P
Peter_J
Guest
You forgot clown masses.
- Status
M
MaryT777
Guest
Well said,
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Jon,
Thanks for your response.
Our non-Lutheran theologian Paul Tillich makes some startling points about Protestants and the Sacraments:
“Most of the sacramental features of Catholic tradition have been radically questioned by Protestantism; indeed, they have been abandoned on Protestant soil. And the process of reduction has not stopped with this. In the course of its history Protestantism has become so indifferent to sacramental thinking that even the two remaining sacraments have lost their significance, with the result that only the word has retained a genuinely sacramental character. In the revival of Reformation theology in our day, the word plays an immense role, whereas the sacraments play no role whatsoever. In is fairly evident that the Protestant sacraments are disappearing…….But the one thing needful is that the whole Protestant attitude toward the sacraments be changed……The phenomenal growth of secularism in Protestant countries can be explained partly as a result of the weakening of the sacramental power in Protestantism. For this reason the solution of the problem of ‘nature and sacrament’ is today a task on which the very destiny of Protestantism depends.” Tillich, “The Protestant Era”, (1948) pg. 111-2
How much should we hold Luther accountable for the destruction of the Sacraments in Protestantism?
“Originally Luther had abolished all sacraments but one: the faith-producing Word. On this he grounded two symbols, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which had made him anxious to give these symbols an objective supranatural validity. In this desire he fell back upon a great deal of scholastic thought, which he had otherwise excluded from his mind. He defended his new conception of the sacraments with such passionate tenacity as to make co-operation between German and Swiss Protestantism impossible. But even more was involved. The search for objective sources or props of faith led him to emphasize strongly the continuity that existed between his religion and the Church of the first seven centuries.” Heiko Holborn, (Sterling Professor of History at Yale) “A History of Modern Germany”, pg. 184
This is just one more example of Luther having charged off refuting the doctrines of the Church only to realize that he had gone too far.
All that being said Jon, how do you defend Luther’s ‘authority’ to change EVEN ONE Catholic Sacrament let alone some number between 7 and 4?
God Bless You Jon, Topper
Thanks for your response.
I’m not so sure you do understand it from the Catholic perspective. In the Catholic understanding, Sacraments convey ACTUAL graces upon the recipients. As such, the difference between 2 (or 3 if you insist) and 7 is not exactly a small thing. Saying that you practice the other 4 without defining them as Sacraments means that you deny that they actually do convey grace.
Our non-Lutheran theologian Paul Tillich makes some startling points about Protestants and the Sacraments:
“Most of the sacramental features of Catholic tradition have been radically questioned by Protestantism; indeed, they have been abandoned on Protestant soil. And the process of reduction has not stopped with this. In the course of its history Protestantism has become so indifferent to sacramental thinking that even the two remaining sacraments have lost their significance, with the result that only the word has retained a genuinely sacramental character. In the revival of Reformation theology in our day, the word plays an immense role, whereas the sacraments play no role whatsoever. In is fairly evident that the Protestant sacraments are disappearing…….But the one thing needful is that the whole Protestant attitude toward the sacraments be changed……The phenomenal growth of secularism in Protestant countries can be explained partly as a result of the weakening of the sacramental power in Protestantism. For this reason the solution of the problem of ‘nature and sacrament’ is today a task on which the very destiny of Protestantism depends.” Tillich, “The Protestant Era”, (1948) pg. 111-2
How much should we hold Luther accountable for the destruction of the Sacraments in Protestantism?
“Originally Luther had abolished all sacraments but one: the faith-producing Word. On this he grounded two symbols, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which had made him anxious to give these symbols an objective supranatural validity. In this desire he fell back upon a great deal of scholastic thought, which he had otherwise excluded from his mind. He defended his new conception of the sacraments with such passionate tenacity as to make co-operation between German and Swiss Protestantism impossible. But even more was involved. The search for objective sources or props of faith led him to emphasize strongly the continuity that existed between his religion and the Church of the first seven centuries.” Heiko Holborn, (Sterling Professor of History at Yale) “A History of Modern Germany”, pg. 184
This is just one more example of Luther having charged off refuting the doctrines of the Church only to realize that he had gone too far.
All that being said Jon, how do you defend Luther’s ‘authority’ to change EVEN ONE Catholic Sacrament let alone some number between 7 and 4?
God Bless You Jon, Topper
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi bb,
I especially like the image of the child running to the mother’s skirt. That’s exactly what it feels like.
The Catholic Church is more than holding its own as a percentage of the overall population. Protestantism on the other hand is declining rapidly, with the Confessional denominations (just as McGrath said) bearing the brunt of the decline. Atheism and Agnosticism are increasing dramatically.
Of myself and my two sibblings, all raised Protestant, one is a devout non-denominational, one is an Agnostic, and one is a Catholic (that would be me BTW).
Obviously a significant proportion of Protestantism’s losses are Catholic gains, but for the most part, when Protestants ‘convert’ it is more toward either nothingness or verylittleness.
“For as the Athest Hartmann remarks: ‘The Reformers did not realize that their faith by which they believe in the infallible canonicity of the Scriptures, is based entirely on the faith which teaches the infallible testimony of the Church and of the Ecclesiastical Tradition, they destroyed the foundation itself. The keystone of the firm hierarchical building, once broken, the ruin of the whole edifice had by degrees to follow. Thus has the principal of private judgment slowly but surely paved the way to unbelief. It is the Father of Atheism.” George Agius, “Tradition and The Church”, pg. 70
Private Interpretation obviously doesn’t lead to Athiesm overnight, but it seems that the doctrinal uncertainty that is so pervasive in Protestantism eventually DOES lead to a lack of doctrinal importance, up to and including, eventually, Athiesm.
After the famed Leipzig Debate, John Eck recognized where things were headed.
“Eck’s crowing letters (about his victory over Luther at Leipzig) after the event declared that Luther opposed sacred and solid tradition of the Church with the appeal to the conscience of the individual. Men of Eck’s conviction foresaw – rightly, as it turned out – that once the individual conscience was granted freedom to seek its own definition of truth, Christian faith would become so fragmented that no consensus would be possible and that the uncertainties inherent in any religion would then become part of the spiritual equipment of humankind.” Marius, pg. 186
Luther’s radical teaching of Private Interpretation is just one more instance of him foolishly charging off and changing established doctrines.
You know bb, I think the only way to reverse this trend towards Atheism is one soul at a time, exactly the way that you and I have done it.
God Bless You bb, Topper
I especially like the image of the child running to the mother’s skirt. That’s exactly what it feels like.
Both McGrath and Ozment have commened on the trend of Protestant conversion to Catholicism. The actual statistics as reported by Gallup bear this out, along with a lot of other interesting information:Topper, I’ve often wondered recently how significant is the trend of people coming into the Catholic Church from non-Catholic communions, especially now that I am a part of that trend. A major factor for me in my conversion (among many other factors) concerns the post-Christian culture that we live in today and the need for a strong bulwark to stand up to and stem the tide of godlessness that is so pervasive. The Catholic Church is that bulwark. Sometimes I feel like a scared little child running to hide in her mother’s skirts.
- In 1948, 69% of Americans identified themselves as Protestants, compared to 50% today. The comparable statistics for Catholics over the same period are 22% and 24%. During the last 66 years Protestants declined as a percentage of the whole by 28% while Catholics increased by 9%. Unfortunately those who reported ‘none’ increased from 2% to 15% over the same period. Obviously Protestantism’s losses have been partly to the Church, but more to Atheism and Agnosticism.
- In 2001, 55% of Americans believed that religion was increasing in its influence in America, with 33% believing that that influence was on the wane. In 2013, the figures had reversed to only 21% seeing that influence increasing and 76% declining.
- In 1992 34% of people reported that they attend church or synagogue at least once a week. Today it is only 27%, a decline of 21%. In that same period of time the number of people who responded that they NEVER attend church rose from 14% to 22%, an increase of 57% in only 22 years.
- Since 1944, 11 times more Americans do not believe in God (11% vs 1%), and three times as many people believe in a ‘universal spirit’ as opposed to a ‘God’. (9% vs. 3%)
- Trends show Protestantism to be shrinking in the US, especially among the mainline denominations. In the last 20 years the following Protestant denominations have shrunk in terms of percentages of the whole American population by the following:
Code:A. Baptists from 19% 20 years ago to 16% today B. Methodists – 10% to 5% C. Presbyterians – 5% to 2% D. Episcopalians – 2% to 1% E. Lutherans – 7% to 4%
The Catholic Church is more than holding its own as a percentage of the overall population. Protestantism on the other hand is declining rapidly, with the Confessional denominations (just as McGrath said) bearing the brunt of the decline. Atheism and Agnosticism are increasing dramatically.
Of myself and my two sibblings, all raised Protestant, one is a devout non-denominational, one is an Agnostic, and one is a Catholic (that would be me BTW).
Obviously a significant proportion of Protestantism’s losses are Catholic gains, but for the most part, when Protestants ‘convert’ it is more toward either nothingness or verylittleness.
“For as the Athest Hartmann remarks: ‘The Reformers did not realize that their faith by which they believe in the infallible canonicity of the Scriptures, is based entirely on the faith which teaches the infallible testimony of the Church and of the Ecclesiastical Tradition, they destroyed the foundation itself. The keystone of the firm hierarchical building, once broken, the ruin of the whole edifice had by degrees to follow. Thus has the principal of private judgment slowly but surely paved the way to unbelief. It is the Father of Atheism.” George Agius, “Tradition and The Church”, pg. 70
Private Interpretation obviously doesn’t lead to Athiesm overnight, but it seems that the doctrinal uncertainty that is so pervasive in Protestantism eventually DOES lead to a lack of doctrinal importance, up to and including, eventually, Athiesm.
After the famed Leipzig Debate, John Eck recognized where things were headed.
“Eck’s crowing letters (about his victory over Luther at Leipzig) after the event declared that Luther opposed sacred and solid tradition of the Church with the appeal to the conscience of the individual. Men of Eck’s conviction foresaw – rightly, as it turned out – that once the individual conscience was granted freedom to seek its own definition of truth, Christian faith would become so fragmented that no consensus would be possible and that the uncertainties inherent in any religion would then become part of the spiritual equipment of humankind.” Marius, pg. 186
Luther’s radical teaching of Private Interpretation is just one more instance of him foolishly charging off and changing established doctrines.
You know bb, I think the only way to reverse this trend towards Atheism is one soul at a time, exactly the way that you and I have done it.
God Bless You bb, Topper
Perhaps I misread this, but my impression is that it seems a bit arrogant to assume one knows more about what someone else understands than that person himself, particularly when they are not personally acquainted.
First, I did not say that it is a small thing, nor did I say that they do not convey grace, so it seems difficult for me to see how you know what I do and don’t understand when you are presuming as you have here.
What Paul Tillich says about what protestants do or don’t believe about the sacraments seem irrelevant. Leaving protestants out of this (they don’t need Tillich, or you, or me to speak for them), here is what the confessions say:
The Apology:
bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php
Melanchthon goes on to talk about the other four. Also found in the Confessions are Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms on the subject of the sacraments.
As for the other for, I have been confirmed, and have been blessed by it. I am married, and have been truly blessed by it. I witnessed an ordination, and was blessed by it. I do not have any experience yet with anointing. Catholics calling these sacraments is no issue to me
To help my “understanding”, perhaps you could spend a post or two writing about how you are blessed by the Catholic view of the sacraments, and what they mean, and mean to you. It seems so rare that you write about Catholic teaching, but instead appear almost overwhelmed with a desire to bash Luther. I look forward to your positive outlook and testimony on your Catholic faith.
Jon
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Good observation! I will try to paraphrase John Henry Newman on this:
It’s like there are two ends of the Faith spectrum; Catholicity and Atheism. One’s life journey is aimed in one of those two directions (knowingly or not.) Protestants would be somewhere in the middle, but are they (the member, not the church itself) oriented toward Catholicity or Atheism? That is not to say that one is either one or the other, mind you. Rather one is moving in a direction in one’s Faith.
Therefore an uninvolved Protestant or Catholic, who rarely if ever attends church is obviously progressing toward Atheism. A fervent/devout Protestant is heading toward Catholicity.
Now for whatever reason, people may even become fixed in one spot and not progress at all in either direction. But there is a negative current in this world biasing people toward Atheism, so even to remain fixed requires no little effort.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Jon,
Thanks for your response.
If you want a positive response you probably should not refer me to your Confessions. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that they are anti-Catholic and as such, do not consider them to be a valid expression of Christian doctrine. I do recognize though that they represent official Lutheran teaching.
“How do you defend Luther’s ‘authority’ to change EVEN ONE Catholic Sacrament, let alone some number between 7 and 4?”
Honestly Jon, the question is of supreme importance and if you cannot offer something that appeals to logic, reason AND actual Church history, something that will be able to withstand those ‘follow-up questions’, then you might have to admit that he actually didn’t have that authority and should not have revolted against the teachings of the Church.
God Bless You Jon, Topper
Thanks for your response.
If you took my statement as an arrogant one then, yes, you did misunderstand. From your extremely brief answer there was no way for me to know whether you understood the Catholic POV. I wasn’t sure that you did and I said so. The difference between a Catholic Sacrament in Catholic Theology and something ‘sacramental’ that we practice cannot be minimized.
This statement makes absolutely no sense to me. Tillich was one of the premier Protestant Theologians of the prior century, to refer to his comments about the ‘attitude’ of Protestants towards the Sacraments as being ‘irrelevant’ is more than a little bit confusing. Would his comments have been more ‘relevant’ if you agreed with them?
This statement is also confusing to me. When you say “they” referring to Protestants, it seems that you are implying that you are not one. As for “Protestants” not needing Protestant Theologians to speak for them, it most certainly is the role of a Theologian to speak out on disturbing trends in Protestantism. Would you prefer that Catholics perform that role?
If you want a positive response you probably should not refer me to your Confessions. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that they are anti-Catholic and as such, do not consider them to be a valid expression of Christian doctrine. I do recognize though that they represent official Lutheran teaching.
It seems that you would prefer me to spend my time reflecting on how I ‘feel’ about various aspects of my Faith, rather than ‘bashing Luther’ as you so delicately put it. In the case of the 4-7 Sacraments that Protestantism has ‘downgraded’, as usual, we find him squarely as the source of our disagreement. As such, rather than discussing how I ‘feel’ about this or that, I would prefer that we discuss the SOURCE of our disagreements. After all, we will NEVER achieve any kind of meaningful communion until we actually deal with the things that separate us. Luther is the source of that separation. I fully recognize though why you would prefer to leave him in the shadow. That being said Jon, the question that you avoided in preference for a request that I talk about my feelings, was as follows:
“How do you defend Luther’s ‘authority’ to change EVEN ONE Catholic Sacrament, let alone some number between 7 and 4?”
Honestly Jon, the question is of supreme importance and if you cannot offer something that appeals to logic, reason AND actual Church history, something that will be able to withstand those ‘follow-up questions’, then you might have to admit that he actually didn’t have that authority and should not have revolted against the teachings of the Church.
God Bless You Jon, Topper
Then you could have asked me to elaborate, instead of attempting to speak for me.
I never, ever minimize sacraments, as the post you initially responded to at least implied. More directly, I would not, could not be a member of virtually any other protestant community specifically because of sacraments. I would be Catholic or Orthodox first.
The two paragraphs are connected. To say that Tillich was a “protestant theologian” is at best vague. There are lots of theologians from protestant communions that do not speak for other protestants communions. Additionally, when it comes to sacraments, Lutherans are indeed set apart, with the exception of Anglicans.
Now, if Tillich wanted to speak out on the disturbing trends of his communion, that’s fine. I already know the disturbing trends in mine, however, without his help. And since the question you asked is about the sacraments, other protestants are irrelevant to the question.
Not that I’ve seen a plethora of positive comments from you anyway, but then I guess our conversing is over. It is our confessional document. Not surprised that you don’t consider them a valid Christian doctrine. You are aware that Cardinal Ratzinger pondered the idea of Augsburg being considered a catholic document.
So let me understand; you want to discuss what separates us, but you do not want to discuss what the confessions say about what separates us.
Balderdash, and you know it. I referenced his Small and Large Catechism, but… oh, that’s right, you don’t want to discuss that. Anything Luther except what we consider part of our teaching.
Read what Melanchthon wrote. It explains the numbering of the sacraments, and how we consider them.
So, how has Luther “authority” affected Catholic teaching on the sacraments? You seem to be so concerned about his authority. His “authority” or lack thereof has had no impact on Catholic teaching that I am aware of. And the things he said that we teach you don’t want to discuss.
Again, if you want to discuss questions of “supreme importance”, then you must being willing to discuss, with mutual respect, and not bash. Lutherans are not held to Luther, but to our confessions, whether you like them or not. To discuss will require I use them. If you can’t do that, then, as I said, our discussing is done.
Jon
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Am,
Thanks for your comments.
Of course the Confessional Protestants (at least as a whole), would tend towards the Catholic end of the scale. On the other end would be the ‘me and my Bible’ Christians who rely on nothing but their own individual interpretation.
It would seem that the general ‘slide’ down the scale from Catholicism to Athiesm is one that takes place over generations and hundreds of years. While it does happen, it seems less likely that freshly minted Atheists arrive at that point from a devout Catholic upbringing. It is more logical that full blown Atheists come from environments where God was ‘less important’. In other words, the ‘movement’ from Catholicism is a multi-generational phenomenon overall. Granted, individuals can move up or down the scale from their cultural beginning point, but the important thing to understand is the overall trend.
My personal struggle to understand God’s Absolute Truth began with a realization of the supreme importance of that Truth. What else could be more important? After several years of very active searching, I came to the realization that the Church is exactly what it claims to be, and yet it still took me quite some time to rid myself of the part of the ego which is very much stroked by the notion of Private Interpretation. The idea that the Holy Spirit leads ME PERSONALLY to correctly understand the doctrines taught in Scripture is VERY seductive. However, it grates against the facts as evidenced by the massive denominalization which is the identifying mark of Protestantism, and especially of the segments which rely the most on Personal Interpretation. This has to create a tension within the individual. The ‘drug’ of Private Interpretation strokes the ego, which will not allow for the release of PI and ‘turn over’ that responsibility to something ‘other’ than the self.
“I know that I am a Christian because of how much I love our risen Lord. The Holy Spirit has been promised to me to lead me into all Truth. Therefore, the Spirit leads me to correctly understand the Bible. This means that people who disagree with me are – well – at the very least – not as ‘well led’ as I am. Therefore it is MY duty to set them all straight.”
This isn’t a Martin Luther quote, but it is his “legacy”, and not one he would be proud of.
As a Catholic who is as loyal to the Church as I know how to be, I view the world completely differently than I did as a Protestant. It is FAR less about me and what I ‘feel’ and MUCH more about God and about His Absolute Truth, which BTW is a Truth that I don’t have to search for anymore. Neither do I have to learn Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic in order to get really good at interpretation. Having found that Truth, now all I have to do is study and learn, and have faith in Christ that He actually did establish a means by which I can know, with certainty, His Truth. All I have to do is explore the fullness of it. This recognition reminds me of bb’s delightful analogy of running to running to the security a mother’s skirt. What a safe haven!
Confessional Protestants probably believe that they can lay claim to having avoided Private Interpretation by their adherence to those Confessions. However, that denies the fact that those Confessions were the Private Interpretations of some historical figure or group. Furthermore, none of them can explain why, specifically and exactly of course, THEIR Confession should be viewed as being ‘better’ than those other Confessions, without using wording that can be just as easily used against them by changing the names of the groups and their Confessions in the explanation. In short, the rational behind the Authority of the Church and the rational behind the ‘authority’ of the various Confessions are COMPLETELY different.
As for me, I have placed my chips on a ‘system’ that actually COULD work in the real world to provide doctrinal certainty, rather than on one which has proven not to be able to.
All that being said Am, how do you see Apostolic Succession fitting into God’s Plan for man to know is Absolute Truth?
God Bless You Am, Topper
Thanks for your comments.
It would seem that when you combine Newman’s and Msgr. Agius’s comments, you arrive at a concept in which one of the main indicators of a person’s position and direction on the continuum between Catholicism and Athiesm is the degree to which they employ Private Interpretation. The same can be said for denominations and whole cultures. As an example of a whole culture gone awry, we only need to look at Sweden, a country which claims to be 95%+ Lutheran. By any measure there is little Christianity in evidence there. Unfortunately, Europe is not far behind and unfortunately we are not far behind Europe.
Of course the Confessional Protestants (at least as a whole), would tend towards the Catholic end of the scale. On the other end would be the ‘me and my Bible’ Christians who rely on nothing but their own individual interpretation.
It would seem that the general ‘slide’ down the scale from Catholicism to Athiesm is one that takes place over generations and hundreds of years. While it does happen, it seems less likely that freshly minted Atheists arrive at that point from a devout Catholic upbringing. It is more logical that full blown Atheists come from environments where God was ‘less important’. In other words, the ‘movement’ from Catholicism is a multi-generational phenomenon overall. Granted, individuals can move up or down the scale from their cultural beginning point, but the important thing to understand is the overall trend.
My personal struggle to understand God’s Absolute Truth began with a realization of the supreme importance of that Truth. What else could be more important? After several years of very active searching, I came to the realization that the Church is exactly what it claims to be, and yet it still took me quite some time to rid myself of the part of the ego which is very much stroked by the notion of Private Interpretation. The idea that the Holy Spirit leads ME PERSONALLY to correctly understand the doctrines taught in Scripture is VERY seductive. However, it grates against the facts as evidenced by the massive denominalization which is the identifying mark of Protestantism, and especially of the segments which rely the most on Personal Interpretation. This has to create a tension within the individual. The ‘drug’ of Private Interpretation strokes the ego, which will not allow for the release of PI and ‘turn over’ that responsibility to something ‘other’ than the self.
“I know that I am a Christian because of how much I love our risen Lord. The Holy Spirit has been promised to me to lead me into all Truth. Therefore, the Spirit leads me to correctly understand the Bible. This means that people who disagree with me are – well – at the very least – not as ‘well led’ as I am. Therefore it is MY duty to set them all straight.”
This isn’t a Martin Luther quote, but it is his “legacy”, and not one he would be proud of.
As a Catholic who is as loyal to the Church as I know how to be, I view the world completely differently than I did as a Protestant. It is FAR less about me and what I ‘feel’ and MUCH more about God and about His Absolute Truth, which BTW is a Truth that I don’t have to search for anymore. Neither do I have to learn Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic in order to get really good at interpretation. Having found that Truth, now all I have to do is study and learn, and have faith in Christ that He actually did establish a means by which I can know, with certainty, His Truth. All I have to do is explore the fullness of it. This recognition reminds me of bb’s delightful analogy of running to running to the security a mother’s skirt. What a safe haven!
Confessional Protestants probably believe that they can lay claim to having avoided Private Interpretation by their adherence to those Confessions. However, that denies the fact that those Confessions were the Private Interpretations of some historical figure or group. Furthermore, none of them can explain why, specifically and exactly of course, THEIR Confession should be viewed as being ‘better’ than those other Confessions, without using wording that can be just as easily used against them by changing the names of the groups and their Confessions in the explanation. In short, the rational behind the Authority of the Church and the rational behind the ‘authority’ of the various Confessions are COMPLETELY different.
As for me, I have placed my chips on a ‘system’ that actually COULD work in the real world to provide doctrinal certainty, rather than on one which has proven not to be able to.
All that being said Am, how do you see Apostolic Succession fitting into God’s Plan for man to know is Absolute Truth?
God Bless You Am, Topper
S
steido01
Guest
Your assertion that all protestants must answer for the beliefs of all other protestants makes absolutely no sense to me, and no sense at all. Protestantism is not some monolithic body. Are you responsible for the beliefs of Buddhists? After all, you’re both ‘religious.’
‘Protestant,’ when used in the broad sense that you apply it here, is just as useless a word as ‘religious.’Well, we Lutherans aren’t. At least, not in the sense that you seem to imply (that is, in a sense that all protestants are alike and somehow related). How silly – and ignorant of history! We are ‘protestant’ in the sense that we are protesting what we perceive to be abuses in the church catholic; starting from the Diet of Speyer through today.
Let him call it where he sees it. He is not necessarily of us, nor we necessarily of him. Again, there is no “Protestant Church.” If you want to talk to Confessional Lutherans as Confessional Lutherans, we will have dialogue. We cannot defend that which we are not.
You seem quite eager to do so, though you have no authority over our communion. God be praised.
How would you respond if we told you that you can no longer respond with quotes or rulings from your Magisterium?
As Jon has explained; our Confessions are our beliefs. If you don’t want to dialogue with us about what we believe, then no dialogue can be had. I am thankful that your Magisterium does not share your opposition to real dialogue with orthodox Christian bodies.You may want to reflect on this sentence and think about how it comes across.
That’s not what your catechism seems to say:
M
MaryT777
Guest
Don (Steido01) in post 272 posts part of paragraph CCC 817 but let me quote more of it.
The CCCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) is free online. (Caps for emphasis are mine)
Wounds to Unity:
In fact, in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censure as DAMNABLE. But in subsequent centuries much more SERIOUS dissension appeared and large communities became separated from full Communion with the Catholic Church-for which often enough men of both sides were to blame. The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body-here we must distinguish
HERESY, apostasy, and schism-do not occur without human sin.
FF to Towards Unity section paragraph 821
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;’
How is this possible with our LCMS friends; public prayer, with their
policy regarding UNIONISM:
Quick easy definition I found online was
UNIONISM: Joining in worship with other Christians with whom we are not in agreement in doctrine followed by a quote from Scriptures Romans 16;17-18…
…keeping AWAY from them… for such people are NOT serving our Lord Jesus Christ but their OWN appetites.
Mary.
The CCCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) is free online. (Caps for emphasis are mine)
Wounds to Unity:
In fact, in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censure as DAMNABLE. But in subsequent centuries much more SERIOUS dissension appeared and large communities became separated from full Communion with the Catholic Church-for which often enough men of both sides were to blame. The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body-here we must distinguish
HERESY, apostasy, and schism-do not occur without human sin.
FF to Towards Unity section paragraph 821
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;’
How is this possible with our LCMS friends; public prayer, with their
policy regarding UNIONISM:
Quick easy definition I found online was
UNIONISM: Joining in worship with other Christians with whom we are not in agreement in doctrine followed by a quote from Scriptures Romans 16;17-18…
…keeping AWAY from them… for such people are NOT serving our Lord Jesus Christ but their OWN appetites.
Mary.
S
steido01
Guest
Hi Mary. We do avoid appearances of unionism or syncretism, as does your communion. For this reason, we do not share the Eucharist under normal circumstances with other Christians - whether at our altars or theirs. Your communion practices the same.
Prayer, however, is something that all Christians can do together. Else we would not be able to participate in Ecumenical Prayer Services with both Roman Catholic and LCMS: blogs.lcms.org/2008/lcms-leaders-attend-ecumenical-meeting-with-pope
B
betsybug354
Guest
Ahem… nypost.com/2013/02/08/lutheran-pastor-apologizes-for-attending-sandy-hook-interfaith-vigil/
This kind of thing makes the LCMS look extremely insular, IMHO.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Don, I’m not talking about the Eucharist and I have no clue where you got that idea.
I’m talking about public prayer with other Christians.
Can a leader of the LCMS for instance pray publicly with the Pope for Christian unity ?
Mary.
M
MaryT777
Guest
It makes no sense to me that some LCMS Posters note we should pray for unity when their own synod prohibits praying in public for Unity with someone of another Christian denomination even other Lutherans in the above link. Not only that the 911 fiasco with Benke. That said the comment there was that there were non Christians present.
That said I am back to my original ?
Could the LCMS President pray publicly with the Pope for unity?
Yes or no will suffice.
Mary.
S
steido01
Guest
I think we need to consider the distinction between prayer and worship, as the definition of unionism you quoted does.
***Prayer ***with other Christians can be entirely good, and prayer for unity even better.
Worship with other Christians who do not hold our beliefs is not good; this is why both our communions restrict how non-members can participate in worship. You and I cannot receive the Eucharist at each other’s altars. Does that make a bit more sense now?
Yes, they could. As I’ve linked above, they have - when appropriate. Just as we march together for Life and spoke together on Capitol Hill.
But the should is also important - to both our communions. Would such public display lead to speculation that one somehow condones the other’s views? Given how often the media misinterpret’s Pope Francis’s words, I would venture to say that any joint prayer must be carefully considered.
S
steido01
Guest
Insulated we may be. At times, it may be necessary.
In any case, President Harrison apologized publicly. I see no reason to hold it over him: wmltblog.org/2013/02/president-harrisons-video-on-the-newtown-conn-statement-of-unity-and-pastoral-letters/
If you consider yourself familiar with the situation, I strongly encourage you to read the reconciled words of all three clergymen involved: wmltblog.org/2013/02/pastoral-letters-on-the-newtown-tragedy/
M
MaryT777
Guest
Don,
it seems like your LCMS leaders ( at least in the instances of the 911 issue and what they called in this LCMS Church the “Benke dispute” and the instance Betsybug 354 posted ) are themselves confused when they can and cannot pray with others.
Those were big events in our Country where prayer was important and yet confusion existed in the leadership of your LCMS as to whether or not they SHOULD have been there praying.
Mary.
it seems like your LCMS leaders ( at least in the instances of the 911 issue and what they called in this LCMS Church the “Benke dispute” and the instance Betsybug 354 posted ) are themselves confused when they can and cannot pray with others.
Those were big events in our Country where prayer was important and yet confusion existed in the leadership of your LCMS as to whether or not they SHOULD have been there praying.
Mary.
G
GraceofGod31
Guest
Jon,
While I admire your response about why to discuss what separates us from the RCC, your efforts may be futile however.
The insistence to discuss Luther’s authority is purely based on their belief that there needs to be a man of authority. If they were to read Luther’s writings and our confessions putting scripture first they would not be overwhelmingly: concerned with the authority of Luther.
The fact that Cardinal Ratzinger considered the Augsburg might be Catholic is telling. I believe the magesterium since Vatican II has been worried about the positions of the church in the past. We can only pray that from the top down they come to see the superior authority of scripture that shapes doctrine.
While I admire your response about why to discuss what separates us from the RCC, your efforts may be futile however.
The insistence to discuss Luther’s authority is purely based on their belief that there needs to be a man of authority. If they were to read Luther’s writings and our confessions putting scripture first they would not be overwhelmingly: concerned with the authority of Luther.
The fact that Cardinal Ratzinger considered the Augsburg might be Catholic is telling. I believe the magesterium since Vatican II has been worried about the positions of the church in the past. We can only pray that from the top down they come to see the superior authority of scripture that shapes doctrine.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Mary,
God Bless You Mar
I am not familiar with the “911 fiasco with Benke”. Could you provide a summary. It sounds like a fiasco.
God Bless You Mar
- Status