Martin Luther's translation of the bible

[Starwarsfan2]

Hi Stars,

Thanks for your response.

First of all, as much as I appreciate your quoting an actual Scholar, I could not find your Brecht quote in his three volume biography, so I couldn’t check it to see if it is in context. What volume and page please.

Secondly, it is not exactly impressive that you have quoted Lutheran (or Protestant) Scholars that support ‘The Legend’, because that has been happening for 500 years now. What I think is actually more compelling is when a Lutheran Scholar is found to go AGAINST the “Legend”. That is the kind of thing that Duane and I post.

The fact is Stars, that Lutherans especially make comments about Luther’s motives constantly. Lutheran Scholars make comments about Luther’s motives constantly and so do Scholars of all stripes. Therefore, to suggest that my comments about his motives are ad hominem doesn’t make any sense. Are only Lutherans and other Protestants allowed to comment on Luther’s motives and Catholics only when they ascribe to him something positive?

I have to tell you Stars that this comment that you have directed at me is one of the stranger things I have ever read on these threads. It prompts me to ask this:

How important is the Truth? Is it worth searching for? By Truth, I am speaking of both Historical Truth, and also God’s Absolute Truth.

God Bless You Stars, Topper

Of course I believe truth is worth searching for , I was simply encouraging you to not be so cold against your opponents and a bit more charitable when stating your veiw , that’s all , I could have worded it better I admit , sorry .

Keep the faith Topper , Starwars

 

[MaryT777]

Of course I believe truth is worth searching for , I was simply encouraging you to not be so cold against your opponents and a bit more charitable when stating your veiw , that’s all , I could have worded it better I admit , sorry .

Keep the faith Topper , Starwars

Topper,

It’s always those OTHER posters that are not charitable.

 

[Peter_J]

As has been pointed out, Luther referred to the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts to prepare his translation;

No objection there. (In fact, I believe that’s now standard for *Catholic *bible translations.)

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Topper,

It’s always those OTHER posters that are not charitable.

Not what i meant .

 

[Topper17]

Do you believe Pope Leo’s motives should be questioned? How about Tetzel.

Instead of questioning motives, why not evaluate what they said, and believed?

I really want to understand your position here. Lutherans have done FAR WORSE than question the motives of the various Popes, but have done that also. Tetzel, like all of Luther’s opponents have been unfairly skewered by Lutheranism for centuries. Questioning the motives of these people is MILD compared to what Luther’s opponents have suffered, both at his hands and at the hands of his followers.

Lutheranism officially teaches that the Pope is the ‘very Antichrist’. Somehow that is acceptable, and yet it is not appropriate to question Luther’s motives? For the record Jon, you literally cannot read a book about Luther without learning a lot about what the author thinks about Luther’s motives. With all that in mind, what is it that is so unacceptable about questioning Luther’s motives?

Furthermore Jon, I spend a lot of time here revealing and evaluating Luther’s actual words and teachings. Some of those writings and teachings have to do with Luther’s ‘translation’ and the horrendous comments he made about Holy Scripture in his NT Prefaces. Those writings reveal much more about the man than what a lot of people would like them too.

First, note, no where are motives questioned in the quote. Also, no where does he put the term translation in quotes. He further uses the term “rediscovery”, which means discovered again. Luther’s theology is not, as you imagine in your dislike of him, something wholly new and different from what the apostles taught. Let’s remember that Luther’s education by the Catholic Church was of Biel, and the like.

The quote in question did a very good job of supporting my position. Lutheran Professor Wriedt commented that Luther’s translation work was ‘determined by his theological approach’. In other words, the way that he translated, the actual words that he used, were very much influenced by Luther’s radical theology, especially Salvation by Faith Alone. He also said that Luther’s approach was ‘accordingly creative’. When you look at Wriedt’s comments, it very much points to Luther’s radical methods and also his motives.

Again, all your “opinion” out of an obvious dislike for him. Catholic scholars have been cited to you over and over who highly value Luther’s deep abiding respect for scripture, the Church, and the faith.

**"… The poetic soul finds in this translation evidences of genius and expressions as natural, as beautiful, and melodious as in the original languages." **(The French Catholic Audin, cited in Plass 1948:338)

First of all, I find it absolutely impossible to view Luther as having a deep abiding respect for Scripture given his comments about and disrespect for several books of the NT.

As for your Plass quote – which book is that from? Please reference it.

Please note, no quotations around the term translation.

OK, how about a different term: ‘(Not a) translation’. I could do that. I am not going to call it a translation when it is so obvious that it was nothing more than a ‘careful revision of the older text’, which is what Protestant Professor Vedder called it.

If you insist that it was a translation based on ONLY the original languages, then it would seem that you would have to admit that Luther did Holy Scripture disservice by doing such a rushed job on something that was as important as an accurate representation of the teachings of Holy Scripture.

Vedder again: “This (German) version was certainly in the possession of Luther, and was as certainly used by him in the preparation of his version. This fact, once entirely unsuspected, and then hotly denied, has been proved to a demonstration by the “deadly parallel.” It appears from a verse-by- verse comparison that this old German Bible was in fact so industriously used by Luther, that the only accurate description of Luther’s version is to call it a careful revision of the older text.”

Whether or not Luther’s Bible was a ‘translation’ or not has been hotly debated in the literature. Yet it seems like this is not an acceptable thing to discuss here, and I don’t understand that.

Lutheran Professor E. G. Schweibert admits that: “there are several schools of thought over the question of Luther’s originality.” [whether it was really a translation]. (1) One has claimed that the Luther translation was an independent undertaking and constituted a complete break from all previous translations. (2) Another hold that the Luther translation was but the utilization of the vast body of materials, usages, and arrangement previously developed by Catholic scholars. (3) ** The third and most widely accepted concept is that there was a large accumulation of materials at Luther disposal of which he made good use; yet, his gift of languages and his fine memory for little distinctions in diction developed an entirely new synthesis, original, poetical, and expressive of the “New Theology””**. Schwiebert, pg. 527

Why is version (1) the only version that is acceptable here? And where in the world did Luther obtain the Authority to do a (supposed) translation AND inflict his radical views on Scripture so as to make it appear to support those radical views?**

 

[Topper17]

Amen, that Luther felt so moved by Paul’s words: “The just shall live by faith”, and “For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.”

There is of course Jon, the possibility, that Luther actually misunderstood Paul. That Paul and James did NOT contradict each other, as Luther believed they did. There is a chance, of course, that the reason that nobody had ever noticed Salvation by Faith Alone in Scripture prior to Luther was that it was never the intention of the authors of Scripture. That being said, the possibility exists that Luther was ‘moved’ by a false interpretation of Paul.

Recently you read Louis Bouyer and in fact I have asked you for any comments that you might have had on this amazing book from this Lutheran Pastor who swam the Tiber. I have yet to hear one comment. Be that as it may, I know you read the following Bouyer quotes:

**“Luther was the first to have to recognize that all of the writers of the New Testament, other than St. Paul, deal a crushing to the theological structure he tried to build on the later. ……**Blinded as he was by he so-called Pauline character of the structure he had erected on a few texts taken apart from their context, he did not see that St. Paul contradicted his system no less formally than did St. James. After more than three centuries, all serious exegetes are obliged by the evidence to accept this fact; there is not a single Protestant author whose works are of a scientific value who disputes it. Extrinsic justification, a justification independent of any interior change, of any new capability given to man to perform acts pleasing of themselves to God, is so far from being a Pauline doctrine that it is quite irreconcilable with the whole body of his teaching.” Pg. 173-4

“……**Albert Schweitzer, one of the greatest Protestant exegetes of St. Paul, (said) that justification by faith is not nearly so important to St. Paul as to Luther, but has been forcibly crammed by the latter into texts that, in fact, do not mention it.” **Pg. 173.

This is evidence that Luther misunderstood Paul, and I would assume that all of those Lutheran to RCC Pastors and Theologians would agree with Bouyer.

But more importantly, Baintain’s words here refer to Ernst R. Wendland states:

I completely fail to see how your Bainton quote fits into this discussion. Could you explain and properly reference it?

There you go with your quotes again. First, there is little in Luther that should be troubling to any communion but Lutheranism, and his observation that Paul’s phrase, " the just shall live by faith" is central to the catholic faith. But here you again miss the point. It is not a matter of luther rewriting the scripture to suit his own ends, but to render source languages - Greek, Latin, Hebrew - into German, and German for the people.

First of all, I don’t understand your second sentence at all. What are you trying to say?

Far too many quotes have been posted Jon which indicate that Luther’s ‘New Theology’ (or some other similar term) had a great deal to do with how he chose the actual words and phrases he chose in his (not a) translation. What these Scholars are saying is that Luther, either intentionally, or unconsciously, MADE Holy Scripture support his radical views. There is also the matter of Luther’s prefaces, which were not only intended to lead the reader towards Salvation by Faith Alone, but were also laced with anti-Catholicism. To put it mildly, his (not a) translation was not exactly an even handed effort.

Esmer complains, then uses his translation.

Yes, and Luther used the Greek translation of Erasmus, a man he ended up hating tremendously. If Erasmus was as evil and vile as Luther concluded, then that would call his Greek translation into question wouldn’t it?

So – what’s your point? Is it that Luther created a German Bible that was much easier to read and much more attractive to the average man? That’s fine but that is not the point. The point is how he could NOT have done an even se mi-decent translation from the original languages in just 11 weeks, AND that he ‘bent’ Holy Scripture to make it say what HE wanted it to say.

There’s no evidence here. Some random quotes you’ve searched for. Further, not one of your quotes puts the word translation into quotes, none of them say it is not a translation.

What about Vedder Jon? He says exactly what I am saying. He says it was not a translation.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13369377]I really want to understand your position here. Lutherans have done FAR WORSE than question the motives of the various Popes, but have done that also. Tetzel, like all of Luther’s opponents have been unfairly skewered by Lutheranism for centuries. Questioning the motives of these people is MILD compared to what Luther’s opponents have suffered, both at his hands and at the hands of his followers.

Its been mutual, as of course you know.

Lutheranism officially teaches that the Pope is the ‘very Antichrist’. Somehow that is acceptable, and yet it is not appropriate to question Luther’s motives?

Such nonsense. You’ve spent 2 years here questioning people’s motives, particularly Luther’s. You’ve accused Melanchthon of being a “bald-faced liar.” So, it isn’t like this is something you’ve been prevented from doing.
You’ve also spent the better part of two years opining about, being offended by the Lutheran charge regarding the teachings of the papacy, knowing full well that there are equally offensive accusations from the CC toward Lutheranism.

Furthermore Jon, I spend a lot of time here revealing and evaluating Luther’s actual words and teachings.

You have revealed absolutely nothing. There is nothing you have posted that is not readily available to anyone who wants to explore the issue. My only advice to them would be to check any quote you post against the actual context.

Some of those writings and teachings have to do with Luther’s ‘translation’ and the horrendous comments he made about Holy Scripture in his NT Prefaces. Those writings reveal much more about the man than what a lot of people would like them too.

You’ve spent two years here spinning this yarn, as well. I read many of his prefaces, and there is absolutely nothing horrendous, or disrespectful, or an other pejorative you wish to insert. You’re welcome to your “opinion”, based on your “revelations”.

The quote in question did a very good job of supporting my position. Lutheran Professor Wriedt commented that Luther’s translation work was ‘determined by his theological approach’. In other words, the way that he translated, the actual words that he used, were very much influenced by Luther’s radical theology, especially Salvation by Faith Alone. He also said that Luther’s approach was ‘accordingly creative’. When you look at Wriedt’s comments, it very much points to Luther’s radical methods and also his motives

Even your language here betrays a radically extreme anti-Luther bias.

First of all, I find it absolutely impossible to view Luther as having a deep abiding respect for Scripture given his comments about and disrespect for several books of the NT.

See above. Your radically extreme view of Luther is not regularly shared by Catholic scholars. While I do not share Luther’s conclusions about a number of books, and Lutheranism in general did not incorporate some of his views, there is nothing that could be concluded to be disrespectful. Many of his views reflect similar views from early Church writers.

As for your Plass quote – which book is that from? Please reference it.

Its referenced in the link I supplied.

OK, how about a different term: ‘(Not a) translation’. I could do that. I am not going to call it a translation when it is so obvious that it was nothing more than a ‘careful revision of the older text’, which is what Protestant Professor Vedder called it.

That’s ok, because there are real scholars, Catholic and otherwise, that do.

If you insist that it was a translation based on ONLY the original languages, then it would seem that you would have to admit that Luther did Holy Scripture disservice by doing such a rushed job on something that was as important as an accurate representation of the teachings of Holy Scripture.

In my previous post, I showed that it was not rushed, that it was edited by Melanchthon, before being publish.

Vedder again: “This (German) version was certainly in the possession of Luther, and was as certainly used by him in the preparation of his version. This fact, once entirely unsuspected, and then hotly denied, has been proved to a demonstration by the “deadly parallel.” It appears from a verse-by- verse comparison that this old German Bible was in fact so industriously used by Luther, that the only accurate description of Luther’s version is to call it a careful revision of the older text.”

Vedder is welcome to his opinion.

Whether or not Luther’s Bible was a ‘translation’ or not has been hotly debated in the literature. Yet it seems like this is not an acceptable thing to discuss here, and I don’t understand that.

Who said it can’t be discussed? This is a common deflection of yours. You’re very welcome to discuss your “opinion”.

Why is version (1) the only version that is acceptable here? And where in the world did Luther obtain the Authority to do a (supposed) translation AND inflict his radical views on Scripture so as to make it appear to support those radical views?

All of those versions are acceptable here, so far as I know. None of them, that I can tell, are laced with personal attacks on Luther, snide phrases such as “radical theology”, etc. They tend to be scholarly evaluations of his work, not based on a radically extreme anti-Luther bias.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13369380]There is of course Jon, the possibility, that Luther actually misunderstood Paul. That Paul and James did NOT contradict each other, as Luther believed they did.

I actually agree with this. I think his view of James was jaded by the Catholic overemphasis of James at that time. I don’t see James in any way contradicting Paul’s contention that a man is justified by faith, a faith that works through love.

There is a chance, of course, that the reason that nobody had ever noticed Salvation by Faith Alone in Scripture prior to Luther was that it was never the intention of the authors of Scripture. That being said, the possibility exists that Luther was ‘moved’ by a false interpretation of Paul.

I think that is precisely Paul’s view, stated often, that justification is by faith, and not works.

Recently you read Louis Bouyer and in fact I have asked you for any comments that you might have had on this amazing book from this Lutheran Pastor who swam the Tiber. I have yet to hear one comment.

I didn’t know I was obligated to you to comment on Bouyer.

That said, I have great respect for Bouyer’s views. His are balanced, and as I mentioned before, lacking the pejoratives that come from a radically extreme anti-Luther bias.

This is evidence that Luther misunderstood Paul, and I would assume that all of those Lutheran to RCC Pastors and Theologians would agree with Bouyer.

My view is he misunderstood James, not Paul. This misunderstanding has its roots in Catholic teaching at that time, that depended on Occam and Biel.

I completely fail to see how your Bainton quote fits into this discussion. Could you explain and properly reference it?

I didn’t quote Bainton. You pulled out a Bainton quote: ** “But the text never mattered much to him (Luther).**

I responded with Wendland:

“Every translation revolves somewhere between the two poles of “form” and “meaning.” The principle that the meaning of the biblical message has priority over the linguistic form whereby it is conveyed is the foundation of functional equivalence methodology.”

IOW, you were implying that Luther did not care about the meaning of writers in the text. Wendland counters, correctly, that what Luther didn’t care about was a literal word-for-word transliteration of Latin or Greek. He cared very deeply about the meaning of the apostolic writers, but also tat the text had to be written in German.

Far too many quotes have been posted Jon which indicate that Luther’s ‘New Theology’ (or some other similar term) had a great deal to do with how he chose the actual words and phrases he chose in his (not a) translation. What these Scholars are saying is that Luther, either intentionally, or unconsciously, MADE Holy Scripture support his radical views. There is also the matter of Luther’s prefaces, which were not only intended to lead the reader towards Salvation by Faith Alone, but were also laced with anti-Catholicism. To put it mildly, his (not a) translation was not exactly an even handed effort.

Again, you are welcome to your “opinion”, but there are real Catholic scholars, that disagree with you. And guess what, there are Catholic scholars that agree with you, yet choose to discuss Luther from a thoughtful, evaluative approach, not laced with radically extreme anti-Luther comments.
As for Luther’s prefaces, by and large, they are thoughtful, reverent expression’s of Luther’s views of scripture, and its teachings, as well as the reasons **he believed **they belonged in the canon, or didn’t.

Yes, and Luther used the Greek translation of Erasmus, a man he ended up hating tremendously. If Erasmus was as evil and vile as Luther concluded, then that would call his Greek translation into question wouldn’t it?

No, Topper. Not everyone thinks that because someone is wrong about one thing, they are wrong about everything.

So – what’s your point? Is it that Luther created a German Bible that was much easier to read and much more attractive to the average man? That’s fine but that is not the point.

Of course its the point. It put into the hands of the common German, access to the Gospel, in the language he understood. Some could read it themselves, others listened to it read by others, eventually even in the Catholic areas,

The point is how he could NOT have done an even se mi-decent translation from the original languages in just 11 weeks, AND that he ‘bent’ Holy Scripture to make it say what HE wanted it to say.

Funny. Joseph F. Kelly, professor at John Carroll University, calls it a “…magnificent translation of the Bible into German, a foundation block of the modern German language.”
The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: A History
You probably won’t be surprised that I will weigh his opinion much higher than your “opinion”.

What about Vedder Jon? He says exactly what I am saying. He says it was not a translation.

What about Kelly? He says it was a magnificent translation.

Jon

 

[FollowChrist34]

Yee shall knowe them by their fruits: Doe men gather grapes of thornes, or figges of thistles?

 

[MaryT777]

Yee shall knowe them by their fruits: Doe men gather grapes of thornes, or figges of thistles?

1. New International Version
   for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
2. New International Version
   If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
3. Martin Luther: I have no clue if he said this or not quite honestly but we are dung heps
   covered with snow; he did have a bathroom fixation it seemd.
4. Might go along with #3

Isaiah 64:6New International Version (NIV)

6
All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

 

[FollowChrist34]

1. New International Version
   for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
2. New International Version
   If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
3. Martin Luther: I have no clue if he said this or not quite honestly but we are dung heps
   covered with snow; he did have a bathroom fixation it seemd.
4. Might go along with #3

Isaiah 64:6New International Version (NIV)

6
All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

Thanks - I love grapes!

(Careful lest we make his case for him!)

 

[JonNC]

=MaryT777;13370616]1. New International Version
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

True.

1. New International Version
   If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

ESV
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1. Martin Luther: I have no clue if he said this or not quite honestly but we are dung heps covered with snow; he did have a bathroom fixation it seemd.

Probably not, but he certainly could have.

1. Might go along with #3

Isaiah 64:6New International Version (NIV)
6
All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

Yeah. It might.
Jon

 

[commenter]

1. Martin Luther: I have no clue if he said this or not quite honestly but we are dung heps
   covered with snow; he did have a bathroom fixation it seemd.
2. Might go along with #3

Could everyone raise the tone of this thread, and avoid personal attacks, on the living or the dead? I know nothing about this topic, which doesn’t usually deter me from posting and pontificating, but my fear of my own personal fixations going under the uncharitable microscope keeps me from commenting.

Nothing that happened in the 16th century is more important now than the welfare of the people reading and writing on this forum. We all agree that St. Paul urged us to love. Posting within that parameter, writing about an imperfect man who lived then and translated the Bible can be informative, but none of your insights will be heard by readers if not shared in love.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I would hope most if not all of us all know full well that the vitriol on this thread against Luther is not the official position of the Catholic Church. Nor does it reflect on Luther. At this point it is doing infinitely more damage to the image of the Catholic Church than Luther anyway.

 

[MaryT777]

I would hope most if not all of us all know full well that the vitriol on this thread against Luther is not the official position of the Catholic Church. Nor does it reflect on Luther. At this point it is doing infinitely more damage to the image of the Catholic Church than Luther anyway.

Can you post the official position of the Catholic Church regarding Luther that you are referring to? I have no clue what that might be.

He was excommunicated as a heretic by the Catholic Church which is a serious issue.

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

I would hope most if not all of us all know full well that the vitriol on this thread against Luther is not the official position of the Catholic Church. Nor does it reflect on Luther. At this point it is doing infinitely more damage to the image of the Catholic Church than Luther anyway.

You may want to look up “Luther” in the Catholic encyclopedia.

Mary.

 

[FollowChrist34]

ROME, Nov. 5— Pope John Paul II, in a letter issued today, praised Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation who was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, saying the world is still ‘‘experiencing his great impact on history.’’

His comments were contained in a letter to the president of the Pontifical Secretariat for the Union of Christians, Johannes Cardinal Willebrands, to mark the anniversary of Martin Luther, whose 500th birthday will be celebrated next Thursday. The text of the letter was made public by the Vatican,

In a related development, it was announced that Pope John Paul would preach on Dec. 11 in a Lutheran church here. The announcement was made by Christoph Meyer, the dean of the church, the Evangelical Lutheran Christoph Church, which has served the resident German community for 168 years. The service will be held in German, and the Pope will preach in the language of Martin Luther.

**The Pope noted with satisfaction that the Protestant churches had declared the anniversary year to be an occasion that should serve ‘‘a genuine ecumenical spirit’’ and said that he saw this as a ‘‘fraternal invitation’’ to a joint reflection on the history and inheritance of Luther.

Roman Catholic and Protestant studies have yielded a more balanced picture of Luther’s personality and the realities of the 16th century, the Pope continued, and shown that ‘‘the rupture in ecclesiastical unity cannot be reduced to the lack of comprehension by Catholic Church authorities or solely to Luther’s lack of understanding of true Catholicism, even if both factors played a role.’’

The Pope called for continued historical research, ‘‘that does not take sides, motivated only be the search for truth,’’ to provide ‘‘a true image’’ of Luther and the Reformation. ‘‘Guilt, wherever it exists, must be recognized, on whichever side it is found,’’ the Pope wrote. **
John Paul called on Cardinal Willebrands to continue the ecumenical dialogue in quest of restoration of Christian unity and offered a special prayer and blessing for this work.

**’‘The clarification of history that turns to the past and whose significance persists must go in equal steps with the dialogue of faith which we at present embark on to look for unity,’’ the Pope wrote.

The Pope said the anniversary year was ‘‘an occasion to meditate, in Christian truth and charity, on that event engraved in history that was the epoch of the Reformation.’’

‘‘It is time that we distance ourselves from historic events and assure that they are often better understood and evoked,’’ the Pope said. John Paul said Luther was a man of ‘‘profound religiousness’’ who was ‘‘driven by the examination of eternal salvation.’’ **

nytimes.com/1983/11/06/world/pope-praises-luther-in-an-appeal-for-unity-on-protest-anniversary.html

 

[FollowChrist34]

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279

821 Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call:

• a permanent renewal of the Church in greater fidelity to her vocation; such renewal is the driving-force of the movement toward unity;280
• **conversion of heart as the faithful “try to live holier lives according to the Gospel”;281 for it is the unfaithfulness of the members to Christ’s gift which causes divisions; **
• prayer in common, because “change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name 'spiritual ecumenism;”'282
• fraternal knowledge of each other;283
• ecumenical formation of the faithful and especially of priests;284
• dialogue among theologians and meetings among Christians of the different churches and communities;285
• collaboration among Christians in various areas of service to mankind.286 “Human service” is the idiomatic phrase.

822 Concern for achieving unity "involves the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike."287 But we must realize “that this holy objective - the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ - transcends human powers and gifts.” That is why we place all our hope "in the prayer of Christ for the Church, in the love of the Father for us, and in the power of the Holy Spirit."288

Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[FollowChrist34]

Opposing interpretations and applications of the biblical message of justification were in the sixteenth century a principal cause of the division of the Western church and led as well to doctrinal condemnations. A common understanding of justification is therefore fundamental and indispensable to overcoming that division. By appropriating insights of recent biblical studies and drawing on modern investigations of the history of theology and dogma, the post-Vatican II ecumenical dialogue has led to a notable convergence concerning justification, with the result that this Joint Declaration is able to formulate a consensus on basic truths concerning the doctrine of justification. In light of this consensus, the corresponding doctrinal condemnations of the sixteenth century do not apply to today’s partner.

Like the dialogues themselves, this Joint Declaration rests on the conviction that in overcoming the earlier controversial questions and doctrinal condemnations, the churches neither take the condemnations lightly nor do they disavow their own past. On the contrary, this Declaration is shaped by the conviction that in their respective histories our churches have come to new insights. Developments have taken place which not only make possible, but also require the churches to examine the divisive questions and condemnations and see them in a new light.

JOINT DECLARATION
ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
by the Lutheran World Federation
and the Catholic Churchvatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

 

[MaryT777]

ROME, Nov. 5— Pope John Paul II, in a letter issued today, praised Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation who was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, saying the world is still ‘‘experiencing his great impact on history.’’

His comments were contained in a letter to the president of the Pontifical Secretariat for the Union of Christians, Johannes Cardinal Willebrands, to mark the anniversary of Martin Luther, whose 500th birthday will be celebrated next Thursday. The text of the letter was made public by the Vatican,

In a related development, it was announced that Pope John Paul would preach on Dec. 11 in a Lutheran church here. The announcement was made by Christoph Meyer, the dean of the church, the Evangelical Lutheran Christoph Church, which has served the resident German community for 168 years. The service will be held in German, and the Pope will preach in the language of Martin Luther.

**The Pope noted with satisfaction that the Protestant churches had declared the anniversary year to be an occasion that should serve ‘‘a genuine ecumenical spirit’’ and said that he saw this as a ‘‘fraternal invitation’’ to a joint reflection on the history and inheritance of Luther.

Roman Catholic and Protestant studies have yielded a more balanced picture of Luther’s personality and the realities of the 16th century, the Pope continued, and shown that ‘‘the rupture in ecclesiastical unity cannot be reduced to the lack of comprehension by Catholic Church authorities or solely to Luther’s lack of understanding of true Catholicism, even if both factors played a role.’’

The Pope called for continued historical research, ‘‘that does not take sides, motivated only be the search for truth,’’ to provide ‘‘a true image’’ of Luther and the Reformation. ‘‘Guilt, wherever it exists, must be recognized, on whichever side it is found,’’ the Pope wrote. **
John Paul called on Cardinal Willebrands to continue the ecumenical dialogue in quest of restoration of Christian unity and offered a special prayer and blessing for this work.

**’‘The clarification of history that turns to the past and whose significance persists must go in equal steps with the dialogue of faith which we at present embark on to look for unity,’’ the Pope wrote.

The Pope said the anniversary year was ‘‘an occasion to meditate, in Christian truth and charity, on that event engraved in history that was the epoch of the Reformation.’’

‘‘It is time that we distance ourselves from historic events and assure that they are often better understood and evoked,’’ the Pope said. John Paul said Luther was a man of ‘‘profound religiousness’’ who was ‘‘driven by the examination of eternal salvation.’’ **

nytimes.com/1983/11/06/world/pope-praises-luther-in-an-appeal-for-unity-on-protest-anniversary.html

What was the Lutheran response to this? I have not seen one yet? The Pope is still sitting in the seat of the AntChrist according to the LCMS and WELS and the biggest movement towards unity was with the signing of the JDDJ which confessional Lutherans did not sign.

Have the confessional Lutherans made some response back to this?

Mary.