Putting Christian Ecumenism into Practice

  • Thread starter Thread starter stbruderklaus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
third,
Compared to what my Church has been called on another thread the last two days, I’m downright giddy by this observation. :extrahappy: :dancing: 😃

Seriously, I think our Churches are both non-compliant when it comes to unity. I also think we’re making progress.

Jon
Click to expand...
ok. we are making progress. I mean you with the Church, who is ever sooo patient. I hope you’ll last 'cause it’s going to be a looong, loooong time. We’re known for perseverance, and, like it or not, the end result would not be different from what I presupposed. We’re just really prolonging the agony of the people in your churches… (which is soooo unwise). Depriving them of valid Eucharist and the sacraments. I tried to FF the plays for everyone so that they’d know what’s expected of them. Though, as I’ve said, only my opinion it is not meant to derail any works of true ecumenism but to emphasize what the conclusions will be.

If there is no conversion then you are still a different church - different like any other.

Peace!😉
 
coco2 said:
Could you explain this, about the anglicans? Also, how is Anglican different from Episcopal Church?
Click to expand...
The story out this week, is that the Vatican is planning to offer, in some capacity, a personal prelature to the Traditional Anglican Communion akin to the structure of Opus Dei. That single move might be the beginning of the end of the Reformation as we know it… with many Lutherans and Anglicans (which is just the English way of describing Episcopals… same critters, different continents…) finding safer harbor with Rome than our own larger church bodies.

Cheers.
 
stbruderklaus said:
I think your assessment of the intercession of the saints and the adoration of the Sacrament are correct-- at the time of the Augsburg Confession, the argument of the Lutheran was simply that they not be compelled to do these things… they asked liberty, and were refused. Today, liberty piety seems much more plausible.

As for the Grace / Salvation / Justification issue, I believe the JDDJ settled that fairly well-- at least to the satisfaction of the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation.

I think the largest issues right now, to my observation, are the authority issues. I think the Lutheran psychological hang-up will still be trusting the Pope and Magesterium to always be faithful with their guidance, even if we think they are pretty good today.

Peace.
Click to expand...
And that is a fair hang-up to have. See, when Catholics look at it, we see a small problem that was not entirely systemic that was not handled well. We are looking at it from the top down. Lutherans tend to look at it from the bottom up. In their area, it WAS systemic so far as they could see. You couple that with the way it was handled, and it seems like a larger issue that involved the entire Magisterium. And, like us, it was not handled well.

It is all a matter of perspective
 
thirdn6 said:
For those who are still far from knowing the fulness of truths, more dialogues are required.
You are the sick, the Church is the physician. It cannot be otherwise.
For those who sat down with the ambassadors of the Church and have learned the fulness of truths, it is now all or nothing. The medicine is prescribed. Accept or reject.
As the good Lord say, “If you are not against us, how come you are not with us?”. Either be obedient or not.

No agreements - only conversions! For there is only one Divine Faith.

“O bride of Christ, so pure, so true, so holy…
Unblemished in everything, our Lord’s delight…”

Sidenote: Jon your church is still non-compliant!😃
Click to expand...
You know, I can’t help but notice, that you’ve miss quoted our Lord twice in one post… the most egrigeous in transfering the title of physician from Christ Himself to the Roman Church. You might find it troubling that your radically Roman articulation of ecumenism is quite contrary to your own Pope and Magesterium.

Perhaps you should take some time to ponder that. Tough to be a radical Roman apologist, while undermining Roman leadership and initiatives.

Peace.
 
ralphinal said:
And that is a fair hang-up to have. See, when Catholics look at it, we see a small problem that was not entirely systemic that was not handled well. We are looking at it from the top down. Lutherans tend to look at it from the bottom up. In their area, it WAS systemic so far as they could see. You couple that with the way it was handled, and it seems like a larger issue that involved the entire Magisterium. And, like us, it was not handled well.

It is all a matter of perspective
Click to expand...
Hah-- that gave me a well needed chuckle. I think you might be right. Many Lutherans, so long and far removed from 16th century Germany with all its trials and tribulations, can’t seem to look at Rome without their Inquisition-colored glasses. Probably like Romans who can’t look at Lutherans without their Trent-colored glasses.

I love that perspective idea… I think I’ll chew on that for a while. Blessing to you, and thanks.

Cheers.
 
stbruderklaus said:
You know, I can’t help but notice, that you’ve miss quoted our Lord twice in one post… the most egrigeous in transfering the title of physician from Christ Himself to the Roman Church. You might find it troubling that your radically Roman articulation of ecumenism is quite contrary to your own Pope and Magesterium.

Perhaps you should take some time to ponder that. Tough to be a radical Roman apologist, while undermining Roman leadership and initiatives.

Peace.
Click to expand...
We’re talking about dialogues. Non-Catholics don’t possess the fulness of truth. The Catholic Church does. It was appropriate for me to regard non-catholic churches as ‘sick’ and the Church the ‘physician’ for the same reason - she has the fulness of truth. It wasn’t a quote.

I didn’t have my bible next to me to quote the exact verse but the context is the same. Is it “Either you’re with us or against us?” Mean the same thing, doesn’t it?
 
stbruderklaus said:
The story out this week, is that the Vatican is planning to offer, in some capacity, a personal prelature to the Traditional Anglican Communion akin to the structure of Opus Dei. That single move might be the beginning of the end of the Reformation as we know it… with many Lutherans and Anglicans (which is just the English way of describing Episcopals… same critters, different continents…) finding safer harbor with Rome than our own larger church bodies.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
I’d like to read about this. Where can I find this info?
 
ok. here it is…(emphases mine)

First, my apology for not consulting my bible earlier and ended up ‘misquoting’ the scriptures…

Luke 9:50 KJV “And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.”

I John 2:18 KJV “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.”

I John 2:19 KJV “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us”.
 
Thirdn6,

I don’t know if this is the best place to attempt a contextual and historical exegesis of the passages you note-- we will both likely do it a terrible injustice.

I will suffice to say that Christ is the operative center around which all Christians gather, remaining close to Him through our faith, hope, and love, and our continuance in the Apostolic doctrine.

The big contest of the Lutheran Reformation was a debate (violent at times, and terribly mixed up with national politics, institutional corruption, a lack of charity, and sin on all sides…) about what indeed was the Apostolic Doctrine. Unfortunately, the sides of the debate tended to drift into very hardened lines of argument-- one that proclaimed the Scriptures as the purest witness to that Apostolic Doctrine (and thus to Christ,) and the other which argued the Church’s Authority was the surest witness. There was a principle here that neither would give on, and they chose to demonize each other rather than have a true dialogue.

Sadly, that kind of argument can never end well. I think it is fair to say that just as much as Romans did not abandon the Bible, Lutherans did not abandon what they saw as valid tradition nor even Church authority-- but when nuanced positions get pushed into vitriolic argumentation, the nuances are lost and everything appears irreconcilable.

Thank God that today, Lutherans and Romans (at least most of us, who still respect our leadership and historic confessions) look at each other as authentically Christian brothers, seeking Truth. May God grant that we find it.

Peace.
 
=thirdn6;4745321]We’re talking about dialogues. Non-Catholics don’t possess the fulness of truth. The Catholic Church does. It was appropriate for me to regard non-catholic churches as ‘sick’ and the Church the ‘physician’ for the same reason - she has the fulness of truth. It wasn’t a quote.
Click to expand...
thirdn6,
I think dialogue, true dialogue, requires that participants at least treat each other as equals. I wouldn’t expect a good Catholic to view the CC in any other way than you have stated here, and I respect you for it. OTOH, please excuse me for regarding my own communion in the same way you do yours.
When we come to the table for dialogue, however, regarding and, more importantly, expressing ourselves as somehow superior to our dialogue partner will only serve to poison said dialogue. It is nolonger dialogue, but instead terms for surrender.

Better; here is what I believe, what do you believe. Guided by the HS, how can we express this to where it is what we both believe? That is how the JDDJ came about, as well as other joint statements. I pray it continues.

Jon
 
stbruderklaus said:
As for the Grace / Salvation / Justification issue, I believe the JDDJ settled that fairly well-- at least to the satisfaction of the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I remain disappointed in the LCMS for not being willing to look past what seem to me to be minor flaws. Seems we could accept the document, and issue clarification as Rome did.

That said, I’ll ask of you and Ralph, is purgatory a remaining issue related to Grace/Salvation/Justification considering the works aspect of it, or is separate? Further, can it be explained in such a way that a Lutheran can accept it?

Jon
 
Jon,

I’m not sure how satisfactory it would be to the Roman position, but I do think there is a way to envision Purgatory that is not hostile to either of our confessions. CS Lewis tried to do this, as well, though I’m not sure I’d agree with his conclusions (cf. The Great Divorce.)

As far as the Roman use of the Scriptures goes to justify the doctrine of Purgatory, I think we can agree to some extent on what St. Paul describes when he says that we shall all be tested by fire… if what we have built is righteous it will withstand the fire, if it is hay and stubble it will be consumed… but if the foundation of salvation is Christ the foundation will remain.

I once heard a Roman theologian (whose name unfortunately escapes me at the moment) discuss this from the context of passage from life, through death, to eternal life. For the believer who is saved by grace through faith in Christ, there is a final purification that must occur to him as he leaves this tainted mortal coil and enters the realms of glory. In its simplest sense, then, death is purgatorial in nature… it purges us of the sinful flesh, and the works we’ve done in the flesh which are unrighteous are consumed as if by fire, but the good works we’ve done through the power and inspiration of the Holy Spirit endure into eternity.

Since the doorway of death makes us to cross from the temporal to the eternal, attempting to measure the time of this transition is incredibly problamatic… thus even Romans don’t tend to talk about time in Purgatory anymore, and they adjusted the canons of Indulgences which spoke of how many years each was worth. However, we can agree with Romans that each Christian is indeed saved by grace through faith in Christ, and that each of us will pass through the purgation of death. We can also say together that such purgation is only for those who are, indeed, saved, since anyone not redeemed by grace is lost to hell… so, in effect, Purgatory is something which is part of Heaven, and a necessary passage for us who are poor, miserable sinners to enter the Beatific Vision.

That’s my understanding… not sure it fully satisfies every Roman, but I think we can at least agree to this point.

Cheers,
Brad
 
Jon,

As for the LCMS, they are suffering under many contrary opinions, and will likely fracture in the next decade. There are the Evangelical Catholics, the low-church Ablaze folks, the ones who are only heavily diluted Lutherans looking more like Joel Osteen, and those who can’t pull their noses out of the most negative chapters of the Book of Concord. There are radical ecumenists and radical sectarians, and just about everything in between.

Anyway, it doesn’t surprise me at all that they didn’t support the JDDJ… which is why the Vatican and the LWF booted them from the dialogues for a while, for being unnecessarily contrary and disagreable. The LCMS folks who discard the JDDJ are mostly at the seminaries, where they are, arguably, the most sectarian group of theologians around (with the possible exception of the WELS, which many of the sectarian LCMS are beginning to migrate to.)

Lutherans have never really had a clear institutional voice in this country, unlike some of the state churches of Europe and Scandinavia. Unfortunately, in some of those state churches, they made some pretty unscriptural proclamations in the 20th century. Maybe we’re better off without a cohesive center.

Uff da.

Cheers,
Brad
 
stbruderklaus said:
Jon,

I’m not sure how satisfactory it would be to the Roman position, but I do think there is a way to envision Purgatory that is not hostile to either of our confessions. CS Lewis tried to do this, as well, though I’m not sure I’d agree with his conclusions (cf. The Great Divorce.)

As far as the Roman use of the Scriptures goes to justify the doctrine of Purgatory, I think we can agree to some extent on what St. Paul describes when he says that we shall all be tested by fire… if what we have built is righteous it will withstand the fire, if it is hay and stubble it will be consumed… but if the foundation of salvation is Christ the foundation will remain.

I once heard a Roman theologian (whose name unfortunately escapes me at the moment) discuss this from the context of passage from life, through death, to eternal life. For the believer who is saved by grace through faith in Christ, there is a final purification that must occur to him as he leaves this tainted mortal coil and enters the realms of glory. In its simplest sense, then, death is purgatorial in nature… it purges us of the sinful flesh, and the works we’ve done in the flesh which are unrighteous are consumed as if by fire, but the good works we’ve done through the power and inspiration of the Holy Spirit endure into eternity.

Since the doorway of death makes us to cross from the temporal to the eternal, attempting to measure the time of this transition is incredibly problamatic… thus even Romans don’t tend to talk about time in Purgatory anymore, and they adjusted the canons of Indulgences which spoke of how many years each was worth. However, we can agree with Romans that each Christian is indeed saved by grace through faith in Christ, and that each of us will pass through the purgation of death. We can also say together that such purgation is only for those who are, indeed, saved, since anyone not redeemed by grace is lost to hell… so, in effect, Purgatory is something which is part of Heaven, and a necessary passage for us who are poor, miserable sinners to enter the Beatific Vision.

That’s my understanding… not sure it fully satisfies every Roman, but I think we can at least agree to this point.

Cheers,
Brad
Click to expand...
Hi Brad,
I read this on the USCCB website:

usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-212.shtml
Father Tavard showed how purgatory has been understood by Catholics as both a place of punishment and a state of cleansing, perhaps even momentary, at the time of death. Among the mystics, the latter image has greater prominence inasmuch as final purgation means an encounter with the “fire” of divine love which removes the effects of sin on the human person.
Click to expand...
Father Tavard’s comments, as well as some other things I’ve read, leads me to a similar conclusion that you have reached. I can’t see anything in scripture or even the confessions that would lead me to reject the idea of Purgatory when stated this way.

Jon
 
Jon & stbruderklaus,

Hello.
I agree to both of you when it comes to having dialogues, esp within and among protestant churches, that each one must be treated equally. Sure.

But as a RC I’m talking about dialogues not only with the Lutheran church but also reaching out to other non-Christian groups which in this case are like “sick people that need to be healed” because their doctrines are so contorted (I hope you agree;) ).

Matthew 5:xx RSV “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. 15 Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”

That light is the Catholic Church.
We are to re-kindle that light, to re-iterate that there is absolute truth. In your case, you may not be as ‘unenlightened’ as they are!

Ephesians 5:xx RSV " 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not associate with them, 8 for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10 and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of the things that they do in secret; 13 but when anything is exposed by the light it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. 14 Therefore it is said, “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light.”

Also, it really doesn’t matter what form of dialogues can be agreed between the parties. As I have said, it should not stop there and say we have come to a ‘unified’ result.

Whatever discussions may be covered or arguments may be encountered it should result only to one thing, it may not be immediate, but still - to CONVERSION.

I will be on the road again. Have a good day gentlemen…
Peace.🙂
 
thirdn6 said:
Jon & stbruderklaus,

Hello.
I agree to both of you when it comes to having dialogues, esp within and among protestant churches, that each one must be treated equally. Sure.

But as a RC I’m talking about dialogues not only with the Lutheran church but also reaching out to other non-Christian groups which in this case are like “sick people that need to be healed” because their doctrines are so contorted (I hope you agree;) ).

Matthew 5:xx RSV “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. 15 Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”

That light is the Catholic Church.
We are to re-kindle that light, to re-iterate that there is absolute truth. In your case, you may not be as ‘unenlightened’ as they are!

Ephesians 5:xx RSV " 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not associate with them, 8 for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10 and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of the things that they do in secret; 13 but when anything is exposed by the light it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. 14 Therefore it is said, “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light.”

Also, it really doesn’t matter what form of dialogues can be agreed between the parties. As I have said, it should not stop there and say we have come to a ‘unified’ result.

Whatever discussions may be covered or arguments may be encountered it should result only to one thing, it may not be immediate, but still - to CONVERSION.

I will be on the road again. Have a good day gentlemen…
Peace.🙂
Click to expand...
Let’s both pray that whatever journey HS leads our respective communions on together, that they be successful toward true unity, regardless of the form that takes.
May the Lord protect you in your travels.

Jon
 
Thirdn6,

Uff da… the city on a hill in your quote is Jerusalem, and Jesus is berating them for failing to be the light that God has set them there to be. In the coming years, the Church would come to take that charge as the New Jerusalem… the interesting likeness in the challenge being to remain faithful God and His divine revelation.

The Roman Church is not the light on the hill. The Catholic Church of Jesus Christ, when she stays faithful, reflects the light of Christ to the world. We Christians must reflect that light… the ecumenical discussion is Christians trying to do this together.

Of course there is absolute truth-- we’re both just trying to find it and articulate it properly. While I am glad for your faith and your indominable defense of Rome, I must say that your approach is not terribly helpful in unifying brethren.

Peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top