But you can’t spread the truth by arguing with falsehoods. If we are all in pursuit of the truth, than it would be our duty to correct error, whether the correction benefits the claims of Catholics or Protestants.Where do you see the word “war” or anything in this post that implies this?? Catholics have the truth, others need to find their way.
And I know you are, as well. And if we can recognize that in each other, I believe we can go much farther. So, my question is, is it possible for Lutherans and Catholics to escape the polemics of both sides of the past, recognise and celebrate our agreements, discuss our differences in Christian love and charity, and together pray the Holy Spirit to bring us together in a unity that far exceeds that which we already share in Baptism?JonNC, it is quite alright. No need to apologize, I do not look for apologies. Sometimes things get a little heated because people have such passion in their faith. I know you are a man of God and that’s all that matters.
i see CWBetts has recently joined the one true Church,given his/her background,(fundamentalist) i can give her/him a break…when one has been decieved it is hard not to be unkind to the one’s whom decieved you…cut Cw some slack till he/she comes to grip with the contradictions of his/her past and the truth he/she now has been given to know…
that can be agreed to…but, a big but,we, as catholics ,will not change a thing it is you who have to change in order to have full unity
An example of how unity can be reached is the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. A far as it goes, it is an agreement that, in my opinion, required that neither side “change” what they believe, but instead pray and dialogue together, and find agreement in belief where semantics often cloud that agreement. Vatican II demonstrated that the Catholic Church can change, not what it believes, but instead how it is expressed. Lutherans can, and should, too.
It was a series of Parliamentary acts from 1532 to 1534 that did the deed.
Henry VIII. And, though this is generally a correct position, Hank actually toyed with some Lutheran ideas, toward the end of his reign. Cranmer took some of them on board, as well.I’m not doing a very good job communicating today, am I? Hopefully, this one will get out what I mean.
Anglican doctrine is completely unrelated to that of Luther. While there are other Protestant denominations that have this claim as well, it is easiest to make the point with the Anglicans, because they don’t share the same lineage.
Luther’s split may have encouraged the Anglicans to be bold, but the English Reformation has more to do with Henry VII than it does with Luther. For that reason, I’m using them as an example of why an attack on Luther does not invalidate Protestantism (regardless of the fact that the attacks are inaccurate).
I hope that’s better.
Hank was a partial author, mainly of the first two parts.I think you are quite right here. In fact, Pope Leo X awarded Henry the title of Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith) in 1521after Henry wrote (or, perhaps, had ghost-written for him) Assertio Septem Sacramentorum Adversus Martinum Lutherum. Obviously, that was before Henry decided that the Pope was getting in the way of his own wishes.
Hmmm. I guess that my previous post wasn’t really my last here.
Why does he have to be “monarchial”? Are you saying that we have had no Pope since Pope Pius XII, since he was the last one to wear the Papal tiara?
It’s “rhetoric.”
You sound like one of those dark-skinned punks who likes to excuse how he talks trash about women and about people of other races, because he has to get back at the white race for doing the same. They are an embarrassment to their folks. 
Yeh, he’s in his 20s, I think, or maybe his early 30s. Not long out of University, anyway.And when you use the word “Balderdash”, it really shows your age.
As a correction/clarification here, the Church cannot change the doctrinal deposit of faith. That does NOT preclude adjustments/clarifications in terminology, practices or other non-doctrinal issues. An example might be a term which both sides use, but with differing definitions. It may be possible that, after disecting each sides definitions and views, a common and mutually acceptable definition or set of terms can be agreed upon. Thus the faith remains intact, communication is improved, and a barrier to reconciliation is removed.
What in heaven’s name does my post saying thanks to adstrinity have to do with what you said?It’s “rhetoric.”
Yeh, he’s in his 20s, I think, or maybe his early 30s. Not long out of University, anyway.
So I sound like a dark-skinned punk who talks trash about women because I have to get back at the white race? you make no sense whatsoever.I have no interest in explaining basic terms to people. So let the links do it.Why does he have to be “monarchial”? Are you saying that we have had no Pope since Pope Pius XII, since he was the last one to wear the Papal tiara?
Peter, to whom the authority over the whole Church had been given by Jesus Christ (John 21:15-19), became Bishop of Rome when he was taken there in chains from Jerusalem.
He remained Bishop of Rome until his death by crucifixion in 67 AD. His successor, Linus, took two roles from him - Shepherd of the whole Church, and Bishop of Rome.
The Bishop of Rome isn’t Pope because of his tiara - he is Pope because he is the successor of Peter. He was Pope before they had a tiara for him, yet, and he is still Pope today, even though the tiara is no longer used.
thanks for the correction…but there are things that the Lutherans will not change and it is these things that will ultimately be the barrier to their full union within the Church…
There are narrow Lutherans, and open-minded Lutherans.
transubanation is one,which from what i can understand from what little i know of Lutherans,is not believed…but the biggest is the papacy…if you can agree to that you are no longer Lutheran but a Catholic,meaning if you agree to the pope’s authority…
I always thought, though, that you didn’t have to accept papal authority to be in Communion with the Church. You simply had to be in agreement with Church doctrine on the key issues. (I might be in error here, though).