How on Earth can you resolve problems like saintly intercession? That’s not an easy doctrinal issue to overcome. It’s not like justification.
I think it is. Luther departed from the Aposotlic definition of some fundamental theological concepts, and crafted definitions that he deemed were more functional and appropriate (bible based). Included were justification, the role of the successor of Peter, and the nature of the Church. Above I said he did this to “suit himself” and was appropriately corrected. He was striving for definitions that would suitably make the Body of Christ function better.
His error in this was that there was nothing wrong with the doctrines that were passed down to us from the Apostles. No amount of abuse (purchasing indulgences for those in purgatory) can corrupt the doctrine of the communion of saints. He threw out the baby with the bathwater.
The Catholic catechism, though makes provision for those who, as Jon tells us, have these ideas as “adiaphora”. One can seek the intercession of the saints, but it is not considered a doctrine of the faith. Now, if a Lutheran espousing such a view wishes to become Catholic, so long as they do not openly dispute the Teaching of the Church, they can hold to this adiaphora position. In the Catechism is is called having “mental reservations”.
Code:
Plus, in these talks the Lutherans begin with a weak hand. The Roman Catholic Church considers itself infallible. How do you expect Catholics to compromise when they believe their Church is THE Church? Any compromise means compromising the faith itself. This is also why dialogue with the Orthodox will also not work in unifying the Orthodox with Catholics.
Because the vast majority of what separates us are misunderstandings. The separation from the East and West was as much cultural and linguistic intolerance as anything else. Ignorance causes such separations. For example, when the European crusaders came to Jerusalem, they slaughtered their Orthodox brethren because they wore Arabian style clothing, and they assumed they were Muslims. Such wounds to unity, caused by ignorance and prejudice, can be healed, and dialogue is the avenue for this (and education).
I think it’s obvious that Luther wanted to simply reform, and not divide the Church. But once it was clear that the Church wouldn’t accept his theological reforms, he didn’t conform, he remained outside.
These theological changes are what continue to separate us today. Catholics are not at liberty to change the once for all divine deposit of faith that was commited to the Church. Therefore, we cannot embrace the innovations of the Reformation.
Code:
Clearly Lutherans must have accepted some form of infallibility or authority at some point - after all, Lutherans accept some of the first ecumenical councils. This implies that they believe the Church did indeed act infallibly at certain points.
This is a very good point.
Then what happened after 1517? Did authority and succession fade because of the excessive corruption?
That seems to be the position. Total apostasy?
who am I to make a statement about a Church theological practice once it’s officially defined and clarified? Am I really better than all those who believed such things before me?
As you have noted, Luther was a very intelligent and well educated man. It was the CC that educated him. The CC that gave him his Bible, and taught him how to read and transalate from the ancient languages. He was well equipped for the task.
This is all making my head hurt.
Can you imagine what the Councils for Reconciliation suffer?
