Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[Topper17]

The editors of Luther’s Works are very much in agreement with the above mentioned Scholars:

**“It may be, however, that there was not so great a change in Luther’s attitude toward the Jews (over time) as has commonly been thought. A closer inspection of his utterances on the question throughout his career reveals that he was never so unambiguously positive toward them as a reading of his 1523 treatise in isolation would suggest. **Wilhelm Maurer has demonstrated, in fact, that Luther’s earliest lectures—those on the Psalms, delivered in 1513–1515—already contained in essence the whole burden of his later charges against the Jews. The Jews, Luther asserts in these lectures, suffer continually under God’s wrath; they are paying the penalty for their rejection of Christ. They spend all their efforts in self-justification, but God will not hear their prayers. Neither kindness nor severity will improve them. They become constantly more stubborn and more vain. Moreover, they are active enemies of Christ; they blaspheme and defame him, spreading their evil influence even into Christian hearts. As for Jewish efforts to interpret Scripture, these, Luther asserts, are simply lies. They forsake the word of God and follow the imaginations of their hearts. It would be quite wrong, he concludes, for Christians to extend tolerance to those who hold such views.

Similar sentiments are expressed in Luther’s Lectures on Romans of 1515–1516…
**
In short, the evidence indicates that the Luther of these earlier years shared to the full in the medieval prejudices against the Jews. From this perspective, his more favorable attitude toward the Jews as expressed in the early 1520’s is to be understood as a temporary modification of the underlying negative stereotype which characterized his earliest statements, and to which he returned in his later treatises.** That underlying stereotype, in turn, can be understood only in terms of the medieval background.” Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 47: Luther’s works, vol. 47: The Christian in Society IV (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.) (126–127). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Here we learn from no less an authority than the editors of Luther’s Works that his ‘attitude’ towards the Jews was relatively uniform, with the exception of a brief period in the mid 1520’s, and for the record, that episode is very telling also. Already in 1513-15 Luther is recommending that it would be wrong to extend tolerance to the Jews.

I am sure that we are going to hear emphasized the portion of the above quote which speaks of the ‘medieval prejudices’ against the Jews, but it should be noted that nobody made ANY of the seven recommendations that Luther made as to what should physically happen to the Jews.

“Luther’s career as a professor of Bible and the University of Wittenberg began with lectures on the Psalter, which he delivered over the years** 1513-1515. These first lectures by the young professor are saturated with anti-Jewish references and allusions.” **Schramm & Stjerna, pg. 129

In regards to Luther’s early lectures (1513-1515) Lutheran Professors Schramm and Stjerna note that Luther was uniformly opposed to the Jews:

**“The reader of these lectures in toto will note how pervasive is the polemic directed against either the Jews or the synagogue, so pervasive in fact that it rises to the level of a central characteristic of the lectures.” **Schramm & Stejerna, pg. 41

In regards to the 1523 “That Jesus Christ Was Born A Jew”, which is normally pointed to as the ‘norm’ for Luther’s ‘attitude’ towards the Jews:

** “One of the ironies of this treatise is that, although Lutherans have often pointed to it as the exemplum of how open the younger Luther was to the Jews, it is throughout a sustained critique of Jewish exegesis of Christian proof texts, and it is these very same proof texts that he will draw on in his later bitter anti-Jewish diatribes. ** **That the distance between his arguments in this treatise and those later bitter writings is not large is signaled here by Luther himself when he states that he has far more rhetorical ammunition at his disposal, and he is fully prepared to utilize it if he needs to.” **Schramm & Stjerna, pg. 76-7

It is odd that Luther wrote a treatise in which one of the stated goals was to convert Jews, and yet in that same treatise, he roundly criticizes the Jews for their lack of understanding of the Old Testament. Of course, Luther was never very good at attracting opponents to his message. He was much more comfortable with a stick than a carrot.

Luther carried his bitterness and hatred for the Jews until his very last days on earth. “….**the intense antagonism Luther bore the Jews continued to the end of his life and even found violent expression in his last public sermon.” ** Lutheran Professor Mark U. Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 134

The above can hardly be called some sort of ‘anti-Lutheran’ polemic, especially since it is based entirely on the comments of Lutheran Scholars. It should also be noted that modern day Lutherans are rightfully and uniformly opposed to Luther’s writings against the Jews, and especially his ‘recommendations’. All Christians are.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[spina1953]

Hi Topper: in reply to you 797 post: Do not worry I won’t be led astray. One can’t read Luther with an open mind and think it is all peaches and cream. Luther thought that he was somehow going to convert the Jews and when they refused and did not he did or course went into a rage over it. he just could not understand why they would refuse to join him. While there were many like Luther who thought Jews to be Christ killers not everyone thought so. There is plenty of history to go around but its always a matter of interpretation as to how one perceives it.

 

[andrewstx]

This makes no sense, spina. Why would Luther expect non-Christian Jews to leave the Catholic Church and become Lutheran? They weren’t part of the CC

This

 

[andrewstx]

Hi Per Crucem: Never said that Jews were part of the CC where did you get that?

Then exactly who were the Jewish people supposed to revolt from? Makes no sense to me.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

I think I answered this already. An admonishment for being misguided is clearly not the same as an attack.

I wonder whether ‘they’ feel the same way about your ‘admonishment’. You know, they might feel like:

“Where does the LCMS (or Jon) get off admonishing US (of all people ). After all, WE are the ones who should be admonishing him and them.”

Jon, you recently admitted that Lutheranism needs a Pope. I agree. This intra-Lutheran conflict is a perfect example of why.

If they are adhering to the confessions, the conclusions of both parts of CA, then they can. If they are not, well then no, they can’t. The example I’ve used in women’s ordination.

Clearly the Lutherans Confessions are not ‘binding enough’ to maintain Lutheran unity. Please correct me if I am wrong, but not all Lutherans even consider the Formula to be authoritative. So there cannot be unity among Lutherans – right?

Do you see Lutheranism in the future becoming more or less divided doctrinally?

I’ll ask again; where prior to the 20th century did Lutherans ordain women? Where prior to the 20th century did the Church Catholic ordain women?

Let me get this straight. Are you asking ME (of all people) to take your side in your doctrinal disputes with ‘those other’ Lutherans? I’m fine with your asking of course, because in doing so you reinforce prove my point that Luther baked doctrinal dissension and confusion into the cake.

And, you have not responded to the comparison to the Old Catholics. Who says the Rome version of Catholic is more correct that the Utrecht one.

OK: There are two ‘types’ of communions which are not in full unity with the Church as led by the Bishop of Rome; heresies and schisms. As for ‘who says’ - how many quotes from the early Church Fathers would you like to see?

Not me, Topper. That’s our leader’s responsibility, and let’s remember, the Holy Roman Church has a much longer schism going on than we do. I contend that that is the most important division in the Church Catholic that needs to be reconciled.

Jon, if I can question the Bishop of Rome on a matter of practice (which you know I can), then I am CERTAINLY allowed to criticize the lack of progress of a group of ‘negotiators’ who have not achieved ANY doctrinal movement on EITHER side in more than 50 years of discussion. Am I supposedly NOT ‘allowed‘ to voice my dissatisfaction? You know of course that in those 50 years, they have not even managed to raise the issue of papal infallibility? You might think that this is ‘staying positive’ but I would describe it differently. In this case, ‘staying positive’ INSURES that we will never address our disagreements which INSURES that we will never overcome them. I would suggest that both sides need to be represented by people who are not so reticent.

Since you suggest that ‘That’ is the responsibility of our leaders, the what is OUR responsibility in the effort towards reunification? (Being the “prophet” that obviously am, I am predicting that we are not going to agree on this one).

You said, Topper," **The idea that the ‘church decides’ is foreign to your comment that ‘the people must speak up’. **

I sense a change of opinion here.

Jon, I am always willing to change my opinions. But I have to see a reason to do so. If you have actual facts that you think need to be considered, then please post them.

What is it that you think I have changed my mind about, and specifically, what is it that you think might have changed it? I ask because I am not aware of any change in my opinion.

 

[Topper17]

It wouldn’t matter. Luther wasn’t, isn’t, the Church, regardless of whether or not he thought so

Jon, this is exactly what I predicted in my last post to you. You made a claim and thought it was important enough to refute my claim, in a very non-specific manner though. Then, when you realize that I am going to disprove your claim, THEN ‘it wouldn’t matter’. If it didn’t matter you would not have attempted to refute the point in the first place. As a matter of fact, Luther DID claim to be the Church and that the Catholic Church was NOT the Church.

Since you brought it up, the following is from Against Hanswurst, Luther’s Works, Vol 41, (c) Fortress Press, Written in 1541

“However, so that we may not completely waste our time with Harry’s devilish dirt, but may offer the reader something better and more useful—though not for the sake of Harry or those who incite him, for they are “self-condemned; they have ears, but hear not”—we will come to the point at issue, namely, why the papists, through their Harry, call us heretics. And the point is that they allege that we have fallen away from the holy church and set up a new church. This then is the answer: since they themselves boast that they are the church, it is for them to prove that they are. If they can prove it with a single reason (I don’t ask for more), then we shall give ourselves up as prisoners, willingly saying, “We have sinned, have mercy upon us.” But if they cannot prove it, they must confess (whether they like it or not) that they are not the church and that we cannot be heretics since we have fallen away from what is not the true church. Indeed, since there is nothing in-between, we must be the church of Christ and they the devil’s church, or vice versa. Therefore it all turns on proving which is the true church.” Against Hanswurst, Luther Works, Vol 41, p 193, (c)Fortress Press

I agree here with Luther. There is nothing in-between. It all turns on proving which is the true Church. This statement is SO classic Luther. He forms a version of Christianity which is based on his personal interpretations of Scripture and HIS personal spiritual and psychological needs, and THEN claims that it was up to the 1500 year old Catholic Church to prove to HIM that it was the Church. If the Church were to be unable to prove to HIM, personally, then they were NOT the Church (according to him). Astonishing!

Lutheran Professor James Kittelson comments on Luther’s ‘understanding’ (or lack thereof) of the ‘Church’:

“Indeed, it is at least arguable that, save for one early disputation, which he mentioned in his memoir but which has been lost, he did not even think about the Church as such until he was forced to it in 1519 by the impending debate with Johannes Eck at Leipzig.” Kittelson, “Luther and Modern Church History”, in “Companion”, pg. 262

In studying for Leipzig, Luther finally ‘thinks about the Church’, but as we learned earlier, Luther set himself out to basically destroy the structure of the Church prior to Leipzig. This means that he set out to damage the Church before he had given much thought as to what it actually was. The results of his not thinking about the reality of the Church BEFORE he set out on his Revolt are clear in terms of the ‘structure’ of the Protestant church, (or complete lack thereof).

Then we agree. Neither communion is willing to change doctrine, so unity must come from reconciling doctrine, guided by the Holy Spirit.
Again, statements of condemnation change when unity comes, not before. If there is doctrinal agreement, there are not no condemnations.
Both sides could, when there is doctrinal agreement.

OK, I’ll bite. Specifically and exactly, what is the ‘method’ by which we are going to achieve doctrinal agreement’, when BOTH SIDES will not change their doctrinal positions? In some respects this is a chicken and egg thing. Which comes first? Can you outline a SPECIFIC means by which EITHER comes first? If not, then you should realize that it is NOT going to happen and that your best option would be to discuss the reasons as to why we are divided, and then deal with those reasons.

Please lay it out for me, step by step, hypothetically of course as to how it COULD work. I ask because now after 50 years, there is NO PLAN, no step by step plan, no deadlines. Not even an agreement TO agree, EVER. The way I see it, it is a plan to NOT succeed. It seems designed to accomplish nothing except additional dialogue. How many more generations of ‘negotiators’ are going to sit across the table from each other before even ONE doctrine is changed? If not in the first 50 years, when would you like to see some doctrinal movement?

I don’t think that it can work the way that you describe, which means that there will be NO chance of unity. Please convince me otherwise with the actual proccedure that could be used.

I would LOVE to think that there is going to be some meaningful progress in our lifetimes. Just sitting down and talking to each other is not insignificant, but it is NOT ENOUGH for 50 years of effort. Are you not frustrated or it this acceptable to you?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[TertiumQuid]

I am sure that we are going to hear emphasized the portion of the above quote which speaks of the ‘medieval prejudices’ against the Jews, but it should be noted that nobody made ANY of the seven recommendations that Luther made as to what should physically happen to the Jews.

I don’t have anything to gain by an exoneration of Luther’s obvious societal stereotype against the Jews. Luther was not infallible. He said a number of things ranging on the scale of brilliant to typical to ridiculous to offensive, and I guess from a Catholic perspective, the scale includes, “heretical” as well. From my perspective, Luther’s theology neither stands or falls because of statements on the negative side of the scale.

That said, I offer the following:

1. In this little patch of cyberspace, the specific rules which govern the conduct and discussion of those who have agreed to by abide by the rules states the following:

It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false

It seems to me, more often than not, the “Luther” topic is addressed in the “Non-Catholic Religions” forum, so it appears to be, generally speaking, the topic of “Luther” is considered, even if not explicitly stated when brought up, as a “Non-Catholic Religion.” I don’t care to quibble extensively over this, it’s only something I perceive happening here. It could be the topic of “Luther” is not in actuality something to be discussed as a “Non-Catholic Religion” issue, and each time the topic is brought up, the moderators are gracious enough to allow the dialog.

If indeed though the “Luther” topic is technically a “Non-Catholic Religions” issue, then It appears to me Luther’s attitude toward the Jews could be embarrassing to some Protestants, and as the CA rules cogently state: it does not “prove” a particular religion is false- if indeed one wants to think of Protestantism as a religious view stemming from Luther as the main originator. Food for thought.

1. It’s my opinion that Luther’s attitude toward the Jews is part of Church history, and, that really, to point a finger at Luther one needs to consistently point the fingers beyond Luther as well. This would be the consistent thing to do.
2. This is related to #2, but I’d like to add the following nuance: In regard to Catholic and Lutheran discourse on Luther’s attitude toward the Jews, one needs to be careful of the double standard. While it’s easy to cut-and-paste Luther’s harsh recommendations against the Jews and triumphantly declare, “look how awful!” consider the following Papal Bull against a group of people, known as “Lutherans”:

On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema, of our perpetual condemnation and interdict; of privation of dignities, honours and property on them and their descendants, and of declared unfitness for such possessions; of the confiscation of their goods and of the crime of treason; and these and the other sentences, censures and punishments which are inflicted by canon law on heretics and are set out in our aforesaid missive, we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation.

We add to our present declaration, by our Apostolic authority, that states, territories, camps, towns and places in which these men have temporarily lived or chanced to visit, along with their possessions—cities which house cathedrals and metropolitans, monasteries and other religious and sacred places, privileged or unprivileged—one and all are placed under our ecclesiastical interdict, while this interdict lasts, no pretext of Apostolic Indulgence (except in cases the law allows, and even there, as it were, with the doors shut and those under excommunication and interdict excluded) shall avail to allow the celebration of mass and the other divine offices. We prescribe and enjoin that the men in question are everywhere to be denounced publicly as excommunicated, accursed, condemned, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them. They are to be strictly shunned by all faithful Christians.

 

[spina1953]

Then exactly who were the Jewish people supposed to revolt from? Makes no sense to me.

Hi andrewstx: It was Luther’s idea that somehow the Jews would convert to his belief system and when they did not Luther was not happy about it and went into a rage against them. Sure there were others who did not like Jews in Luther’s time, Luther actually thought that he could convert the Jews.

 

[KathleenGee]

With the discussion and controversy regarding the Crusades this past month or so in our country…I went back to find out who killed the Jews and why during the times of the Crusades.

I read that in the Rheinland and Danube…Christian peasants went out to kill the Jews despite the opposition by the pope and bishops…there was a Cistercian monk who went out to incite these peasants along with another cleric…within Germany…

There were the rogue Franks and Norman Crusaders who committed atrocities against the Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem as well as destroy sacred places within the Byzanteum Christian places because they reneged on their promise to provide them shelter…admitting they did not have the funds after all.

I wonder how much the peasants contributed to Catholic clericalism which in itself led to abuses and subsequently the Reformation. In the end…it was the clergy who were responsible for the peasants…

Just a comment…

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12770599]
I wonder whether ‘they’ feel the same way about your ‘admonishment’. You know, they might feel like:

“Where does the LCMS (or Jon) get off admonishing US (of all people ). After all, WE are the ones who should be admonishing him and them.”

they are welcome to feel that way, of course, but in the dialogue between our synods, I suspect the admonishments are mutual.

Jon, you recently admitted that Lutheranism needs a Pope. I agree. This intra-Lutheran conflict is a perfect example of why.

So do I, though better would be a unity of all the patriarchates.

Clearly the Lutherans Confessions are not ‘binding enough’ to maintain Lutheran unity. Please correct me if I am wrong, but not all Lutherans even consider the Formula to be authoritative. So there cannot be unity among Lutherans – right?

Do you see Lutheranism in the future becoming more or less divided doctrinally?

I think the basic divisions within Lutheranism are fairly obvious, and run along the lines of the quia/quatenus dispute.

Let me get this straight. Are you asking ME (of all people) to take your side in your doctrinal disputes with ‘those other’ Lutherans? I’m fine with your asking of course, because in doing so you reinforce prove my point that Luther baked doctrinal dissension and confusion into the cake.

Of course I’m not asking you. It was a rhetorical question, one you already know the answer to.

OK: There are two ‘types’ of communions which are not in full unity with the Church as led by the Bishop of Rome; heresies and schisms. As for ‘who says’ - how many quotes from the early Church Fathers would you like to see?

And who determines whether or not the Bishop of Rome is in heresy or schism? How many quotes of the fathers are on a par with councils? The Union of Utrecht of Old Catholic Churches broke because of the innovation of papal infallibility.
The point is that when you ask these questions of Lutherans, they also need to be answered by Catholics, or at least recognized that those questions exist. But you, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, are not responsible for Utrecht Catholics, anymore than I am responsible for ELCA Lutherans. We pray for them, and pray for unity, and let let our leaders work on that.

Jon, if I can question the Bishop of Rome on a matter of practice (which you know I can), then I am CERTAINLY allowed to criticize the lack of progress of a group of ‘negotiators’ who have not achieved ANY doctrinal movement on EITHER side in more than 50 years of discussion. Am I supposedly NOT ‘allowed‘ to voice my dissatisfaction? You know of course that in those 50 years, they have not even managed to raise the issue of papal infallibility? You might think that this is ‘staying positive’ but I would describe it differently. In this case, ‘staying positive’ INSURES that we will never address our disagreements which INSURES that we will never overcome them. I would suggest that both sides need to be represented by people who are not so reticent.

Of course you can question them. I have vocally questioned our leadership, even by phone, regarding the JDDJ. So, voice your dissatisfaction if you choose, but by putting the term “negotiators” in quotes implies more than discontent. As for papal infallibility, perhaps they have a reason for the order in which they dialogue.
As for staying positive, you can see the “progress” made by your polemics of attack here at CAF. Most of the Lutherans here won’t even respond to your posts. Oh, yes, I believe being positive has far more potential than the other way.

Since you suggest that ‘That’ is the responsibility of our leaders, the what is OUR responsibility in the effort towards reunification? (Being the “prophet” that obviously am, I am predicting that we are not going to agree on this one).

Probably, since I believe that positive dialogue, recognizing the Holy Spirit in each other is far more effective.

Jon, I am always willing to change my opinions.

Hmm, I have my doubts about this.

What is it that you think I have changed my mind about, and specifically, what is it that you think might have changed it? I ask because I am not aware of any change in my opinion.

Go back and read the reason I posted that.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12770609]Jon, this is exactly what I predicted in my last post to you. You made a claim and thought it was important enough to refute my claim, in a very non-specific manner though. Then, when you realize that I am going to disprove your claim, THEN ‘it wouldn’t matter’. If it didn’t matter you would not have attempted to refute the point in the first place. .

why would you ask a question such as this, and then load it with your polemics? Again, you indicated what appears to be contempt for your negotiators, which you placed in quotes. I don’t. In fact, I probably have more confidence in the Catholic negotiators than some of the Lutheran ones, particularly those from the LWF.

As a matter of fact, Luther DID claim to be the Church and that the Catholic Church was NOT the Church

And you seem to claim you know more about ecumenical dialogue than the Catholic theologians who are involved. That doesn’t mean you do, either. Luther was not, is not the Church. The Catholic Church is the Church, because it has word and sacrament. So do we. So do the EO churches. So do many others.

Since you brought it up, the following is from Against Hanswurst, Luther’s Works, Vol 41, (c) Fortress Press, Written in 1541

“However, so that we may not completely waste our time with Harry’s devilish dirt, but may offer the reader something better and more useful—though not for the sake of Harry or those who incite him, for they are “self-condemned; they have ears, but hear not”—we will come to the point at issue, namely, why the papists, through their Harry, call us heretics. And the point is that they allege that we have fallen away from the holy church and set up a new church. This then is the answer: since they themselves boast that they are the church, it is for them to prove that they are. If they can prove it with a single reason (I don’t ask for more), then we shall give ourselves up as prisoners, willingly saying, “We have sinned, have mercy upon us.” But if they cannot prove it, they must confess (whether they like it or not) that they are not the church and that we cannot be heretics since we have fallen away from what is not the true church. Indeed, since there is nothing in-between, we must be the church of Christ and they the devil’s church, or vice versa. Therefore it all turns on proving which is the true church.” Against Hanswurst, Luther Works, Vol 41, p 193, (c)Fortress Press

Yep. Sounds like Luther.

I agree here with Luther. There is nothing in-between. It all turns on proving which is the true Church. This statement is SO classic Luther. He forms a version of Christianity which is based on his personal interpretations of Scripture and HIS personal spiritual and psychological needs, and THEN claims that it was up to the 1500 year old Catholic Church to prove to HIM that it was the Church. If the Church were to be unable to prove to HIM, personally, then they were NOT the Church (according to him). Astonishing!

Yep. Its astonishing.
He also says,** “Yes, we ourselves find it difficult to refute it, especially since we concede—as we must—that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?"**
So, Luther knows the Church is there, and so do I. I also know that the Church is where I am, and where the EO are, and many others, because word and sacrament are there. Now, if you believe that Luther didn’t think the Church was in the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, Topper, take it up with him.
As I said, it doesn’t matter, because it doesn’t change anything.

OK, I’ll bite. Specifically and exactly, what is the ‘method’ by which we are going to achieve doctrinal agreement’, when BOTH SIDES will not change their doctrinal positions? In some respects this is a chicken and egg thing. Which comes first? Can you outline a SPECIFIC means by which EITHER comes first? If not, then you should realize that it is NOT going to happen and that your best option would be to discuss the reasons as to why we are divided, and then deal with those reasons.

Topper, I can’t answer that. I’m not in charge of it. All I know is that when, with the guidance of the Spirit, we are reconciled, be it in our lifetime or in Heaven, those condemnations will no longer apply.

continued

 

[JonNC]

Please lay it out for me, step by step, hypothetically of course as to how it COULD work. I ask because now after 50 years, there is NO PLAN, no step by step plan, no deadlines. Not even an agreement TO agree, EVER. The way I see it, it is a plan to NOT succeed. It seems designed to accomplish nothing except additional dialogue. How many more generations of ‘negotiators’ are going to sit across the table from each other before even ONE doctrine is changed? If not in the first 50 years, when would you like to see some doctrinal movement?

But then, the way you see it doesn’t matter. The way I see it doesn’t matter.
How about this: before BXVI stepped down, my idea was to lock Lutheran leadership and the Pope and dialogue members in a room with an unlimited supply of German beer and brats until they came to reconciliation. But now that Francis is pope, I’m not sure the German beer thing works as well.

I don’t think that it can work the way that you describe, which means that there will be NO chance of unity. Please convince me otherwise with the actual proccedure that could be used.

What way, other than beer and brats, did I describe it?

I would LOVE to think that there is going to be some meaningful progress in our lifetimes. Just sitting down and talking to each other is not insignificant, but it is NOT ENOUGH for 50 years of effort. Are you not frustrated or it this acceptable to you?

Quite frustrated, but I’m also realistic. We are dealing with almost 500 years of disunity, and there are some on both sides who still seem to relish the polemics of attack. With all of that, it will take time. On this I agree with Pope BXVI, that reconciliation is in the hands of God, and we must keep working toward it.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Jon, I only hope I can be there and transcribe the meeting with German beer and brats;
I’d be happy to do it. LOL

Mary.

 

[Tomyris]

Quite frustrated, but I’m also realistic. We are dealing with almost 500 years of disunity, and there are some on both sides who still seem to relish the polemics of attack. With all of that, it will take time. On this I agree with Pope BXVI, that reconciliation is in the hands of God, and we must keep working toward it.

Jon

Doing my own research on Wikepedia I determined that of the 800 million Protestants in the world, only about 90 million are Lutheran. Why all this invective on about 10% of the whole? And Lutherans are closer to Catholics than the Reformed are, by far.

One of my objectives for hanging around here, aside from the serendiptious beer and brat, is to do what I can to dispel some of the misunderstandings between the Reformed and the Catholics. We have a much further road to any reconciliation than the Catholics and the Lutherans do.

 

[Thorolfr]

Doing my own research on Wikepedia I determined that of the 800 million Protestants in the world, only about 90 million are Lutheran. Why all this invective on about 10% of the whole? And Lutherans are closer to Catholics than the Reformed are, by far.

One of my objectives for hanging around here, aside from the serendiptious beer and brat, is to do what I can to dispel some of the misunderstandings between the Reformed and the Catholics. We have a much further road to any reconciliation than the Catholics and the Lutherans do.

There’s probably a lot more discussion about Luther because he holds a special place in the hearts of some Catholics

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I only hope I can be there and transcribe the meeting with German beer and brats;
I’d be happy to do it. LOL

Mary.

I knew it. I should have kept this idea quiet. Too many volunteers will want to participate.
Jon

 

[Abu]

JonNC #793
And who determines whether or not the Bishop of Rome is in heresy or schism?

As Christ has given His Magisterium His authority to define infallibly on faith and morals to the whole Church, no Pope can commit, or has committed, heresy or schism, notwithstanding the few who have been personally unfaithful to Christ and His Church.

Jesus ensured that reality when he specifically founded His Catholic Church on St Peter and the Twelve, for His empowerment was clear.
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
Heresy: The disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe.

Schism: A willful separation from the unity of the Christian Church….St. Augustine, “heretics wound the faith by sinful dissensions; schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe.”

Apostasy: The total rejection by a baptized person of the Christian faith he once professed.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

It is the non-acceptance of, and lack of assent to, Our Lord’s clear manifestation of His Will which has caused and perpetrates the divisions which have resulted in the loss of fidelity to truth, and the errors in belief and practice which have resulted in the many thousands of sects today.

 

[Tomyris]

As Christ has given His Magisterium His authority to define infallibly on faith and morals to the whole Church, no Pope can commit, or has committed, heresy or schism, notwithstanding the few who have been personally unfaithful to Christ and His Church.

So says the Magisterim conveniently…

Jesus ensured that reality when he specifically founded His Catholic Church on St Peter and the Twelve, for His empowerment was clear.
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)

What the rock is has been disputed, clearly not necessarily Peter. Faith, the church, Jesus have been suggested.

“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)

Gates are defensive, not offensive fortification.

“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)

This also is disputed. In rev 1 Jesus has the keys again - did He take them back?

“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) Later, also to the Twelve].

This, not “Peter alone.”

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)

There is a long way from this to “dominate your brethren.”

“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

There is a long way from this to “dominate your brethren.”

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
Heresy: The disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe.

Schism: A willful separation from the unity of the Christian Church….St. Augustine, “heretics wound the faith by sinful dissensions; schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe.”

Apostasy: The total rejection by a baptized person of the Christian faith he once professed.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

It is the non-acceptance of, and lack of assent to, Our Lord’s clear manifestation of His Will which has caused and perpetrates the divisions which have resulted in the loss of fidelity to truth, and the errors in belief and practice which have resulted in the many thousands of sects today.

It’s clear you insist that what is not clear is clear and falls in with your presuppositions about the texts.

 

[MaryT777]

So says the Magisterim conveniently…What the rock is has been disputed, clearly not necessarily Peter. Faith, the church, Jesus have been suggested.Gates are defensive, not offensive fortification. This also is disputed. In rev 1 Jesus has the keys again - did He take them back?This, not "Peter alone."There is a long way from this to "dominate your brethren."There is a long way from this to “dominate your brethren.”

It’s clear you insist that what is not clear is clear and falls in with your presuppositions about the texts.

On the other hand the same could be said about your posts as well.
Mary.

 

[Abu]

Tomyris #801
What the rock is has been disputed, clearly not necessarily Peter. Faith, the church, Jesus have been suggested.

A mere feeling which shows the lack of knowledge of the reality of the authority Jesus conferred.

Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on 07-19-2003:
Extract:
“The original Aramaic name given to Simon by our Lord was “Cepha” which means rock. The Greek equivalent is “Petra” but since this is a feminine noun in Greek, it is rendered with the masculine ending as “Petros” in the New Testament. Contrary to what some non-Catholics claim, the use of “Petros” does not manifest an intention to regard Peter as a small stone rather than a rock but is simply done in accord with the rules of grammar and convention in the Greek. Such is obvious when we consider that the actual name given him by the Lord, “Cepha,” admits of NO such distinction between a small stone and large rock….So our Lord was not only creating a new position within the New Covenant people but He appears to have done so with a new name.

“I highly recommend the book *Pope Fiction *by a convert to Catholicism, Patrick Madrid, which addresses every imaginable attempt to discredit the papacy.”

On St Peter, scholarly commentary identifies that *Cephas *is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic ‘Kepha’ into Greek. Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, 1988, Ignatius, p 207].

“Transliteration” means to represent words in the characters of another alphabet. Convert David B Currie puts it this way: “Kepha] transliterated into English, can be written ‘Cephas’.” Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, 1996, Ignatius, p 76]. Since “Kepha” is the only Aramaic word for rock, Currie points out that Jesus said: “I tell you that you are Rock (Kepha) and on this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church.”

“Sur” was the chief biblical word for rock, and the Psalms emphasised that God was the only Rock (sur). “Being closely synonymous with “sur”, the name Kepha could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence.” And On This Rock, Fr Stanley L Jaki, OSB, 1987, Trinity Communications, p 77].

The Swiss Calvinist biblical scholar, Oscar Cullman, declared …”the Roman Catholic exegesis must be regarded as correct.” (See Peter, Apostle, Disciple, Martyr, 1953, p 18-20).
Paul calls Peter “Cephas” quite often.
[Keating, p 208-11].

*Cephas *is Aramaic for Rock and Petra is the Greek. When he said, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,” the two words meant the same thing.

This also is disputed. In rev 1 Jesus has the keys again - did He take them back?

Any “dispute” is based on an eroneous fabrication, as the reality is that this symbolism for authority inherited by the Messias is clearly handed over to St Peter – “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19).

The objections thus display the paucity of real understanding of what Jesus said and did which is the reason for the many thousands of differing and confused sects today.