Question for Lutherans

  • Thread starter Thread starter StGeorgesSquire
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mattp0625 said:
I didn’t know that. I’ll look into it. Thank you!

Although, wasn’t he excommunicated? Under that case, the priest would still go to him but would not have been able to absolve or anoint?
Click to expand...
Please let us know what you find out. Fr. Wilwarding said a friend of Luther’s brought the priest in dressed in lay clothes, or Luther’s friends would not have let him in. I think at the point of death a priest can absolve. God Bless, Memaw
 
mattp0625 said:
The Great Schism did not stop there. They fractured over and over. My understanding is that, for the most part, they are not in communion with the RCC.

We don’t say - we agree on the “essentials” and therefore we are in the same invisible church.

These eastern bishops split because the Crusaders, from all over Europe, pillaged Constantinople to receive adequate compensation for their troubles. They blamed the pope, even though he excommunicated these soldiers.

In any event, it’s not the same thing. The eastern churches often hold up Ignatius of Antioch as their link to apostolic succession, yet Ignatius spoke strongly against schism in the Church.🤷
Click to expand...
Then both Rome and Constantinople should have listened.

Lutherans don’t say we agree on essentials either. Or rather, our understanding of essentials includes sacraments, etc.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
And the Catholic has as much unity with all of them as they have with each other.

Jon
Click to expand...
Can you expound on this statement, with links showing the disunity? I have experienced the unity first-hand with Eastern Catholics, and I know Eastern Catholics who have experienced it with the Latin Church.
 
Memaw said:
I think they wanted to “have it their way” also. I think Henry VIII broke away because he wanted a divorce and the Church wouldn’t and couldn’t grant him one because his marriage to Catherine was a Sacrament. God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
What happened in England though is not necessarily the same as the Protestant Reformation. Henry VIII had actually issued a very tough criticism of Luther and a defense of Catholic tradition. This was of course, before the issue over divorcing his wife came up. I don’t think Henry VIII really cared about any of the doctrines espoused by the Luther or any of the other Reformers.
 
Duane1966 said:
Can you expound on this statement, with links showing the disunity? I have experienced the unity first-hand with Eastern Catholics, and I know Eastern Catholics who have experienced it with the Latin Church.
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by Memaw View Post
Your right, and we can see the results of the Reformation. 40,000 plus different denominations. No unity there. God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
No unity there, Memaw said. And I said that the Catholic Church has no unity with any of them, either.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Then both Rome and Constantinople should have listened.

Lutherans don’t say we agree on essentials either. Or rather, our understanding of essentials includes sacraments, etc.

Jon
Click to expand...
Rome didn’t force anyone to leave or want them to leave, and they couldn’t control the actions of the Crusaders.
 
mattp0625 said:
I didn’t know that. I’ll look into it. Thank you!

Although, wasn’t he excommunicated? Under that case, the priest would still go to him but would not have been able to absolve or anoint?
Click to expand...
when someone is dying any priest may absolve him and lift excommunication and other penalties he may have incured, even a priest without faculties to hear confession is allowed to hear the confession of the dying.

In these cases the salvation of a soul is the most important consideration
 
mattp0625 said:
Rome didn’t force anyone to leave or want them to leave, and they couldn’t control the actions of the Crusaders.
Click to expand...
The excommunications between Rome and Constantinople were mutual. Rome was equally complicit in the Schism. Likewise, the Catholic Catechism clearly states of the divisions that occurred in the 16th century: “…often enough,** men of both sides were to blame**.”

Clearly, there is blame for division on both sides, including Rome. And BTW, in Wittenburg, too.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
The excommunications between Rome and Constantinople were mutual. Rome was equally complicit in the Schism. Likewise, the Catholic Catechism clearly states of the divisions that occurred in the 16th century: “…often enough,** men of both sides were to blame**.”

Clearly, there is blame for division on both sides, including Rome. And BTW, in Wittenburg, too.

Jon
Click to expand...
I’m pretty certain the excommunication of the soldiers indicates otherwise.
 
mattp0625 said:
I’m pretty certain the excommunication of the soldiers indicates otherwise.
Click to expand...
This conflict led to the exchange of excommunications by the representative of Pope Leo IX and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, in 1054 (finally rescinded in 1965) and the separation of the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches, each of which now claims to be “the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” It should be noted that at the time of the mutual excommunications, Pope Leo IX was dead. Therefore, the authority of Cardinal Humbertus, the Pope’s legate, had ceased; therefore he could not legitimately excommunicate Patriarch Cerularius.
Click to expand...
theopedia.com/great-schism
Even with the rescinding in 1965, the division remains. To say otherwise just doesn’t match history.

Jon
 
The sociologist/historian Rodney Stark is worth reading on this issue.

It’s 2016 and we’re finally getting historical work done without (a) religious bias, and (b) anti-religious bias.

As for Luther, I’ve always felt sorry for him. OCD one might think; overwrought.
 
JonNC said:
theopedia.com/great-schism
Even with the rescinding in 1965, the division remains. To say otherwise just doesn’t match history.

Jon
Click to expand...
You’re referring to the formal acts of schism after these events.

I’m referring to the pope doing an excommunication after he learned what happened, which says- this is not what the church intended.

The eastern church still blamed the pope for what happened.

Many still refer to the sack of Constantinople as something the pope orchestrated, which is false.
 
mattp0625 said:
You’re referring to the formal acts of schism after these events.

I’m referring to the pope doing an excommunication after he learned what happened, which says- this is not what the church intended.

The eastern church still blamed the pope for what happened.
Click to expand...
You’re picking at nits. No one wants division. No one is blameless for it.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
You’re picking at nits. No one wants division. No one is blameless for it.

Jon
Click to expand...
It’s important because many in the eastern church still blame the pope. That’s been the narrative.
 
JonNC said:
The answer to the question is that, no, none of us intend for their to be division in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, but divisions we make, we sinful beings.

Jon
Click to expand...
If we were smart we would ALL be doing everything we can to help heal these terrible wounds in spite of what has happened in the past. I think we will all have to stand before God and make an account of what we did to correct past mistakes. Seek the TRUTH, God Bless, Memaw
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top