Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[KathleenGee]

Thank you!

BTW, there is a church in St. Paul, Oregon that has the relics of St. Victoria from the ancient Roman empire. We travelled there and came into the church…and there above the altar is this stained glass window…with the all seeing eye of God.

Certainly your icon was different…with the eyelashes…

As a Catholic all I could recommend would be joint prayer services. We have had them…with the Lutherans…it is a custom now…they sing more enthusiastically…but of course, we cannot have communion because of the different meanings between the two…

It is arriving at experiencing Christ in the Church…primarily in the Mass at the Eucharist…this mystical communion that is at the heart of the Church and at its summit…this is our focus…and our interpreter of all our hierarchical leadership as well as sacred Scripture.

If not Catholic, then Orthodox…but I would experience the schism…so contrary to what I experience at the Mass…

A former Protestant said to bring Protestants in the best means would be to restore the sacred liturgy…our bishop is working on bringing back what was not intended to be tossed out with wrong interpretations after Vatican II…as well as draw deeper into what the Mass can be for us today…

God bless you and keep you in my prayers…as I do everyone on Catholic Answers.

 

[JonNC]

We have heard a lot on what Lutherans should do for reconciliation.

What are Catholics willing to change?

Hi Tomyris,
I just wanted to comment briefly on this.

I believe that there is a different approach to dialogue than there is to public statements from individuals about this. If we are talking about the ongoing ecumenical dialogue(s) between the CC and Lutherans, one seems to see a common approach, and it doesn’t appear to include this type of question, in either direction. And in fact, when it comes to doctrine, the question of “what are you willing to change” seems to be a non-starter in either direction.

If one looks at the various dialogue statements, one gets the idea that both sides look at the history of the issue being discussed, Tradition and scriptural background, each side’s historic view, and where modern dialogue has led, both in terms of where agreement has been recognized, and where further talks are necessary, or if the nature of disagreements are of such a nature that they remain Church dividing.
One does not see “prerequisites” for dialogue, nor the idea that each side must give up something.

Jon

 

[Tomyris]

Hi Tomyris,
I just wanted to comment briefly on this.

I believe that there is a different approach to dialogue than there is to public statements from individuals about this. If we are talking about the ongoing ecumenical dialogue(s) between the CC and Lutherans, one seems to see a common approach, and it doesn’t appear to include this type of question, in either direction. And in fact, when it comes to doctrine, the question of “what are you willing to change” seems to be a non-starter in either direction.

If one looks at the various dialogue statements, one gets the idea that both sides look at the history of the issue being discussed, Tradition and scriptural background, each side’s historic view, and where modern dialogue has led, both in terms of where agreement has been recognized, and where further talks are necessary, or if the nature of disagreements are of such a nature that they remain Church dividing.
One does not see “prerequisites” for dialogue, nor the idea that each side must give up something.

Jon

Hi Jon,

I don’t think anyone here really has the power to change a confession held by a denomination, whether their own or another’s. For me to engage in that sort of effort is tilting at windmills. For one thing, doctrinal discussions at that level are not something I am trained or called to. The defenders of doctrine at a denominational level know a whole lot more about whatever it is than I can ever hope to. I can read a book on the development of doctrine x, but for me to try to change it is like me showing up at a nuclear physicists’ conference and telling them the whole thing about electrons is wrong.
I have a certain understanding but am not expert.

I don’t think reconciliation means the wholesale slaughter of the the theological integrity of any of us. Or, necessarily, that we all be persuaded of the same thing.

So what can we do, at our level? I think live in charity with each other, and as far is as possible, live at peace with all men. Believe the best. An example would be the persistent Protestant belief that whatever the popes are up to, it is insidious and evil. Unless I can prove it in a court of law, I should not entertain that as a fundamental understanding of Catholicism. One pope may be up to no good. A particular pope might be up to no good at certain times. But he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

That gets back to my obsession with forgiveness, not doctrinal agreement, as the basis for reconciliation. What I have done against God is far more than what any particular person has done against me - who am I to hold anything against them?

 

[MaryT777]

Hi Jon,

I don’t think anyone here really has the power to change a confession held by a denomination, whether their own or another’s. For me to engage in that sort of effort is tilting at windmills. For one thing, doctrinal discussions at that level are not something I am trained or called to. The defenders of doctrine at a denominational level know a whole lot more about whatever it is than I can ever hope to. I can read a book on the development of doctrine x, but for me to try to change it is like me showing up at a nuclear physicists’ conference and telling them the whole thing about electrons is wrong.
I have a certain understanding but am not expert.

I don’t think reconciliation means the wholesale slaughter of the the theological integrity of any of us. Or, necessarily, that we all be persuaded of the same thing.

So what can we do, at our level? I think live in charity with each other, and as far is as possible, live at peace with all men. Believe the best. An example would be the persistent Protestant belief that whatever the popes are up to, it is insidious and evil. Unless I can prove it in a court of law, I should not entertain that as a fundamental understanding of Catholicism. One pope may be up to no good. A particular pope might be up to no good at certain times. But he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

That gets back to my obsession with forgiveness, not doctrinal agreement, as the basis for reconciliation. What I have done against God is far more than what any particular person has done against me - who am I to hold anything against them?

Well said.
Mary.

 

[spedteacherita]

Hi Jon,

I don’t think anyone here really has the power to change a confession held by a denomination, whether their own or another’s. For me to engage in that sort of effort is tilting at windmills. For one thing, doctrinal discussions at that level are not something I am trained or called to. The defenders of doctrine at a denominational level know a whole lot more about whatever it is than I can ever hope to. I can read a book on the development of doctrine x, but for me to try to change it is like me showing up at a nuclear physicists’ conference and telling them the whole thing about electrons is wrong.
I have a certain understanding but am not expert.

I don’t think reconciliation means the wholesale slaughter of the the theological integrity of any of us. Or, necessarily, that we all be persuaded of the same thing.

So what can we do, at our level? I think live in charity with each other, and as far is as possible, live at peace with all men. Believe the best. An example would be the persistent Protestant belief that whatever the popes are up to, it is insidious and evil. Unless I can prove it in a court of law, I should not entertain that as a fundamental understanding of Catholicism. One pope may be up to no good. A particular pope might be up to no good at certain times. But he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

That gets back to my obsession with forgiveness, not doctrinal agreement, as the basis for reconciliation. What I have done against God is far more than what any particular person has done against me - who am I to hold anything against them?

Me too!

 

[Thorolfr]

I agree. The LCMS is a house divided against itself. Between the conservatives and liberals, the traditionalists and the modernists. Their synod conferences are quite heated so I heard. For now the house is teetering on the brink. Many LCMS parishes demonstrate it at the local level with their two services, contemporary and traditional, such as two congregations sharing one parish.

Although my own congregation only has traditional services even when we have more than one, I’ve visited other ELCA congregations when I was away from home that have both a “traditional” and a “contemporary” service. I attended both kinds of services yesterday and the main difference was that in the traditional service the pastor wore vestments, someone played an organ and there was a choir and the music was more traditional. In the contemporary service, the pastor wore a sports coat and instead of a choir and organ, they had musicians playing other kinds of instruments such as flutes and the music was more contemporary. Some of the same songs used in the liturgy of the traditional service were set to more contemporary music. Nevertheless, the heart of the two services was the same with the same pericope passages being read from the lectionary, they both had the same sermon and both had communion. There were things I liked about both the traditional and the contemporary services.

But I don’t know why having different kinds of services in one congregation is necessarily a sign of a congregation teetering on the brink or why everyone at a particular congregation must have the exact same worship experience. For whatever reason, one kind of service resonates more with some people and helps them connect with God better than the other. I’m not sure, however, that it is a bad thing for a congregation to have more than one kind of service.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

I don’t think anyone here really has the power to change a confession held by a denomination, whether their own or another’s. For me to engage in that sort of effort is tilting at windmills. For one thing, doctrinal discussions at that level are not something I am trained or called to. The defenders of doctrine at a denominational level know a whole lot more about whatever it is than I can ever hope to. I can read a book on the development of doctrine x, but for me to try to change it is like me showing up at a nuclear physicists’ conference and telling them the whole thing about electrons is wrong.
I have a certain understanding but am not expert.

I don’t think reconciliation means the wholesale slaughter of the the theological integrity of any of us. Or, necessarily, that we all be persuaded of the same thing.

So what can we do, at our level? I think live in charity with each other, and as far is as possible, live at peace with all men. Believe the best. An example would be the persistent Protestant belief that whatever the popes are up to, it is insidious and evil. Unless I can prove it in a court of law, I should not entertain that as a fundamental understanding of Catholicism. One pope may be up to no good. A particular pope might be up to no good at certain times. But he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

That gets back to my obsession with forgiveness, not doctrinal agreement, as the basis for reconciliation. What I have done against God is far more than what any particular person has done against me - who am I to hold anything against them?

Hi Tomyris,
While I do indeed think doctrinal agreement is important, your post here speaks so well of another level of “unity” that is so important. Thanks for an excellent reply.

Jon

 

[Denise1957]

Hi Jon,
So what can we do, at our level? I think live in charity with each other, and as far is as possible, live at peace with all men. Believe the best. An example would be the persistent Protestant belief that whatever the popes are up to, it is insidious and evil. Unless I can prove it in a court of law, I should not entertain that as a fundamental understanding of Catholicism. One pope may be up to no good. A particular pope might be up to no good at certain times. But he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I’m glad to see that you are willing to give the pope the benefit of the doubt, which is an issue that may be at the heart of the dialogue between the Catholic Church and Lutherans, and one of the serious issues for reconciliation. That the Lutherans still maintain that the papacy is the ‘seat of the anti-Christ’ is a problem. Until that’s resolved, I don’t think that there’s any chance of reconciliation.

When the traditional Anglicans crossed the Tiber in 2009, they accepted the papacy and the Pope as their own. They were able to negotiate to keep a lot of their own traditions. But they didn’t have as far to go in accepting the Pope as the Lutherans do, in that the Anglicans didn’t have such an aversion against the Papacy as the Lutherans do (or some of the Lutherans, anyway). I do hope for reconciliation, though.

 

[MaryT777]

I’m glad to see that you are willing to give the pope the benefit of the doubt, which is an issue that may be at the heart of the dialogue between the Catholic Church and Lutherans, and one of the serious issues for reconciliation. That the Lutherans still maintain that the papacy is the ‘seat of the anti-Christ’ is a problem. Until that’s resolved, I don’t think that there’s any chance of reconciliation.

When the traditional Anglicans crossed the Tiber in 2009, they accepted the papacy and the Pope as their own. They were able to negotiate to keep a lot of their own traditions. But they didn’t have as far to go in accepting the Pope as the Lutherans do, in that the Anglicans didn’t have such an aversion against the Papacy as the Lutherans do (or some of the Lutherans, anyway). I do hope for reconciliation, though.

Well said. I don’t think there is a chance of reconciliation either as long as the Lutherans confessional maintain the Papacy is the seat of the AntiChrist.

Mary.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Tomi,

I apologize for using a man’s name. I always shorten everyone’s name and yours just came out Tom. I have deemed that you shall be Tomi from now on.

For once I agree with you.

I think we tend to view Lutheranism through the lens of what we see in the USA, and not through any other mechanism. I appreciate the perspective.

Agreed. Here on CA I have learned that Lutheranism should not necessarily be judged on the basis of what is said here by the “Formula Lutheran” posters. They are by far the most numerous Lutherans posting here and we should not paint the rest of Lutheranism with the same brush.

It appears to me that the majority of Lutheranism does not hold to the Formula of Concord and as such, should not be viewed as being as officially anti-Catholic as those who do.

God Bless You Tomi, Topper

 

[commenter]

I would be more hopeful of ecumenical relations with a Christian group that denounces the pope as the “Anti-Christ” in some sense, than with the liberals. The “Anti-Christ” accusers at least consider the Bible to be sacred, of supernatural origin; that some things are absolutely True; that some things are absolutely evil, and need to be denounced. They have the right energy, but going in the wrong direction.

They are (unknowingly) closer to Catholicism than those who regard the Bible as a merely human collection of creativity and feelings; who regard Christianity as a kind of Sociology class; who regard ecumenism as an opportunity to rid ourselves of divisive dogmas; whose real religion is equality, not God.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Father K,

Thanks for your response.

I guess we have to agree to disagree on that. Luther has never had the level of authority that many non-Lutherans imagine he has, or had.

Ok, we will disagree. I contend that Lutheranism was a tremendous doctrinal departure from the Catholic and Apostolic Faith. Remember Dave Armstrong’s list of 50 important doctrines that Luther challenged/refuted/rejected/reformulated even BEFORE he was excommunicated.

We also disagree on the ‘level of authority’ that Luther claimed and apparently also on how that authority was viewed by Lutheranism, at least early Lutheranism. I’m sure that you are well aware of the many ridiculous, and quite frankly nutty sounding claims that Luther made in regards to his own personal authority. Logic dictates that either he was right, and that God approved of his claims to Authority, OR, his claims to authority were NOT in accord with God’s Absolute Truth, which would mean that Lutheranism was founded by means of an ‘authority’ which God does NOT support. It would seem that the question needs to be viewed in light of Luther’s specific claims to authority.

There is also the issue of how early Lutheranism viewed Luther’s ‘authority’. Lutheran Professor of Systematic Theology Robert Kolb wrote a very revealing book entitled “Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero.”, which is basically a history of the way that Lutheranism has ‘viewed’ Luther over the first 100 years (1520-1620). The title of the book is indicative of the ‘progression’ – “Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero”. Needless to say, the book contains a lot of references by Luther as to his being a Prophet, and a lot more from people who, during that time period and afterward, basically agreed.

Of course, modern day Lutherans do not hold to any sort of belief in Luther as any kind of a Prophet. That being said, as an example of Luther’s rather extraordinary claims to ‘prophet like authority”:

**“This public approbation of Luther as hero and prophet found some echo in Luther’s own estimate of himself and his calling from God. He did not regard himself as a Herculean hero. But he did assume the epistolary style of Saint Paul as early as 1522, and he drew parallels between the career of the apostle and his own career, moving out of works-righteousness into the proclamation of the gospel of Gods grace. Furthermore, he could call himself the prophet of the Germans, an apostle and evangelist in German territory, an Isaiah or a Jeremiah. **Yet Luther did not always possess this prophetic self-confidence. He often engaged in self-examination. He was plagued by repeated doubts about his own person. Yet he could also state, “I do not say that I am a prophet……But if I am not a prophet, **I am nevertheless certain for myself that the Word of God is with me and not with them, for I indeed have Scripture on my side.” **Kolb, “Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero”, pg. 31

Kolb tells us that early Lutheranism believe in Luther as a Prophet, at least in some form. In fact the book does an excellent job of documenting this. As you might expect, this book is full of quotes from early Lutheranism indicating that Martin Luther commanded a ‘level of respect’ that would make ANY modern Lutheran blush.

The fact is that Lutheranism was founded upon Martin Luther’s personal claims to authority and if that extreme level of authority is found to be false, then it means that Lutheranism was founded on Luther’s false claim to personal authority.

No, and in Confessio Augustana pretty much every claim is backed up by reference to Scripture, the Fathers and/or the Canons.

But Father K - all of those ‘other’ Protestant communions claim that THEIR beliefs are ‘backed up by reference to Scripture’ also. I think that we would both agree that they only THINK that their beliefs are actually backed up by Scripture and that those beliefs are really the doctrines of man. OK, so what is it specifically and exactly that allows Lutheranism to claim that their beliefs are ‘different’?

He has primacy. But he does not have supremacy. A president has primacy in his nation, but he is not - or should not be - a supreme leader. Primacy and supremacy is not the same thing.

OK, so if within Lutheranism, the Bishop of Rome has ‘primacy’ but not ‘supremacy’, what does that mean exactly? What does that ‘primacy’ mean within Lutheranism? Is it just a meaningless title or does the Bishop of Rome have some kind of a ‘special role’ within Lutheranism? If so, where is the evidence of this within Lutheranism?

God Bless You Father K, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Sel,

I don’t know whether to or just …

I would think that both reactions would be appropriate. In fact, early Lutheranism considered Luther to have an amazing level of authority, a level that modern day Lutherans would consider to be absurd. Today we often hear that there was nothing all that ‘special’ about either Luther’s or his teachings; that he was simply one of a number of Theologians who ‘contributed’ to Lutheranism overall. Robert Kolb documents just the opposite. In the introduction of “Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero”, Kolb lays out the premise of a good portion of his book:

**“To a degree perhaps unique in the history of the church since the apostolic age, the image of this single person, Martin Luther, has directly shaped the institutions and life of a large body of Christendom. He has influenced his followers both as a churchman and as teacher of the church. ** Calvinists churches, of course look to John Calvin as model and magister for the ecclesiastical life. John Wesley exercises a continuing role in the Methodist churches. To a far greater extent, however, Lutheran churches have found in Luther not only a teacher, but also a prophetic hero and authority……

………Luther’s image and thought shaped Lutheran thinking and action in the century flowing his appearance on the stage of Western history. From the very beginning Luther’s students and friends regarded him as a figure of more than normal proportions. Some saw him as an illustrious figure of the faith. ** Others regarded him as a powerful doctor of the church in line with Moses, Paul and Augustine. Many regarded him as a unique servant of God, a prophet and the eschatological angel who is depicted in Revelation 14 as the bearer of the gospel in the last days and whose authority could be put to use in governing and guiding the church, particularity in the adjudication of disputes over the proper and correct understanding of biblical teaching.” **Kolb, pg. 10

“First, for some of his followers during the subsequent decades, **the Reformer functioned as a prophet who replaced popes and councils as the adjudicating or secondary authority (interpreting the primary authority, Scripture) in the life of the church………Luther emerged as a prophet of God in whose words a secondary level of doctrinal authority could be found. **Those who believed that this Wittenberg Professor was God’s special agent – a voice of divine judgment upon the corruption of the old system – were able to ascribe such authority to him without difficulty. **When the living myth ad disappeared into his tomb, and could no longer adjudicate disputes by composing letters or official faculty opinions, his writings – widely available in print – were used as a secondary authority by some of his disciples.” ** Kolb, pg. 11

Here we learn that Luther, for some, ‘functioned as a prophet who replaced popes and councils’. This is NOT how Luther’s authority within early Lutheranism is depicted today.

The question becomes very simple. Was the Lutheran church founded upon a level of personal authority that it today denounces?

God Bless You Sel, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Tomi,

Unsubstantiated opinion…

That’s not what I asked. What are Catholics willing to change? You seem more interested in what the Catholic Church is UNWILLING to do.

The Catholic Church has done a great deal in an effort to reconcile with Protestants. I refer you to Denise’s recent post about Catholic/Anglican reunification and how the Church ‘allowed them’ to retain their own traditions.

On the other hand, if the more important issue is DOCTRINAL UNITY, then at some point, people are going to have to deal with our actual differences. The number of Sacraments only one of several dozen issues, but is one which is the easiest to understand and demonstrate.

IF there is going to be doctrinal unity, then, someday, both sides are going to have to deal with the issue of the number of Sacraments. The specific question that I addressed to you will have to be answered with something more substantial than generalities and emotions. I would be happy to see you take a shot at it and believe that in doing so you cannot help but reveal the weakness of the question as to what the Church should be willing to do to reunite doctrinally with Protestants.

God Bless You Tomi, Topper

 

[Tomyris]

Hi Tomi,

The Catholic Church has done a great deal in an effort to reconcile with Protestants. I refer you to Denise’s recent post about Catholic/Anglican reunification and how the Church ‘allowed them’ to retain their own traditions.

On the other hand, if the more important issue is DOCTRINAL UNITY, then at some point, people are going to have to deal with our actual differences. The number of Sacraments only one of several dozen issues, but is one which is the easiest to understand and demonstrate.

IF there is going to be doctrinal unity, then, someday, both sides are going to have to deal with the issue of the number of Sacraments. The specific question that I addressed to you will have to be answered with something more substantial than generalities and emotions. I would be happy to see you take a shot at it and believe that in doing so you cannot help but reveal the weakness of the question as to what the Church should be willing to do to reunite doctrinally with Protestants.

God Bless You Tomi, Topper

I think you have totally missed what I have been saying. Go back and read my post 226.

 

[Tomyris]

There’s a joke that carries a point that I have heard more than once. The specifics don’t matter…

Two young men discovered each other passing out tracts on the streets of Kuala Lumpur. To their amazement, they were passing out the same tract. In fact, they were dressed identically down to their ties and sport-coats, bought from the same store, even though they were from different cities.
“You a Baptist?” asked one, hoping for some good Christian company in this city full of the heathen.
“Yep!”
“Free will?”
“Amen, brother!” Broad grins broke out in the anticipation of good fellowship,“Pre-mill rapture?”
“God’s truth, my brother,” and he paused,"Did the Holy Ghost abandon church music when Fanny Crosby died?’
“Sad truth it is, my brother, sad truth.”
"Piano only?’
“Amen, amen…Six day creation?”
“Amen…Ussher was an anointed man of God in laying out the true chronology.”
“So true, so true. Brother, my heart is heavy. You ARE a cessationist, yes?”
“In line with 1 Corinthians 13, the gifts have passed with the apostles.”
“Amen, amen…Three hymns, offering, sermon, closing hymn and altar call?”
“Every week, brother, every week!”
“You’ve been down in Jesus’ Name?”
“Adult baptized in running water in a river!”
“Amen, bro’. Creek isn’t powerful enough symbol in my eyes.”
“How true it is, amen. KJV 1611?”
“God’s word uncorrupted!”
“Thank God for fellowship!”
“Amen, amen.! One more question: oak pews or folding chairs?”
“Pews for the people of God!”
“Heretic!”
“Worldling!”
And with that they went their separate ways. Finally they had each witnessed to a SINNER.

 

[JonNC]

Well said. I don’t think there is a chance of reconciliation either as long as the Lutherans confessional maintain the Papacy is the seat of the AntiChrist.

Mary.

Hi Mary,
Do you have any statements from members of, or leaders of the PCPCU that leads you to say this? All I’ve seen over the last few years is a growing albeit “informal” level of dialogue between the PCPCU and the ILC Lutheran churches and synods.

wmltblog.org/2013/11/pontifical-council-for-promoting-christian-unity-pcpcu-and-the-international-lutheran-council-ilc-to-hold-informal-international-dialogue/

blogs.lcms.org/2014/ilc-talks-with-lwf-catholics

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I would be more hopeful of ecumenical relations with a Christian group that denounces the pope as the “Anti-Christ” in some sense, than with the liberals. The “Anti-Christ” accusers at least consider the Bible to be sacred, of supernatural origin; that some things are absolutely True; that some things are absolutely evil, and need to be denounced. They have the right energy, but going in the wrong direction.

They are (unknowingly) closer to Catholicism than those who regard the Bible as a merely human collection of creativity and feelings; who regard Christianity as a kind of Sociology class; who regard ecumenism as an opportunity to rid ourselves of divisive dogmas; whose real religion is equality, not God.

I think you’ll find that in recent years, particularly in morals, confessional Lutherans are knowingly far closer to our Catholic siblings and leaders than we are to our liberal Lutheran siblings.

Jon

 

[protestantinca]

I think you’ll find that in recent years, particularly in morals, confessional Lutherans are knowingly far closer to our Catholic siblings and leaders than we are to our liberal Lutheran siblings.

Jon

Confessional Lutherans, from my own experience, are quasi Catholic. The only two significant differences with the Catholic Church is the matter of papal authority and the issue of justification. The other differences (such as Mary, saints, etc) are very minor in my opinion.

I don’t see unity, in the institutional sense, happening any time soon, but I see lots of possibility of collaboration in areas of common interest such as defense of religious freedom, defense of the sanctity of life and defense of traditional marriage.

 

[Topper17]

I believe that there is a different approach to dialogue than there is to public statements from individuals about this. If we are talking about the ongoing ecumenical dialogue(s) between the CC and Lutherans, one seems to see a common approach, and it doesn’t appear to include this type of question, in either direction. And in fact, when it comes to doctrine, the question of “what are you willing to change” seems to be a non-starter in either direction.

Ok, so how’s that werkin out fer us? It seems that you are saying is that there hasn’t really been any real effort to unify us doctrinally. I would suggest that UNLESS we address our doctrinal issues, which you seem to think we should not, then we will be forever divided. It also seems to me that we have very different opinions about the importance of doctrinal unity, and in fact, the importance of doctrine in general.

The ‘common approach’ has made, in 50 years, little or NO progress on doctrinal unity. That might be ok with you but it isn’t with me.

If one looks at the various dialogue statements, one gets the idea that both sides look at the history of the issue being discussed, Tradition and scriptural background, each side’s historic view, and where modern dialogue has led, both in terms of where agreement has been recognized, and where further talks are necessary, or if the nature of disagreements are of such a nature that they remain Church dividing.

We disagree here. I am saying that in order to resolve our doctrinal differences we are going to have to actually discuss them. Are you saying that if we just talk nice to each other long enough, those doctrinal differences are just going to disappear organically, or that they are going to become unimportant?

One does not see “prerequisites” for dialogue, nor the idea that each side must give up something.

OK, do you think that you are going to have to ‘give up’ the idea which ‘connects’ the papacy and the antichrist, or is that something that you should be ‘allowed’ to carry forward into total communion with the Bishop of Rome? Specifically and exactly of course.