Hi Jon,
Thanks for your response.
I already answered this. If, as you claim, Luther invented SS, then the Lutheran practice is the default model.
Honestly I have heard a lot of things, but never have I heard this. How does it follow that since Luther invented SS, the Lutheran practice of SS should be the default. We are coming to the understanding that SS has had a very negative impact on Christian unity, and we are all now supposed to ‘trust’ the man that invented SS as to how to ‘use’ it? This is logical? How do you possibly ‘sell’ that one to the rest of SS Christianity?
Remember that Harvard Professor Steven Ozment said that: “Luther instead started a process of spiritual fragmentation and competition that still goes on in Western Christendom today.”
And yet, you think that in addition to the damage that SS has done, we should have enough faith in Luther to also default to his method of practicing ‘SS’? Wouldn’t it make more sense to jettison SS altogether?
Already answered. Look, if a Catholic has so little confidence in their dialogue leaders, not to explore the history of the Reformation, I’m not sure I can help. The Lutherans, from everything I’ve read, have been honest partners (and some maybe too willing to find common ground.
What do you mean ‘too willing to find common ground’? Are you not looking for common ground?
It was (the Great) John Cardinal Henry Newman (a convert) who said:
“To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant”.
The history of the early Reformation shows it to be what it really was, which was NOT a ‘reformation’ but a revolt. When people understand that history better, as opposed to the false history that is typically offered, they recognize the quality of the foundations of Protestantism. That goes double for understanding the actual history of Martin Luther, meaning his motives for and his methods for achieving his ‘reformation’. That history is hardly ‘irrelevant’!
If you have evidence from a Catholic dialogue participant, either on the national level or otherwise, that the Lutheran theologians have been somehow disingenuous or uncooperative in talking about Luther’s role, perhaps you can share it.
My point is that I don’t see any evidence past a few comments that they are really working to understand the cause of our differences.
And you have a statement from him stating he wasn’t serious, I would hope.
Jon – you brought Ratzinger’s comment into this discussion, so it falls to you to actually make your point rather than just creating an “atmosphere” that lacks any real evidence. With that in mind, please post the section of the Ratizinger quote that you think is significant, explain why, and also post a link to the whole document so we can all check the context.
My point is that there has been absolutely no evidence that anybody has seriously considered designating the Augsburg Confession as being “Catholic”. If you know differently, then please provide the evidence to the contrary. Absent that, my point stands.
If that is the case, why would you expect confessional Lutherans to give up our confessions, without dialogue that brings to convergence the doctrinal issues that divide us? Topper, we expect the CC to stand by its doctrines in dialogue, as we will. Any other approach or expectation isn’t true dialogue.
I have absolutely no expectation that Lutheranism would give up their confessions, and neither would I expect the Catholic Church to refute it’s doctrinal teachings in an effort to accommodate Lutherans. This means of course that there will not be any reunion on a communion wide scale, and as such, the conversions must be accomplished one soul at a time. That could begin, I think, with a recognition, Christian by Christian, as to the real reasons for, and the source of our disagreements.
Well, since the dialogue isn’t taking place 500 years ago, and Lutherans today consider it an honest representation of our beliefs, then the impressions of a Catholic apologist about the views of the Reformers of 500 years ago is, honestly, irrelevant. What is relevant is what is happening now.
Classic! Claiming that the ‘impressions’ of a Catholic apologist is irrelevant? I would suggest that people can judge for themselves what is and what is not relevant. In other words, the reasons that the Reformers used, and the arguments that they used in their rebellion are ‘irrelevant’? I would suggest Jon, that if those arguments and reasons were actually sound and compelling, you would be extremely happy to post them here and they would not be ‘irrelevant’. I see your statement as being extremely telling.
The fact is that the divisions within Protestantism are the result of Luther’s teachings, as is pointed out by Harvard Professor Steven Ozment:
“The division within Protestant ranks that is so striking to us today began almost immediately with the Reformation’s success. Luther nailed his famous theses to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg on 31 October, 1517, and before a decade had passed he faced determined Anabaptist, Spiritualist, and Zwinglian competitors. Each took inspiration from his movement, while at the same time decrying its corruption and declaring independence from it. Here began the unending line of would-be reformers of the Reformation, who have ever since confronted the original and later versions of Protestantism with their own allegedly truer interpretations of Holy Scripture. Since Luther’s protest, hundreds of Protestant denominations have sprung up in the modern world, and new ones continue to appear.” Ozment, “The Birth of a Revolution”, pg. x
Part 2 to follow
I couldn’t agree more. It is understandable that those separated from the Catholic Church are going to go to great lengths to justify their position but, like you, I’ve never seen the evidence, especially among the ECF’s where not a challenge was made.
), you might want to start a new thread on this very topic.