Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[GKC]

He says yes, you say doubtful, I say I don’t know. (Sounds like the Beatles, doesn’t it.) I do try to be wary when I sense my bias and my ignorance supporting each other! And I do have a bias: I understand the Church of Norway to date to ninth century English missionary work. I am thoroughly persuaded of the greatness of the ninth century English. English missionary work in the Americas came a fair bit later, of course.

But I am grateful and admiring that you have drawn back from your suggestion that Fr K based the validity of his orders on Porvoo. Never easy.

By the way, I’ve noted before a tendency to characterise Anglican ecumenical efforts as simply a bid on one side or another to gain validity by the back door. You do it here again. It’s a less than generous attitude towards the Church of England’s efforts, stretching over more than a century, and continuing today, to work towards greater unity.

True, that last.

GKC

 

[pablope]

So says the Magisterim conveniently…

You are a magisterium of one too…isn’t it?

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

 

[Topper17]

Hi Randy,

Jesus said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan.” That’s an embarrassing incident that does not disprove the papacy or Catholicism. To think otherwise would be fallacious reasoning.

Some of course claim that that ‘incident’ actually does invalidate any kind of Petrine Supremacy.

Luther had serious personal demons that forced him to seek relief by the formulation of previously unknown theology. That’s not an embarrassing incident; that is a fact about Luther that calls into question the truth of Luther’s theological innovations. To think that it DOES disprove Luther’s theology would be fallacious; however, it should cause one to pause to consider carefully the reasons behind Luther’s actions. If Luther’s novelties are judged to be the products of his own tortured reasoning, then one might be well-advised to consider that factor before swallowing anything that Luther had to say.

Exactly, and that is why an understanding the ‘inner Luther’ is so important.

Consider the source. That’s all I’m saying.

I understand exactly what you mean Randy.

God Bless You Randy, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

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.

I don’t think you could be led astray. You know far too much of the actual history. As I would bet you also know, Luther made one ‘semi-attempt’ to convert the Jews, in 1523 with his “That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew”.

Of the more than 55 volumes that Luther wrote, this short treatise is the only one that his defenders can point to which could even remotely considered to be “friendly” to the Jews and, it is the only one which could hope to balance out his later brutal language and recommendations. In fact, this relatively short treatise contains only a few short paragraphs which could be considered slightly friendly to the Jews. In fact it was not addressed to them at all, but rather spoke of them in the third person. The idea that Luther was basically friendly towards the Jews is, like many other things in the Legend of Luther, based on little or no evidence, and what little evidence there is to support this notion, is completely overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary.

**“The hopes expressed for the Jews in “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew” perhaps represented consciously or unconsciously his hopes for his own vindication in a world that was rejecting his gospel and assaulting his character. What a miracle it would be if the Jews were converted and Christ returned in glory to vindicate the gospel that Luther preached!” **Marius, pg. 375

In 1523 Luther was full of optimism about the future, but even this early in his career as a Reformer, he was facing significant pressures from his opposition and his own unrealistic expectations. What could be a better manifestation of the power of Luther’s ‘gospel’ than some sort of mass conversion of Jews? After all, as a group, they had proven to be almost completely immune to the allure of Christianity. In spite of the 1500 year history of virtually no conversions from Judisam, he actually expected a significant number of conversions to take place because of the power of his new gospel. However…………

Luther’s “optimism” was to be short lived, and already by the mid 1520’s it disappears noticeably and never returns.” Lutheran Professors Schramm and Stjerna, “Martin Luther, The Bible and the Jewish People”, pg 9

** “Luther did not organize any great campaign to convert the Jews.** The treatise was written as though his duty was to tell the truth and to let God do the rest.” Marius, pg. 376

In other words, in contrast to the “Legend”, Luther didn’t really make that great an effort to convert the Jews. In truth, Luther wrote “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew” to defend himself against false charges, to attack the Church, and to demonstrate the power of his proclaimations of his ‘gospel’ by converting a group which had proven itself to be very immune to the attraction of Christianity. He hoped that the Jews would be attracted to an “alternative to Roman legalism” (Marty, pg 170) However, converting Jews to Christianity for the sake of individual Jews was fourth or further down the list of his reasons for writing the treatise.

At the end of this work, Luther ended “on an expectant note: ‘Here I will let the matter rest for the present, until I see what I have accomplished.’”, LW, Vol. 47, pg. 191-2

As time went on, the Jews disappointed him, and caused him to doubt the validity of his teachings, as did many other groups. When disappointed and doubting and doubting himself, Luther pounded his opponents with everything he could muster.

Again, I will point out that ALL Christians, Lutherans included, have rejected Luther’s teachings on the Jews.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[pablope]

It’s interesting to me to read about the process you went through to get to the other shore, but I personally would find it impossible to submit to and support ALL the teachings of the Catholic Church. It would be like saying, “Yes, please come and put a straitjacket on me.” It feels to me that the Catholic Church does not leave any room for individual conscience.

calledtocommunion.com/2014/10/does-the-center-hold-the-story-of-fr-albert-scharbachs-journey-from-westminster-theological-seminary-to-catholic-priest/

The more I understood Catholic doctrine, the more I could appreciate the need for the Church and the magisterium. Clarity of theology and ecclesiology go hand-in-hand. This was first true for the Early Church. Back to that moment when the papacy made sense in the Westminster library. One interesting observation I found was that a greater understanding of the significance of the papacy developed alongside the development of Christology. As we study Early Church history, we find that writings in the first two centuries paled in clarity when compared with Scripture. But doctrinal clarity in the writings of the Early Church Fathers dramatically increased as questions of Christology were resolved in the fifth century. This happens to be at the same time that ecclesiology became more defined through the strengthening of the papacy. The broad parallels suggest that this is no mere coincidence. In order to define the faith in the early Church, the center had to hold. That was found through the papacy in the Catholic Church. The need today is no different–both for the broader Church and in our individual lives.

For example, my ELCA Lutheran church has a young woman associate pastor who was called to join us about a year and a half ago and shares responsibilities with our senior pastor who is male. She preaches the sermon every other week and I have been attending a Bible study with her every week for a number of months. She is just as gifted in preaching and teaching as her male counterpart and my conscience would not allow me to accept a teaching that women cannot be ordained. This is an issue where I personally think that the Catholic Church is wrong and this in itself would prevent me from ever becoming a Catholic.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Frustration that you seem to want to revive an older Catholic approach to Luther which simply widens the divisions between Protestants and Catholics, for one thing. And even more importantly, the desire to make clear to the lurkers that you do not speak for Catholics as a whole. You risk causing grave scandal–Protestants who come to this forum and read your posts and those of many other Catholics on this subject would get a misleading and harmful impression of the Catholic Church’s attitude to Protestantism. Edwin

I find this forum fascinating. Catholic scholars attempt to positively weave Luther into the history of the church, while folks in cyberspace want to breathe new life life into Exsurge Domine, so to speak. The closer it gets to 2017, the more interesting this will probably become.

 

[spina1953]

HI Topper: After reading your post #827 and reflecting on what you wrote, The only real interest that I see that Luther decided to try his luck in wanting the Jews to convert was the thought that by his word and authority Jews would convert to him in mass. As history shows, that did not happen. That being said, it seems to me that in the long run Luther knew Jews were never going to convert in mass and come over to his side.
Luther was more interested in getting his theology and teaching out to the masses with the end result of breaking the CC. By that I mean if Luther could persuade the masses to leave the CC in droves, the CC would be reduced to a mere side line moving to extinction and Luther Christ's champion. yet, within a hundred years or so the CC was able to regain nearly half of the gains Luther made in persuading the masses to join him. which I must say says a lot about the CC's teachings as apposed to what Luther taught and offered.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

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

OK, so how about you all lock yourselves into a room with some Budweiser and some hot dogs and not come out until you can present a unified doctrinal front to Cathocism. How can the issue of ‘authority’ be solved between Catholoicsm and Lutheranism when ‘ya all’ can’t agree on who, or even what ‘is’ right amongst yourselves. What are we supposed to do Jon, dialogue with each Lutheran communion separately? Actually I am starting to get the impression that one of the reasons for the lack of progress is the lack of intra-Lutheran unity. Personally I wonder how any real progress with Lutheranism overall is possible when it has so much internal disagreement within Lutheranism itself.

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

I agree. It would have a much bigger impact on Christian unity, at least percentagewise. However, I think that your statement implies that the Catholic/Lutheran dialogue is ‘less important’. It also seems that you might be implying that Lutheranism, or maybe you personally, would be inclined to reunite with Rome IF somebody other than you or Lutheranism ‘does something’. That seems to assign yourself and Lutheranism a somewhat ‘passive role’. Is that what you mean?

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

I think that this gets right to the issue of the authority of Luther (and thus Lutehranism) to proclaim ANYTHING to be ‘normative’. As for the Formula of Concord, just exactly who were the authors and by what authority did they have to make doctrinal prononcements outside of an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. Maybe we should start with exactly who the authors were and why Lutheranism (or some portion of it) believes that they were ‘correct’ in the doctrinal formulations which were in opposition to those of the Church. Specifics please.

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

In fact I do.

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.

Well Jon, it was Martin Luther who ‘decided’ that, and today roughly 4% of Christianity bear his name and follow his teachings. Whether or not he was right is a HUGE issue, although not as important to ‘some’ as my ‘style’ of apologetics. So to answer your question as to ‘who determines’, based on what I have learned (and have posted) I would accept the jugdement of just about anyone before I would that of Luther.

This is exactly why we have to examine the history of the early Reformation and determine whether Luther’s justification for his doctrinal Revolt is credible. My position is that it is not.

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.

Jon, I am a ‘results person’. It’s not about ‘feelings’ with me. In addition, are you seriously telling me that after 50 years, papal infallibility just hasn’t come up in the sequence of topics? Have we just not gotten to the ‘Ps’ yet?

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.

Well, when we look at the progress made by ‘staying positive’ and avoiding the real issues, then how in the world can another ‘braver’ approach be criticized, especially when it obviously has not been attempted and has NOT failed so miserably as the current approach. To me Jon, the fact that papal infallibilty has not ‘come up’ in 50 years tells me everything I need to know about the Dialogue.

As a matter of fact, any such dialogue would logically require the Lutheran ‘side’ to justify the Authority of Luther to challenge the doctrines of the sixteenth century Church. That question challenges the FOUNDATION of Lutheranism and greater Protestantism. Approaching that topic that is not ‘staying positive’ and thus will not happen at all under the current framework and necessity of not challenging people’s long held beliefs. Better we just stay divided rather than ‘go there’. Right?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

OK, so how about you all lock yourselves into a room with some Budweiser and some hot dogs and not come out until you can present a unified doctrinal front to Cathocism. How can the issue of ‘authority’ be solved between Catholoicsm and Lutheranism when ‘ya all’ can’t agree on who, or even what ‘is’ right amongst yourselves. What are we supposed to do Jon, dialogue with each Lutheran communion separately? Actually I am starting to get the impression that one of the reasons for the lack of progress is the lack of intra-Lutheran unity. Personally I wonder how any real progress with Lutheranism overall is possible when it has so much internal disagreement within Lutheranism itself.

I agree. It would have a much bigger impact on Christian unity, at least percentagewise. However, I think that your statement implies that the Catholic/Lutheran dialogue is ‘less important’. It also seems that you might be implying that Lutheranism, or maybe you personally, would be inclined to reunite with Rome IF somebody other than you or Lutheranism ‘does something’. That seems to assign yourself and Lutheranism a somewhat ‘passive role’. Is that what you mean?

I think that this gets right to the issue of the authority of Luther (and thus Lutehranism) to proclaim ANYTHING to be ‘normative’. As for the Formula of Concord, just exactly who were the authors and by what authority did they have to make doctrinal prononcements outside of an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. Maybe we should start with exactly who the authors were and why Lutheranism (or some portion of it) believes that they were ‘correct’ in the doctrinal formulations which were in opposition to those of the Church. Specifics please.

In fact I do.

Well Jon, it was Martin Luther who ‘decided’ that, and today roughly 4% of Christianity bear his name and follow his teachings. Whether or not he was right is a HUGE issue, although not as important to ‘some’ as my ‘style’ of apologetics. So to answer your question as to ‘who determines’, based on what I have learned (and have posted) I would accept the jugdement of just about anyone before I would that of Luther.

This is exactly why we have to examine the history of the early Reformation and determine whether Luther’s justification for his doctrinal Revolt is credible. My position is that it is not.

Jo, I am not all that impressed by people who want to tell me WHAT they believe UNLESS they can tell me WHY they believe what they do. In addition, are you seriously telling me that after 50 years, Papal Infallibility just hasn’t come up in the sequence of topics? Are you suggesting that there is some kind of master plan and that there is a specific date on which it will be addressed? Have we just not gotten to the ‘Ps’ yet?

Well, when we look at the progress made by ‘staying positive’ and avoiding the real issues, then how in the world can another ‘braver’ approach be criticized, especially when it obviously has not been attempted and has NOT failed so miserably as the current approach. To me Jon, the fact that papal infallibilty has not ‘come up’ in 50 years tells me everything I need to know about the Dialogue.

As a matter of fact, any such dialogue would logically require the Lutheran ‘side’ to justify the Authority of Luther to challenge the doctrines of the sixteenth century Church. That question challenges the FOUNDATION of Lutheranism and greater Protestantism. Approaching that topic that is not ‘staying positive’ and thus will not happen at all under the current framework and necessity of not challenging people’s long held beliefs. Better we just stay divided rather than ‘go there’. Right?

 

[Topper17]

Go back and read the reason I posted that.

OK, I did and I still don’t see it. I don’t think you can claim to have caused me to have changed my position when I don’t even know what you are talking about and you are not willing to restate your point.

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.

Jon, that is one ‘definition’ of the term ‘Church’ (or ‘church’). It is NOT the fullest definition of the term. Under your much looser definition, it seems to be perfectly acceptable to have multiple churches teaching in completion and in direct confilct with the Mother Church. Logically that makes no sense whatsoever.

Yep. Sounds like Luther.

I certainly does at that.

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.

Jon – is it acceptable to you that Luther didn’t consider Catholics to be Christians? What do you think of that ‘attitude’?

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.

Here you were offered a chance to suggest a means by which there could be some real progress, and you admit that you don’t have anything. Personaly, I think that just leaving it up to the Holy Spirit, is a little too ‘passive’. I think that it is fallen man who has destroyed the Unity that Christ commanded and that it is at least partly up to fallen man to fix it.

Here by these comments and a lack of a ‘plan’, even a hypothetical plan, you admit that there will NOT be any kind of reconciliation UNTIL Heaven. I would suggest that we be a little ‘braver’ than that and actually take on the reasons for our separation.

Of course you are going to agree that they are doing the right thing. What they are doing Jon is avoiding the issue.

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.

What I was asking for was a serious proposal, and BTW, you make it very clear that what I say actually ‘does matter’, at least to you. Somehow I am reminded of the attitude of the Current Administration which seems to think that all we have to do is ‘stay positive’ and ‘talk nice’ to our ‘opponents’ and, everything will magically be ok. This is ‘fantastical thinking’ and is completely disconnected from reality. Ignoring the tough stuff only insures that it will remain problematic.

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.

OK, how much time are you willing to allow them? All I am saying is the obvious Jon, that if after 50 years we haven’t ‘gotten around’ to the most crucial issue, the issue of authority, then the current Dialoge is NOT WORKING. We need a new, bolder, less ‘timid’ approach.

Topper

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

It has made Catholicism better.

'Nuff said.

 

[Stilldreamn]

Luther was more interested in getting his theology and teaching out to the masses with the end result of breaking the CC. By that I mean if Luther could persuade the masses to leave the CC in droves, the CC would be reduced to a mere side line moving to extinction and Luther Christ’s champion. yet, within a hundred years or so the CC was able to regain nearly half of the gains Luther made in persuading the masses to join him. which I must say says a lot about the CC’s teachings as apposed to what Luther taught and offered.

Spina, if you would look at the history of the Schmalkaldic League and the war that followed it seems that the “masses” were not the driving force behind the Reformation. If you lived in an area where the Elector or head of an Imperial state chose to adopt the new confession, you were converted - end of story. This war was ended with the Peace of Augsburg - “Whose realm, his religion.”

You converted, or left.

 

[Randy_Carson]

OK, so how about you all lock yourselves into a room with some Budweiser and some hot dogs and not come out until you can present a unified doctrinal front to Cathocism. How can the issue of ‘authority’ be solved between Catholoicsm and Lutheranism when ‘ya all’ can’t agree on who, or even what ‘is’ right amongst yourselves. What are we supposed to do Jon, dialogue with each Lutheran communion separately? Actually I am starting to get the impression that one of the reasons for the lack of progress is the lack of intra-Lutheran unity. Personally I wonder how any real progress with Lutheranism overall is possible when it has so much internal disagreement within Lutheranism itself.

Topper-

You know I enjoy your posts, but I have to take issue with something you have written above. I just can’t let it slide, so here goes:

It’s “y’all”. Not ‘ya all’. "Y’all’ is the contraction of “you all”, and the apostrophe replaces the “ou” in “you”.

By the way “y’all” is singular. If I were speaking to you, I might say, “Are y’all coming by the house after supper?” If I were speaking to a group, I would use the plural “all y’all” as in, "I haven’t seen all y’all since I don’t know when.’

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

It has made Catholicism better.

'Nuff said.

Sort of like the injection of a small amount of a virus causes the body to produce antibodies to fight it off and to avoid the sickness?

 

[Picky_Picky]

I find this forum fascinating. Catholic scholars attempt to positively weave Luther into the history of the church, while folks in cyberspace want to breathe new life life into Exsurge Domine, so to speak. The closer it gets to 2017, the more interesting this will probably become.

Well, TQ, one would expect theologians to be some way ahead of the folk in the pew, and of the folk in the pew one would expect the most noisy and extreme to appear in cyberspace (that doesn’t apply to me, of course).

I wonder, though, whether churches are slightly reluctant to keep the run-of-the-mill laity up to speed with advances in both theology and biblical studies, for fear of frightening the horses? Or if not reluctant, at least prone to turn the volume down?

 

[Stilldreamn]

Sort of like the injection of a small amount of a virus causes the body to produce antibodies to fight it off and to avoid the sickness?

You aren’t an anti-vaxxer are you?!!? YOU WILL TAKE YOUR MEDICINE AND LIKE IT.

 

[MaryT777]

Topper-

You know I enjoy your posts, but I have to take issue with something you have written above. I just can’t let it slide, so here goes:

It’s “y’all”. Not ‘ya all’. "Y’all’ is the contraction of “you all”, and the apostrophe replaces the “ou” in “you”.

By the way “y’all” is singular. If I were speaking to you, I might say, “Are y’all coming by the house after supper?” If I were speaking to a group, I would use the plural “all y’all” as in, "I haven’t seen all y’all since I don’t know when.’

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Grammar police are out Topper, beware~npatrol:

 

[MaryT777]

OK, so how about you all lock yourselves into a room with some Budweiser and some hot dogs and not come out until you can present a unified doctrinal front to Cathocism. How can the issue of ‘authority’ be solved between Catholoicsm and Lutheranism when ‘ya all’ can’t agree on who, or even what ‘is’ right amongst yourselves. What are we supposed to do Jon, dialogue with each Lutheran communion separately? Actually I am starting to get the impression that one of the reasons for the lack of progress is the lack of intra-Lutheran unity. Personally I wonder how any real progress with Lutheranism overall is possible when it has so much internal disagreement within Lutheranism itself. (Topper post 831)

Topper this is an excellent point. When the Catholic Church signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) with the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) it was noted by both parties the LCMS and not all synods were in agreement with this document.
The Catholic Church had an interesting statement there is no “ONE SIGNATURE” that can bind a statement for all Lutherans

The LCMS had an official statement on their website some as such that this was a giant step “backward” for Lutheranism for Luther had stated (If I understood correctly) that the article of faith the Church stands or falls is justification. Then an individual LCMS poster stated their personal belief was the LCMS should have signed this statement which of course is their “right” as a Lutheran to have a personal disagreement with the Synod’s signing of ecumenical statements or the attempts as such.

This leads to the fact as you state that we’d have to have discussions on the SAME Issue with differing Lutheran synods and it’s clear that this discussion on the Justification is dismal at this point because the LCMS official will NEVER (in my opinion) budge an inch on justification given Luther’s statements.

It would be time consuming and difficult for the Catholic Church to engage in dialogue and discussions with differing synods of Lutherans and if you include all the other hopes for ecumenical dialogue with other non Catholics the task would be daunting at best, and impossible in some ways. However, of course with God all things are possible.

I agree with you Topper that the crux of the matter and the key to unity is tackling the difficult issues .

However, when we can stand together and fight for life and against abortion, homosexual marriages, and issues of morals it’s wonderful and I know several Baptists who became
friends with Catholics fighting for life. They didn’t convert but they came to see we do have some important issues in common.

God bless you, Topper.
Mary.

 

[Stilldreamn]

The Catholic Church had an interesting statement there is no “ONE SIGNATURE” that can bind a statement for all Lutherans

Mary, I am sure you have a lot better things to do than follow inter/intra-Lutheran controversies, but you have*** no idea ***how correct your statement is, especially at this time.

 

[MaryT777]

Mary, I am sure you have a lot better things to do than follow inter/intra-Lutheran controversies, but you have*** no idea ***how correct your statement is, especially at this time.

Actually I follow Catholic ecumenical dialogue which notes as stated the difficulty of signing a declaration with ALL Lutherans given the different signatories which is directly
related to the intra/inter Lutheran controversies.

The signing of the JDDJ was a “big deal” in Catholic circles but also a realization of how far we have to go with reaching agreement with the confessional Lutherans on justification.

Thus, to keep abreast of issues in Catholicism it is important to have some idea what is going on in Non Catholic circles, including the Lutherans and why we can’t sit down and have one Catholic-Lutheran discussion; the intra Lutheran conflicts

Thus the post.

Mary.