced errors into the Church.

Those errors have become embedded in certain ecclesial communities.

Dialog thus far acknowledges our differences and commonalities.

Okay then. What’s the goal? Just to keep talking? That can’t be the goal.
Click to expand...
Of course not. The goal should be to continue to dialogue, depending on the Spirit to guide our words and understanding toward greater and greater convergence.
 
Last edited:
What’s the point of understanding and greater convergence if it’s not oriented towards truth and removal of error and baggage?
 
They are as you say, “Our christian brethren.” But since the schism we are separated from the “other” Catholic church. IDK how much of what they believe we do. I understand they are not in communion. IDK if they have absolution or not.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
JonNC:
Compromise doesn’t work. I already said that. It would be up to the leadership to determine when convergence is achieved.
Click to expand...
What is the difference between compromise and convergence?
Click to expand...
I would encourage you to look at some of the more recent Lutheran/Catholic dialogue statements, such as The Hope of Eternal Life
Read how the sides explain their positions and how the discussion occasionally leads them to a more common understanding than they even expected.
Compromise is “you give in here, and I’ll give in there”, and it is a false unity.
 
No…there is no being forced to decide between fidelity to Tradition or fidelity to the Successors of the Apostles. Such an assertion shows the extent to which you are in error…as does your previous comment, which you deleted but which I saw and which I hope the moderators also see,

The concept upon which what Pope Pius IX writes actually rests has been superseded. Just as the issue of how to deal with the theological concerns the held back the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception were superseded by the theological concept of prevenient grace.

You should be thanking God to live in the aftermath of one of the greatest events in the history of the Church – The Second Vatican Council.

Not since the 11th century have we had such a succession of men of outstanding holiness and gifts, raised to the altars, who occupied the Chair of St. Peter, one after the other.

Pope Saint John Paul II well articulated where the duty of the faithful lies in face of the unspeakably evil act of Marcel Lefebvre and his disciples.
The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. /…/ But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church
Click to expand...
We are always to choose the living Magisterium.
 
This post to which I am responding is beyond odious, it is beyond repugnant, and it is beyond reprehensible. It deserves far more than simply to be hidden.

Let us be clear. The poster who wrote these words maligns thus by writing:
  1. “Lutherans are attacking the Church with all their might”
  2. “Why would you invite a neighbor who wants to kill you over for supper?”
  3. “This was a schism, created for the sole purpose of destroying the Church”
After these hideous statements, the poster goes on to attack the very Successors of the Apostles, to whom he owes docility and obsequium:
  1. “[T]he bishops know this, and still try to sugar coat it and say how we are brothers in Christ”
  2. “[T]hey do not believe in ANY of his Teachings, so how are we brothers”
These words of hate and vitriol should have no place whatsoever on a Catholic website. The sentiments are to be abjured as having nothing to do with the Catholic view of Lutherans whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
I see.

“King?” That is not one of the honorifics that the Church has graciously granted to me and I am quite more than content with what I have been given across the decades, by the grace of those above me in dignity and authority. Thank you.

Now to your question. Well…as I would have said to one of my students, had such a one felt emboldened to address me as you have: “Perhaps you might consult a theological librarian to direct your search for a text treating ‘post-Conciliar ecclesiology’ – for that knowledge you do not have but that you protest that you seek.”

Or better still, perhaps you would benefit from a discussion of this matter with your Abbot. Or else re-read Chapter 23 of the RSB.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
Or better still, perhaps you would benefit from a discussion of this matter with your Abbot. Or else re-read Chapter 23 of the RSB.
Click to expand...
I would add 1 Corinthians 10-13, John 19-17,and maybe Galatians 5 for good measure. What is happening here is nothing new under the sun. Jesus addressed it. Paul had to manage it.

Or maybe just reflect back on the readings of yesterday. The antidote to spiritual pride is humility, humility, humility. Fr. Corapi once called it our "nuclear weapon.
 
Since I believe you wrote you disagreed with the LCMS decision not to sign the JDDJ could you maybe understand how some Catholics disagree with the commemoration of the anniversary of the Reformation?

You seem to have implied that they don’t have much faith in their leaders, but that could be said about you and your disagreement with the JDDJ issue.

Maybe given you disagreed with your leadership you could see how some disagreed with ours.

Towards a better understanding.
 
MaryT777 said:
Since I believe you wrote you disagreed with the LCMS decision not to sign the JDDJ could you maybe understand how some Catholics disagree with the commemoration of the anniversary of the Reformation?

You seem to have implied that they don’t have much faith in their leaders, but that could be said about you and your disagreement with the JDDJ issue.

Maybe given you disagreed with your leadership you could see how some disagreed with ours.

Towards a better understanding.
Click to expand...
Of course. What I have found interesting, Mary, is the tone some Catholics are using in that disagreement.
 
pnewton said:
There have been several people here who have given testimony that, as a nominal Catholic, they knew nothing of God and had no relationship with him outside of an infant baptism. Only after conversion to a fervent faith through one of these other faith traditions were they able to come back to the Catholic faith as a faithful Catholic.
Click to expand...
This would be me. But it didn’t happen until I cried out in pain to Him and begged Him to ‘change my heart of stone to a heart of flesh’ as He promises to. It was at that point I was led to the truth and beauty of the Catholic faith. I also knew, deep down that what my Protestant husband and friends were telling me about God and His church wasn’t quite right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top