Question for Lutherans

[Picky_Picky]

There is a Catholic priest who posts here now buy the name of Don Ruggero, out of respect, I call him “Father Don”. Why? Because it is the common title for clergy in the Catholic Church, as well as in many western traditions, such as Anglicanism and in many places, Lutheranism.

In the correspondence between Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Dr. Johannes Hanselmann, Provincial Bishop of the Lutheran-Evangelical Church in Bravaria, Bishop Hanselmann addresses Cardinal Ratzinger thus: Dear and Most Reverend Cardinal,

In his return letter, Cardinal Ratzinger refers to Dr. Hanselmann:
Dear Provincial Bishop,

Now, the good Cardinal did not have to call Hanselmann, “Bishop”. He could have called him , “Dear Dr. Hanselmann”. but he didn’t. He showed the Bishop mutual respect, and from what I know of their relationship, admiration.

If I referred to the priest I meet as Mr. _____, when I know his title is Father ______, it seems to me to be at best, disrespectful. It could also be considered rude and boorish.

I would suspect that Father K probably couldn’t care less what you call him. As for me, I will continue to refer to Father Don in that way for two reasons; 1) it is the respectful and mannerly thing to do, and 2) I would not want to embarrass the Anglican and Lutheran posters here, since I am identified by both names in my profile.

Jon

BTW, the correspondence referenced can be found in Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith

Exactly. I’m not even a Christian but it would seem to me impolite not to use the appropriate form of address.

 

[steve_b]

Hi Steve,
I think it safe to assume that he felt the line of authority had be broken by his excommunication.

:tiphat:howdy Jon

He probably did think as you describe

Yet think of this in the supernatural realm as well, not just the natural realm. Isn’t it both/and, not just either/or ? Especially considering Luther’s case against the Catholic Church?

For example

Who is the pillar and foundation of truth? It sure isn’t Luther. It’s the only Church Jesus established and built on Peter and the apostles. It’s the Catholic Church that Luther was excommunicated from. It’s been there from the beginning. #34

See Luther’s admission in link #19 in the next section.

That status the Catholic Church possesses as pillar and foundation of truth, will never be lost. It will be that forever.
J:

But that’s not he says.
He says:

Quote:
In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is
not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German
tongue to add “allein” in order that “nicht” or “kein” may be
clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say "The farmer
brings grain and no (kein) money, but the words “kein money” do
not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “the farmer
brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word “allein” helps
the word “kein” so much that it becomes a clear and complete
German expression.

We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to
speak German - as these asses do. Rather we must ask the mother
in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the
market about this. We must be guided by their tongue, the manner
of their speech, and do our translating accordingly. Then they
will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to
them.

For instance, Christ says: Ex abundatia cordis os loquitur. If I
am to follow these asses, they will lay the original before me
literally and translate it as: “Out of the abundance of the heart
the mouth speaks.” Is that speaking with a German tongue? What
German could understand something like that? What is this
“abundance of the heart?” No German can say that; unless, of
course, he was trying to say that someone was altogether too
magnanimous, or too courageous, though even that would not yet be
correct, as “abundance of the heart” is not German, not any more
than "abundance of the house, “abundance of the stove” or
“abundance of the bench” is German. But the mother in the home
and the common man say this: “What fills the heart overflows the
mouth.” That is speaking with the proper German tongue of the
kind I have tried for, although unfortunately not always
successfully. The literal Latin is a great barrier to speaking
proper German.

He’s saying he is led in his translating into German by what common Germans speak. It isn’t what her think the language should be. He wanted to translate into the German that was spoken by the common German.

Yet

• There were 18 translations of the bible into German before Luther was even excommunicated.
• Let’s not forget, or diminish the fact, that at this time in history, a huge portion of the population was illiterate.
• Does Luther really think he’s smarter, and a better communicator than the Church who taught HIM? I’m gonna say no on that… for the following reasons

Pulling from an old conversation we had, #[19 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12347438&postcount=19) ,
J:

.
I won’t dispute that Luther seems to misunderstand James. James is clear that a faith that lacks works is dead. But even the Catholic church does not teach that we come to justification by our own works, considering that it is at Baptism where justification begins.

True. And justification like faith, needs to be ever increasing. It’s not once and done, unless of course one dies immediately after baptism
J:

Luther’s mistake, IMO, is that he didn’t see that James is saying essentially the same thing Paul says in Galatians 5:6, that we are justified by faith that works through love.

True, and also the famous passage that is often quoted …yet short of landing the plane

Eph 2: 8-9 In Context … yet sans Ephesians 2:10 . THAT passage, Eph 2:10, Protestants usually leave out of their argument. “Good works” being essential to the message, messes things up for them.

Yet, when someone doesn’t do the good works they were created by God to do, guess what happens? Eph 2:8-9 collapses. Because one has no demonstration of faith without good works. At best it is a said faith. A said faith is not a faith that saves. It’s a dead faith. For THEM, there is no “through faith” , because they have no good works. Grace, faith, good works, are all tied together
J:

BTW, the reference to the “book of straw”: this is Luther’s personal view of James when compared to Paul, and one he apparently abandons in later writings.

Unless you know differently, It didn’t stop his protest nor change his theology.

 

[mattp0625]

So you disagree with Pope Benedict, a brilliant polyglot, church scholar, and native German-speaker while teaching in his official capacity as leader of your communion and seated at Rome?

Gee, I guess if I make a great fuss about this, you’ll just have to tell me and Benedict that; “mattp0625 will have it so, and he sits a theologian above all theologians, including the Pope.”

I jest here. Truly, I do. But only to prove the point. Surely you realize the model of your argument?

I’m sorry, but there is not a Catholic that accepts the saved by faith alone bit or the whole apocrypha bit. There’s either a misunderstanding or a stretching of the facts at play there.

 

[Duane1966]

Wonder what Chesterton would say to Benedict XVI, now that “Luther was right… to translate [alone],” according to the pope emeritus. Catholics continue to attack this, yet it is clear from anyone who speaks any bit of German or English, that the word ‘alone’ belongs in that translation.

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119.html

Benedict never says Luther’s translation was right in your link. His exact words from your link:

. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love.

Ergo, Benedict is saying Luther’s phrase is wrong if it is opposed to faith in charity, in love. So either Luther should not have added the word alone, *or he should have added if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love, * to alone.

Furthermore, saying something is true IF, does not mean Benedict is saying to translate it with the additional word alone was the right thing to do.

What is clear to you, amazingly is not clear to others. So much for the perspicuity of Scripture.

 

[Duane1966]

First, the “insertion” of the word “allein” in Romans 3:28 is translation, not interpretation (see Luther’s Open Letter on Translating). This is evident in the fact that no English translation of the Bible that I am aware of contains the word " alone" in Romans 3:28. It isn’t necessary in English.

Second, here are just 3 examples of Church Fathers using the phrase faith alone:

“They said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed; but he, Paul, shows that he who adhered to faith alone is blessed.” -Chrysostom

“Man clings to Christ by faith alone.” Cyril of Alexandria

“Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not a dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love” - Augustine

Does this mean that the Fathers would have sided with Luther in 1525? I don’t know, but I’ll bet they would not have sided with what was being taught in central Europe at the time.

Jon

Jon, you do realize that for every Church Father you quoted, reception of the Sacraments was considered essential to claiming you had faith? Would that view of faith, coincide with Luther’s?

The Anglican historian Alistair McGrath admits that there was not one Church Father when using the term faith alone who meant it in any way the way Luther meant it. matt1618.freeyellow.com/page5.html#PROTESTANT%20SCHOLAR%20ADMITS%20NO%20SOLA%20FIDE

matt1618.freeyellow.com/fathers.html

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I should say something needs to be made clear. As a Catholic priest who has worked on the issues of the theological dialogue for decades, I find your statements to a priest of the Lutheran Church of Norway abhorrent. Rome assuredly does not look upon the priests and bishops of the Church of Norway as “laymen in clerical garb.” What you have said is rude and disrespectful in the extreme.

I would like to make quite clear that the Lutheran Bishop of the Church of Norway was invited to participate in the Synod of Bishops in Rome back in the 1980s as an ecumenical observer precisely because he was the Lutheran Bishop; he made, as best I remember, at least one intervention to the synod.

Your sentiments are at variance to the mind and practice of the Holy Father and of the dicasteries of the Holy See. The appropriate honorific is always to be used. Rome would not countenance anything less.

I am happy to post the text of Pope Saint John Paul II address to the Lutheran Church of Norway during his apostolic visit to Norway as an expression of Rome’s thoughts…and I would hasten to add that in the intervening years, the warmness has grown.

I will also point out how different our attitudes are today from years long past…as, for example, when the Holy Father asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to bless him.

catholicherald.co.uk/content/uploads/2015/05/20140625cm00620-800x500.jpg

Similarly when an Anglican priest is ordained as a Catholic priest, a prayer of thanksgiving is to be included in the rite that acknowledges his priestly or episcopal ministry in the Anglican Communion. According to the norms of Anglicanorum Coetibus, any bishop of the Anglican Communion who is received into the Catholic Church and ordained as a Catholic priest is to be accorded a different dignity than that of simply a priest. He may continue to wear his pectoral cross, ring and mitre and is to be given a place in the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, having the same status as a retired Catholic bishop for purposes of participation in the conference. Yet another expression of how ministry outside of her visible confines is accorded due significance…which it deserves in light of how we now view these issues, thanks especially to the Council and developments thereafter.

I would also point out that the inauguration of the commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation by Catholics around the world, with their Lutheran brothers and sisters, will begin on October 31, 2016 – with a service of common prayer co-officiated by Pope Francis and the LWF President, Bishop Younan.

I would trust that the moderators of this forum would react strongly to such a fundamental violation of the norms and directives which have been issued by the Holy See, including The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, which was promulgated as a dispositive document.

In other words, the decisions about how the Catholic Church…and individual Catholics…are to view non-Catholic clergy is the decision of the Holy See – and Catholics are to defer to the Holy See.

 

[MaryT777]

Father K,

Would I be correct to assume the Church of Norway is part of the LWF that will be joining in the commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation October 31, 2016?

Mary.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This is an extract of what Pope Saint John Paul II said in Norway to the Lutheran Church

*Dear Bishop Aarflot
Dear Friends

/…/ I have also come in a fraternal spirit of respect and love to greet all Christians, who by faith and Baptism have been reborn to new life. I come here as a brother in Christ, in Norway, for your presence here, concrete sign to all people of God’s boundless love

I therefore wish to thank all of you, the representatives of the Lutheran Church and of the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities in Norway, for your presence here. I am especially grateful to you, Bishop Aarflot, for your gracious words of welcome this evening, and in a particular way for your kind letter of last year, in which you told me that the Pope’s visit to Norway was awaited with joy and expectation. As one of the ecumenical observers at the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops held in Rome in 1985 to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the closing of the Second Vatican Council, you helped to prepare the report which the observers submitted to the Synod. It reads in part: “We want to thank you for the confidence you place in our churches. You have not seen us as outsiders or rivals, and we have not felt ourselves to be so. You have received us as brothers in Christ through faith and baptism, though not yet in perfect communion”. Today, in Norway, I too can say that I have been received no longer as an outsider or a rival, but as a brother in Christ, and for this I rejoice greatly.

Our desire to draw closer to one another is strengthened by the fact that Protestants and Catholics in Norway share a common heritage. The Gospel was brought here centuries ago, long before the events of the sixteenth century. The one Church flourished in this land, nourished by the witness of committed Christians like the great martyr Saint Olav, to whom both Catholics and Protestants now look as a source of inspiration.

The common heritage of Protestants and Catholics in Norway – their common roots – is all the more important today, when the ecumenical movement creates new possibilities and a new hope that unity can one day be restored to the followers of Christ. /…/

The restoration of communion in this full unity which we seek calls for a common commitment to the ecumenical task. I cannot emphasize enough how deeply this commitment has become an irrevocable part of the Catholic Church’s life. The Second Vatican Council set the direction in its historic decree on ecumenism in 1964. Our revised Code of Canon Law has sought to implement the conciliar teaching, affirming once again that “by the will of Christ” the Church is bound to promote the restoration of unity between all Christians. It also makes clear the bishop’s duty to promote ecumenism and to treat with kindness and charity those who are not in full communion with us. The Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in 1985 observed that “ ecumenism has inscribed itself deeply and indelibly in the consciousness of the Church”

I am aware that among Christians there are various interpretations of the meaning and scope of the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, even when that ministry is a service to unity. Personally I would fail gravely in my duty as Successor of the Apostle Peter if I did not seek constantly and energetically to promote Christian unity. I do so in obedience to the will of Christ for unity among his disciples and in response to the grace of the Holy Spirit which is at work in fostering that unity in our day

For her part, the Lutheran Church of Norway has likewise made significant contributions to the ecumenical movement. Special honour must be paid to the memory of Bishop Berggrav and Professor Einer Moland, two great champions of ecumenism. More recently – at Stavanger in 1985 – the Lutheran Church of Norway hosted the Plenary Meeting of the Commission on Faith and Order. This was not only an expression of generous hospitality, but also evidence of a growing awareness that, although the Christian faith takes root in individual cultures, it also transcends every distinction of race and nation

The commitment to ecumenism is also a commitment to prayer and dialogue. In charity, trust and fraternal frankness, without glossing over our important differences, we seek through prayerful dialogue to attain fullness of communion. In doing so we learn to appreciate each other’s diversity and unique experiences of Christian life. We seek to arrive at a fullness of love and truth: in the words of Saint Paul, “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4, 15). Only in this way can theological dialogue bear lasting fruit.

At the end of the Second Vatican Council, in his farewell discourse to the delegated observers, Pope Paul VI said that as a result of the Council we began once again to love each other in accordance with Christ’s words: “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another”

/…/

I wish to mention in particular the dialogue between the Lutheran Church of Norway and the Catholic Church which came about through the personal initiative of Bishop Aarflot. This discussion forum is devoted to the study of documents emanating from the International Lutheran/Catholic Dialogue Commission, which for many years has been studying themes of great ecumenical significance for both Lutherans and Catholics. Now in its third phase, the dialogue is presently concerned with the important issues of justification, ecclesiology and sacramentality.

/…/

I thank you again for your kind welcome and I pray that the good efforts you are making to serve the Lord by promoting the unity of Christians will bear abundant fruit, for the sake of the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Grace and peace be with all of you. Amen.*

 

[Don_Ruggero]

There is a Catholic priest who posts here now buy the name of Don Ruggero, out of respect, I call him “Father Don”. Why? Because it is the common title for clergy in the Catholic Church, as well as in many western traditions, such as Anglicanism and in many places, Lutheranism.

In the correspondence between Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Dr. Johannes Hanselmann, Provincial Bishop of the Lutheran-Evangelical Church in Bravaria, Bishop Hanselmann addresses Cardinal Ratzinger thus: Dear and Most Reverend Cardinal,

In his return letter, Cardinal Ratzinger refers to Dr. Hanselmann:
Dear Provincial Bishop,

Now, the good Cardinal did not have to call Hanselmann, “Bishop”. He could have called him , “Dear Dr. Hanselmann”. but he didn’t. He showed the Bishop mutual respect, and from what I know of their relationship, admiration.

If I referred to the priest I meet as Mr. _____, when I know his title is Father ______, it seems to me to be at best, disrespectful. It could also be considered rude and boorish.

I would suspect that Father K probably couldn’t care less what you call him. As for me, I will continue to refer to Father Don in that way for two reasons; 1) it is the respectful and mannerly thing to do, and 2) I would not want to embarrass the Anglican and Lutheran posters here, since I am identified by both names in my profile.

Jon

BTW, the correspondence referenced can be found in Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith

Actually Jon, you do not have to call me “Father Don” since Don actually is my title and indicates that I am a member of the secular clergy as opposed to clergy of a religious order; Abbé would be a parallel term in a French speaking milieu…and actually, in that instance, saying Father Abbé would be calling me an Abbot.

It is a courtesy that you extend and which I appreciate. I have to admit that in certain aspects of my work on theological dialogue, some confessions that I had occasion to work with or otherwise engage were somewhat less comfortable with certain titles in Catholicism and so I would always encourage them to use one of my academic titles.

For those who are Catholic, on the other hand, the Holy See has established the norm of the protocol and dignities to be accorded to various non-Catholic clergy and employs them. It certainly does not include addressing a dignitary as though that person were a member of the laity; that is unthinkable in this era. These determinations, in turn, are also carried out in the dioceses around the world…both by the bishops themselves and by the ecumenical officer/commission in each diocese, who are to see to properly advising the clergy as well as instructing the lay faithful. Catholics should, of course, comply with what Rome has both set an example by its usage as well as established.

As I had occasion to say elsewhere, the Lutheran Bishop of the Church of Norway was a participant, by invitation of the Holy See, in the synod of bishops held in Rome in the 1980s commemorating the anniversary of the Second Vatican Council…it was a memorable occasion.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Okay Father, Luther did not intend to start a new Church in the beginning, he only wanted to reform it. But that raises these questions in my mind that I hope you can answer:

1.) Since in the end he totally rejected indulgences, what leads you to believe that eliminating the sale of indulgences would have been enough for him?

2.) He only kept two sacraments, why should people believe that another crisis would not have ensued on the issue of sacraments even after the elimination of the selling of indulgences?

3.) Would not the issue of his view of sola scriptura lead to the same results?

4.) If he only wanted to reform the Church, why did the one he start look radically different than the one he was trying to reform?

5.) I realize this is speculation, and you do not like to do that, but…do you think dialogue on the issues would have been enough for him, if the Church did not eliminate indulgences, priestly celibacy, calling the Mass a sacrifice…?

6.) If the Church had reformed around the lines that Luther wanted, would that not be a radical change from the way the Church had looked for 1500 years? And would that not in essence be a new Church, since the reforming of it would have been a radical change to what She had been?

You have a static view of human behaviour that is not realistically applicable.

Actually, because of the nature of theological dialogue, I do not engage in speculating about what Martin Luther – or any other figure – might have done or not done given a set of hypothesised variations of events. I consider that a useless exercise, at best.

Martin Luther’s thoughts on indulgences undergoes further refinement as years pass. This happens for a multiplicity of reasons, including the aftermath of 1520 and 1521. The unfolding events, on the part of those who ally with the reform and those who do not, engender dynamics that are beyond the control of any one grouping of actors. The addition of the involvement of civil authorities together with the political landscape of the 16th century occasions a great many outcomes.

There are ideas from which Martin Luther does not vary and there are ideas which undergo evolution in reaction to dynamics outside of himself as well as the progression of his own thought develops; the Reformation event, however, transcends Martin Luther as does many results that ensue.

For those pursuing reform, the manner in dealing with some abuses was to eliminate the abuse – but, at times, the response became to simply eliminate the thing entirely, since it then cannot be abused. It is a particularly drastic way of proceeding.

As often happens when a long over needed reform finally begins, it takes on a life of its own, especially as it moves from one area to another – and the various entities have their own respective ideas of what constitutes needed reform. We see that very much in the 16th century and beyond and, indeed, in our very recent past.

The Church was hardly a monolithic reality for the less than 1500 years that preceded 1516. As but one example that has nothing to do with the Churches of the East, Saint Margaret, Queen of Scotland, is in part revered for her efforts to align the practices of the Celtic Church in the 10th century with those of the Continent, where she was from. We see this diversity very much asserting itself throughout that part of the world beyond the Channel across centuries as we regard Church history, for example, in the north of England.

The statements from Rome since the pontificate of the Blessed Paul VI, and especially those of Pope Saint John Paul II, make very clear that Rome has accepted that the problems for how things were handled with the events of the 16th century lie on both sides.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

MEETING WITH THE COUNCIL OF THE EVANGELICAL CHURCH IN GERMANY

ADDRESS OF BENEDICT XVI

Dear Brothers and Sisters

/…/ I would like first of all to say how deeply grateful I am that we are able to come together. I am particularly grateful to you, my dear brother, Pastor Schneider, for receiving me and for the words with which you have welcomed me here among you. You have opened your heart and openly expressed a truly shared faith, a longing for unity. And we are also glad, for I believe that this session, our meetings here, are also being celebrated as the feast of our shared faith. Moreover, I would like to express my thanks to all of you for your gift in making it possible for us to speak with one another as Christians here, in this historic place

As the Bishop of Rome, it is deeply moving for me to be meeting you here in the ancient Augustinian convent in Erfurt. As we have just heard, this is where Luther studied theology. This is where he celebrated his first Mass. Against his father’s wishes, he did not continue the study of Law, but instead he studied theology and set off on the path towards priesthood in the Order of Saint Augustine. And on this path, he was not simply concerned with this or that. What constantly exercised him was the question of God, the deep passion and driving force of his whole life’s journey. “How do I receive the grace of God?”: this question struck him in the heart and lay at the foundation of all his theological searching and inner struggle. For Luther theology was no mere academic pursuit, but the struggle for oneself, which in turn was a struggle for and with God

“How do I receive the grace of God?” The fact that this question was the driving force of his whole life never ceases to make a deep impression on me. /…/ What does the question of God mean in our lives? In our preaching? Most people today, even Christians, set out from the presupposition that God is not fundamentally interested in our sins and virtues. He knows that we are all mere flesh. And insofar as people believe in an afterlife and a divine judgement at all, nearly everyone presumes for all practical purposes that God is bound to be magnanimous and that ultimately he mercifully overlooks our small failings. The question no longer troubles us. But are they really so small, our failings? /…/ The question: what is God’s position towards me, where do I stand before God? – Luther’s burning question must once more, doubtless in a new form, become our question too, not an academic question, but a real one. In my view, this is the first summons we should attend to in our encounter with Martin Luther

Another important point: God, the one God, creator of heaven and earth, is no mere philosophical hypothesis regarding the origins of the universe. This God has a face, and he has spoken to us. He became one of us in the man Jesus Christ – who is both true God and true man. Luther’s thinking, his whole spirituality, was thoroughly Christocentric: “What promotes Christ’s cause” was for Luther the decisive hermeneutical criterion for the exegesis of sacred Scripture. This presupposes, however, that Christ is at the heart of our spirituality and that love for him, living in communion with him, is what guides our life

/…/ Could this just be an attempt to talk our way past the urgent problems that are still waiting for practical progress, for concrete results? I would respond by saying that the first and most important thing for ecumenism is that we keep in view just how much we have in common, not losing sight of it amid the pressure towards secularization – everything that makes us Christian in the first place and continues to be our gift and our task. It was the error of the Reformation period that for the most part we could only see what divided us and we failed to grasp existentially what we have in common in terms of the great deposit of sacred Scripture and the early Christian creeds. For me, the great ecumenical step forward of recent decades is that we have become aware of all this common ground, that we acknowledge it as we pray and sing together, as we make our joint commitment to the Christian ethos in our dealings with the world, as we bear common witness to the God of Jesus Christ in this world as our inalienable, shared foundation

/…/ It raises afresh the question about what has enduring validity and what can or must be changed – the question of our fundamental faith choice

The second challenge to worldwide Christianity of which I wish to speak is more profound and in our country more controversial: the secularized context of the world in which we Christians today have to live and bear witness to our faith. God is increasingly being driven out of our society, and the history of revelation that Scripture recounts to us seems locked into an ever more remote past. Are we to yield to the pressure of secularization, and become modern by watering down the faith? Naturally faith today has to be thought out afresh, and above all lived afresh, so that it is suited to the present day. Yet it is not by watering the faith down, but by living it today in its fullness that we achieve this. This is a key ecumenical task in which we have to help one another: developing a deeper and livelier faith. It is not strategy that saves us and saves Christianity, but faith – thought out and lived afresh; through such faith, Christ enters this world of ours, and with him, the living God. As the martyrs of the Nazi era brought us together and prompted that great initial ecumenical opening, so today, faith that is lived from deep within amid a secularized world is the most powerful ecumenical force that brings us together, guiding us towards unity in the one Lord. And we pray to him, asking that we may learn to live the faith anew, and that in this way we may then become one

 

[Don_Ruggero]

VATICAN CITY, JAN. 24, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the address Benedict XVI gave today upon receiving in audience a delegation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany, who are in Rome for the end of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.

Regional Bishop Friedrich!
Dear Friends of Germany!

I give a cordial welcome to all of you, representatives of top leaders of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany, here in the Apostolic Palace, and I am happy because of the fact that you, as a delegation, have come to Rome at the end of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. In this way you also show that all our longing for unity can bear fruits only if they are rooted in common prayer. In particular, I would like to thank you, dear regional bishop, for your words that, with great sincerity, expressed the common efforts for more profound unity among all Christians.

In the meantime, the official dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics — so it is written here — can look back to more than 50 years of intense activity. You spoke of 30 years. I think that 30 years ago, after the Pope’s visit, we began officially, but in fact we had been dialoguing for a long time. I myself was a member of the “Jaeger-Stahlin-Kreis” born directly after the War. One can speak then of 50 or 30 years. Despite the theological differences that continue to exist on questions that in part are fundamental, a “togetherness” has grown between us, which becomes increasingly the basis of a communion lived in faith and in spirituality between Lutherans and Catholics. What has already been achieved reinforces our trust in continuing the dialogue, because only in this way can we stay together on that way that, finally, is Jesus Christ himself.

Hence, the commitment of the Catholic Church to ecumenism, as my venerable predecessor Pope John Paul II affirmed in his encyclical “Ut Unum Sint,” is not a mere strategy of communication in a changing world, but a fundamental commitment of the Church from her own mission (cf. Nos. 28-32).

For some contemporaries the common goal of full and visible unity of Christians seems to be again today very far. The ecumenical interlocutors in the dialogue have ideas on the unity of the Church that are completely different. I share the concern of many Christians over the fact that the fruits of the ecumenical endeavor, above all in relation to the idea of Church and ministry, are still not sufficiently received by the ecumenical interlocutors. However, even if new difficulties always arise, we look with hope to the future. Even if the divisions of Christians are an obstacle in molding catholicity fully in the reality of the life of the Church, as was promised in Christ and through Christ (cf. “Unitatis Redintegratio,” No. 4), we are confident in the fact that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the ecumenical dialogue, as important instrument in the life of the Church, will serve to overcome this conflict. This will happen, in the first place, also through the theological dialogue, which must contribute to understanding on the open questions, which are an obstacle along the path to visible unity and the common celebration of the Eucharist as sacrament of unity among Christians.

I am pleased to state that beside the international Lutheran-Catholic dialogue on the topic “Baptism and Growing Ecclesial Communion,” there is also in Germany, since 2009, a bilateral commission of dialogue between the episcopal conference and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany, which has taken up again its activity on the topic: “God and the Dignity of Man.” /…/

Today the ecumenical dialogue cannot be split from the reality and from the life in the faith of our Churches without harming them. Hence, let us look together to the year 2017, which will recall theses of Martin Luther from 500 years ago. On that occasion, Lutherans and Catholics will have the opportunity to celebrate throughout the world a common ecumenical commemoration, to fight at the world level for fundamental questions, not — as you yourself have just said — under the form of a triumphant celebration, but as a common profession of our faith in the One and Triune God, in the common obedience to Our Lord and to his Word. We must attribute an important place to common prayer and to interior prayer addressed to our Lord Jesus Christ for forgiveness of mutual wrongs and for the fault related to the divisions. Part of this purification of the conscience is the reciprocal exchange on the appraisal of the 1,500 years that preceded the Reformation, and which are common to us. For this we wish to implore together, in a constant way, the help of God and the assistance of the Holy Spirit, to be able to take further steps toward the unity that we long for, and to not be satisfied with where we are now.

We are encouraged along this path also by this year’s Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. It recalls for us the chapter of the Acts of the Apostles: “And they devoted themselves to the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42). In these four acts and conduct the early Christians were constant, and therefore the community grew with Christ and from it flowed this “togetherness” of the men of Christ. This extraordinary and visible witness to the world, of the unity of the early Church could also be for us an incentive and norm for our common ecumenical path in the future.

In the hope that your visit will reinforce further the valid collaboration between Lutherans and Catholics in Germany, I implore for you all the grace of God and His abundant blessings.

[Translation by ZENIT]

 

[Tomster]

I should say something needs to be made clear. As a Catholic priest who has worked on the issues of the theological dialogue for decades, I find your statements to a priest of the Lutheran Church of Norway abhorrent. Rome assuredly does not look upon the priests and bishops of the Church of Norway as “laymen in clerical garb.” What you have said is rude and disrespectful in the extreme.

I would like to make quite clear that the Lutheran Bishop of the Church of Norway was invited to participate in the Synod of Bishops in Rome back in the 1980s as an ecumenical observer precisely because he was the Lutheran Bishop; he made, as best I remember, at least one intervention to the synod.

Your sentiments are at variance to the mind and practice of the Holy Father and of the dicasteries of the Holy See. The appropriate honorific is always to be used. Rome would not countenance anything less.

I am happy to post the text of Pope Saint John Paul II address to the Lutheran Church of Norway during his apostolic visit to Norway as an expression of Rome’s thoughts…and I would hasten to add that in the intervening years, the warmness has grown.

I will also point out how different our attitudes are today from years long past…as, for example, when the Holy Father asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to bless him.

catholicherald.co.uk/content/uploads/2015/05/20140625cm00620-800x500.jpg

Similarly when an Anglican priest is ordained as a Catholic priest, a prayer of thanksgiving is to be included in the rite that acknowledges his priestly or episcopal ministry in the Anglican Communion. According to the norms of Anglicanorum Coetibus, any bishop of the Anglican Communion who is received into the Catholic Church and ordained as a Catholic priest is to be accorded a different dignity than that of simply a priest. He may continue to wear his pectoral cross, ring and mitre and is to be given a place in the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, having the same status as a retired Catholic bishop for purposes of participation in the conference. Yet another expression of how ministry outside of her visible confines is accorded due significance…which it deserves in light of how we now view these issues, thanks especially to the Council and developments thereafter.

I would also point out that the inauguration of the commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation by Catholics around the world, with their Lutheran brothers and sisters, will begin on October 31, 2016 – with a service of common prayer co-officiated by Pope Francis and the LWF President, Bishop Younan.

I would trust that the moderators of this forum would react strongly to such a fundamental violation of the norms and directives which have been issued by the Holy See, including The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, which was promulgated as a dispositive document.

In other words, the decisions about how the Catholic Church…and individual Catholics…are to view non-Catholic clergy is the decision of the Holy See – and Catholics are to defer to the Holy See.

One of the most radical errors of Reformation theology was Luther’s denial of a distinct sacerdotal office or power, and the corresponding claim that all believers are equally priests before God. Ignoring the context which refers to offering “spiritual sacrifices,” he rested his case on the words of St. Peter, saying, You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2;9). “By this text,” he said, “I have proved that all Christians are priests, for Peter addresses all Christians, as the words clearly prove.” This notion was later incorporated into the Smalcald Articles, and thus made confessional doctrine, afterf Luther had taken up the Catholic challenge and repudiated the very idea of a visible priesthood to be consistent with his theory of a purely invisible Church.

A great part of modern Lutheranism finds its basis and justification in the hypothesis of a universal priesthood. As a logical consequence, it rejects as unscriptural the doctrine, “that only such are true ministers of the Church as have been ordained by bishops . . . that the different offices and ranks of the clergy are not of human but of divine origin . . . that only priests can forgive sins . . . that the power of excommunication does not belong to the whole congregation, but to the spiritual rulers of the Church.” But along with the denial of a distinct sacerdotal office, Lutherans inherited a problem which they have not yet resolved, namely, the exact status of the ministry, whether it is a divine or merely human institution. If there is no sacerdotal office instituted by Christ and all believers are equally priests, where does the Lutheran ministry derive its authority to teach, celebrate the Eucharist, absolve from sin, demand obedience, and punish the unworthy? In trying to answer this question, two schools of thought have arisen. The Evangelical party “grants that the ministry is divinely ordained, but only in the sense as everything wise, appropriate, morally necessary can be said to have divine sanction, not in the sense that an express divine command for the establishment of the public ministry can be shown.” Against this position is the “strongly Roman doctrine of the ministry, namely, that the office of the public ministry is not conferred by the call of the congregation as the original possessor of all spiritual power, but is a divine institution in the sense that it was transmitted immediately from the Apostles to their pupils, considered as a separate ‘ministerial order’ or caste, and that this order perpetuates itself by means of the ordination.”

(cont,)

 

[Tomster]

I should say something needs to be made clear. As a Catholic priest who has worked on the issues of the theological dialogue for decades, I find your statements to a priest of the Lutheran Church of Norway abhorrent. Rome assuredly does not look upon the priests and bishops of the Church of Norway as “laymen in clerical garb.” What you have said is rude and disrespectful in the extreme.

I would like to make quite clear that the Lutheran Bishop of the Church of Norway was invited to participate in the Synod of Bishops in Rome back in the 1980s as an ecumenical observer precisely because he was the Lutheran Bishop; he made, as best I remember, at least one intervention to the synod.

Your sentiments are at variance to the mind and practice of the Holy Father and of the dicasteries of the Holy See. The appropriate honorific is always to be used. Rome would not countenance anything less.

I am happy to post the text of Pope Saint John Paul II address to the Lutheran Church of Norway during his apostolic visit to Norway as an expression of Rome’s thoughts…and I would hasten to add that in the intervening years, the warmness has grown.

I will also point out how different our attitudes are today from years long past…as, for example, when the Holy Father asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to bless him.

catholicherald.co.uk/content/uploads/2015/05/20140625cm00620-800x500.jpg

Similarly when an Anglican priest is ordained as a Catholic priest, a prayer of thanksgiving is to be included in the rite that acknowledges his priestly or episcopal ministry in the Anglican Communion. According to the norms of Anglicanorum Coetibus, any bishop of the Anglican Communion who is received into the Catholic Church and ordained as a Catholic priest is to be accorded a different dignity than that of simply a priest. He may continue to wear his pectoral cross, ring and mitre and is to be given a place in the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, having the same status as a retired Catholic bishop for purposes of participation in the conference. Yet another expression of how ministry outside of her visible confines is accorded due significance…which it deserves in light of how we now view these issues, thanks especially to the Council and developments thereafter.

I would also point out that the inauguration of the commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation by Catholics around the world, with their Lutheran brothers and sisters, will begin on October 31, 2016 – with a service of common prayer co-officiated by Pope Francis and the LWF President, Bishop Younan.

I would trust that the moderators of this forum would react strongly to such a fundamental violation of the norms and directives which have been issued by the Holy See, including The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, which was promulgated as a dispositive document.

In other words, the decisions about how the Catholic Church…and individual Catholics…are to view non-Catholic clergy is the decision of the Holy See – and Catholics are to defer to the Holy See.

To date no solution has been found for the dilemma, and no compromise seems possible, as evidenced by the number of schisms within Lutheranism that have centered around one or another of these conceptions of the ministry, which if not divinely ordained has no title to authority, and if divinely ordained is the negation of a cardinal principle of Lutheran theology.

When was the last time you concelebrated Mass with a Lutheran minister?

Have you ever concelebrated Mass with a Lutheran minister?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Pope Francis’ Address to the Lutheran World Federation and Members of the Lutheran-Catholic Commission for Unity

October 21, 2013 ZENIT

Translation of the greeting the Pope addressed to those present.

---

Dear Lutheran Brothers and Sisters, and Dear Catholic Brethren,

I gladly welcome all of you, delegation of the Lutheran World Federation and representatives of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic International Commission on Unity. This meeting follows the very cordial and pleasant one I had with you, esteemed Bishop Younan, and with the Secretary of the Lutheran World Federation, Reverend Junge, on the occasion of the celebration of the beginning of my ministry as Bishop of Rome.

I look, with a sense of profound gratitude to the Lord Jesus Christ, at the numerous steps that relations between Lutherans and Catholics have taken in the last decades, and not only through theological dialogue, but also through fraternal collaboration in many pastoral areas, above all, in the commitment to progress in spiritual ecumenism. The latter constitutes, in a certain sense, the soul of our journey to full communion, and enables us to look forward henceforth to some fruit, even if imperfect: in the measure in which we come close with humility of spirit to Our Lord Jesus Christ, we are certain to come close also between ourselves, and in the measure in which we invoke from the Lord the gift of unity, we are certain that He will take us by the hand and He will be our guide. We must let ourselves be taken by the hands of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This year, as a result of theological dialogue that is now in its fiftieth year, and in view of the commemoration of the fifth centenary of the Reformation, the text was published of the Commission for Lutheran-Catholic Unity, with the significant title: “From Conflict to Communion. The Lutheran-Catholic Interpretation of the Reformation in 2017.” The effort seems very important to me that we all confront one another in dialogue on the historical necessity of the Reformation, on its consequences and on the answers that have been given to it. Catholics and Lutherans can ask for forgiveness for the evil caused to one another and for the offenses committed before God, and together to rejoice for the nostalgia of unity that the Lord has reawakened in our hearts, and which makes us look ahead with a look of hope.

In the light of the journey in these decades, and of so many examples of fraternal communion between Lutherans and Catholics, of which we are witnesses, comforted by trust in the grace that is given to us in the Lord Jesus Christ, I am certain that we will be able to go forward on our path of dialogue and communion, also addressing the fundamental questions, as well as the divergences that arise, in the anthropological and ethical field. Of course, difficulties are not lacking and will not be lacking; they will again require patience, dialogue, and reciprocal understanding, but let us not be fearful! We know well – as Benedict XVI reminded us many times – that unity is not primarily the fruit of our effort but of the action of the Holy Spirit, to whom we must open our hearts with trust so that He can lead us on the path to reconciliation and communion.

Blessed John Paul II wondered: “How to proclaim the Gospel of reconciliation without at the same time being committed to work for the reconciliation of Christians?” (Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 98). May faithful and constant prayer in our communities be able to sustain the theological dialogue, the renewal of life and the conversion of hearts so that, with the help of God One and Triune, we are able to walk towards the fulfillment of the desire of the Son, Jesus Christ, that all may be one. Thank you.

[Translation by ZENIT]

 

[Don_Ruggero]

When was the last time you concelebrated Mass with a Lutheran minister?

Have you ever concelebrated Mass with a Lutheran minister?

1. I have not concelebrated the Eucharist with a Lutheran cleric since that is not YET feasible. I have had Lutheran clerics present, in the sanctuary, when I have presided at Mass, just as I’ve been present as they have celebrated the Lord’s Supper.

In cases where I have presided at the celebration of the Eucharist, I’ve done exactly as Pope St John Paul II did, as he relates in Ut Unum Sint:
I would like to mention one demonstration dictated by fraternal charity and marked by deep clarity of faith which made a profound impression on me. I am speaking of the Eucharistic celebrations at which I presided in Finland and Sweden during my journey to the Scandinavian and Nordic countries. At Communion time, the Lutheran Bishops approached the celebrant. They wished, by means of an agreed gesture, to demonstrate their desire for that time when we, Catholics and Lutherans, will be able to share the same Eucharist, and they wished to receive the celebrant’s blessing. With love I blessed them
2) Pope Francis will inaugurate a year of commemorations by Catholics of the Reformation anniversary as we reflect upon its profound significance. He will co-preside at a service of common prayer with Bishop Younan, President of the LWF – and they will jointly impart the blessing at the end. This very special liturgy, co-published by the Holy See, will then be used around the world. I have my copy as I will co-preside with a Lutheran cleric at one of the events…this cleric and I will end the celebration also with a blessing imparted jointly by both of us

I would suggest that you acquaint yourself with the wonderful work being accomplished through your National Conference of Catholic Bishops there in the United States. Their press release:

October 30, 2015

WASHINGTON—Drawing on 50 years of national and international dialogue, Lutherans and Catholics together have issued the “Declaration on the Way: Church, Ministry and Eucharist,” a unique ecumenical document that marks a pathway toward greater visible unity between Catholics and Lutherans. The October 30 release of the document comes on the eve of the anniversary of Martin Luther’s posting the 95 Theses, which sparked the Protestant Reformation

“Pope Francis in his recent visit to the United States emphasized again and again the need for and importance of dialogue. This Declaration on the Way represents in concrete form an opportunity for Lutherans and Catholics to join together now in a unifying manner on a way finally to full communion,” said Bishop Denis J. Madden, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, Catholic co-chair of the task force creating the declaration

“Five hundred years ago wars were fought over the very issues about which Lutherans and Roman Catholics have now achieved consensus,” said ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth A. Eaton. “Church, ministry and Eucharist have been areas of disagreement and even separation between our two churches, and we still have work to do both theologically and pastorally as we examine the questions. The declaration is so exciting because it shows us 32 important points where already we can say there are not church-dividing issues between us, and it gives us both hope and direction for the future,” she said

At the heart of the document are 32 “Statements of Agreement” where Lutherans and Catholics already have points of convergence on topics about church, ministry and Eucharist. These agreements signal that Catholics and Lutherans are indeed ‘on the way’ to full, visible unity. As 2017 approaches, the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, this witness to growing unity gives a powerful message to a world where conflict and division often seem to drown out more positive messages of hope and reconciliation The document also indicates differences still remaining between Lutherans and Catholics and indicates possible ways forward

In October both the ELCA Conference of Bishops—an advisory body of the church—and the Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) received and unanimously affirmed the 32 Agreements. ELCA bishops requested that the ELCA Church Council accept them and forward the entire document to the 2016 ELCA Churchwide Assembly, the denomination’s highest legislative body

The document seeks reception of the Statement of Agreements from The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU). The LWF is a global communion of 145 churches in 98 countries worldwide. The ELCA is the communion’s only member church from the United States

The conclusion invites the PCPCU and the LWF to create a process and timetable for addressing the remaining issues. It also suggests that the expansion of opportunities for Lutherans and Catholics to receive Holy Communion together would be a sign of the agreements already reached. The Declaration also seeks a commitment to deeper connection at the local level for Catholics and Lutherans

In December 2011, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the PCPCU, proposed a declaration to seal in agreements in the areas of the church, ministry and the Eucharist. The ELCA and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops responded to the Cardinal’s proposal by identifying Catholic and Lutheran scholars and leaders to produce the declaration, drawing principally on the statements of international dialogue commissions sponsored by the LWF and the PCPCU and a range of regional dialogues, including those in the United States

The text of the Declaration on the Way and more information are available online: usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/declaration-on-the-way.cfm

 

[Don_Ruggero]

One of the most radical errors of Reformation theology was Luther’s denial of a distinct sacerdotal office or power, and the corresponding claim that all believers are equally priests before God. Ignoring the context which refers to offering “spiritual sacrifices,” he rested his case on the words of St. Peter, saying, You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2;9). “By this text,” he said, “I have proved that all Christians are priests, for Peter addresses all Christians, as the words clearly prove.” /…/.

A great part of modern Lutheranism finds its basis and justification in the hypothesis of a universal priesthood. As a logical consequence, it rejects as unscriptural the doctrine, “that only such are true ministers of the Church as have been ordained by bishops . . . that the different offices and ranks of the clergy are not of human but of divine origin . . . that only priests can forgive sins . . . that the power of excommunication does not belong to the whole congregation, but to the spiritual rulers of the Church.” But along with the denial of a distinct sacerdotal office, Lutherans inherited a problem which they have not yet resolved, namely, the exact status of the ministry, whether it is a divine or merely human institution. If there is no sacerdotal office instituted by Christ and all believers are equally priests, where does the Lutheran ministry derive its authority to teach, celebrate the Eucharist, absolve from sin, demand obedience, and punish the unworthy? In trying to answer this question, two schools of thought have arisen. The Evangelical party “grants that the ministry is divinely ordained, but only in the sense as everything wise, appropriate, morally necessary can be said to have divine sanction, not in the sense that an express divine command for the establishment of the public ministry can be shown.” /…/

From Conflict to Communion:

1. The Second Vatican Council, responding to the scriptural, liturgical, and patristic revival of the preceding decades, dealt with such themes as esteem and reverence for the Holy Scripture in the life of the church, the rediscovery of the common priesthood of all the baptized, the need for continual purification and reform of the church, the understanding of church office as service, and the importance of the freedom and responsibility of human beings, including the recognition of religious freedom.
2. The Council also affirmed elements of sanctification and truth even outside the structures of the Roman Catholic Church. It asserted, “some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church,” and it named these elements “the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too” (UR 1). The Council also spoke of the “many liturgical actions of the Christian religion” that are used by the divided “brethren” and said, “these most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation” (UR 3). The acknowledgement extended not only to the individual elements and actions in these communities, but also to the “divided churches and communities” themselves. “For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation” (UR 1.3).
3. In light of the renewal of Catholic theology evident in the Second Vatican Council, Catholics today can appreciate Martin Luther’s reforming concerns and regard them with more openness than seemed possible earlier.
4. Implicit rapprochement with Luther’s concerns has led to a new evaluation of his catholicity, which took place in the context of recognizing that his intention was to reform, not to divide, the church. This is evident in the statements of Johannes Cardinal Willebrands and Pope John Paul II. The rediscovery of these two central characteristics of his person and theology led to a new ecumenical understanding of Luther as a “witness to the gospel.”

Lumen Gentium on the Common Priesthood of the Faithful

1. Christ the Lord, High Priest taken from among men, made the new people “a kingdom and priests to God the Father”. The baptized, by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated as a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, in order that through all those works which are those of the Christian man they may offer spiritual sacrifices and proclaim the power of Him who has called them out of darkness into His marvelous light. Therefore all the disciples of Christ, persevering in prayer and praising God, should present themselves as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. Everywhere on earth they must bear witness to Christ and give an answer to those who seek an account of that hope of eternal life which is in them.

Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist. They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity.

 

[JonNC]

=Tomster;13975809]To date no solution has been found for the dilemma, and no compromise seems possible, as evidenced by the number of schisms within Lutheranism that have centered around one or another of these conceptions of the ministry, which if not divinely ordained has no title to authority, and if divinely ordained is the negation of a cardinal principle of Lutheran theology.

First, this is not a correct presentation of Lutheran theology. Article XIV of the Augsburg Confession :
**Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called. **

And the Apology:
Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.

24] The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. 25] But the bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved. Let them see to it how they will give an account to God for dispersing 26] the Church. In this matter our consciences are not in danger, because since we know that our Confession is true, godly, and catholic, we ought not to approve the cruelty of those who persecute this doctrine. 27] And we know that the Church is among those who teach the Word of God aright, and administer the Sacraments aright, and not with those who not only by their edicts endeavor to efface God’s Word, but also put to death those who teach what is right and true; 28] towards whom, even though they do something contrary to the canons, yet the very canons are milder. Furthermore, we wish here again to testify that we will gladly maintain ecclesiastical and canonical government, provided the bishops only cease to rage against our Churches. This our desire will clear us both before God and among all nations to all posterity from the imputation against us that the authority of the bishops is being undermined, when men read and hear that, although protesting against the unrighteous cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain justice.

Orthodox Lutheran teaching distinguishes between the priesthood of all believers and the called and ordained ministry of word and sacrament. It is, indeed, a divine institution.

When was the last time you concelebrated Mass with a Lutheran minister?

Have you ever concelebrated Mass with a Lutheran minister?

Why not ask him when the last time was he concelebrated Mass with an Orthodox priest?

Or if he has ever concelebrated with an Orthodox priest?

Jon

 

[Don_Ruggero]

So you are bringing up the 8th commandment and insinuating a particular poster hasn’t
“been taught it?” Another passive aggressive insult.

Give me a break, all cloaked in the name of God’s commandments. Even worse.


With the credentials you post here about your years of study and years of Pastoring?

The priest was attacked and insulted. I think the statement is a singularly appropriate one for him to make in light of the following passage From Conflict to Communion:
*233. How theologians presented their theological convictions in the battle for public opinion is quite another matter. In the sixteenth century, Catholics and Lutherans frequently not only misunderstood but also exaggerated and caricatured their opponents in order to make them look ridiculous. They repeatedly violated the eighth commandment, which prohibits bearing false witness against one’s neighbor. Even if the opponents were sometimes intellectually fair to one another, their willingness to hear the other and to take his concerns seriously was insufficient. The controversialists wanted to refute and overcome their opponents, often deliberately exacerbating conflicts rather than seeking solutions by looking for what they held in common. Prejudices and misunderstandings played a great role in the characterization of the other side. Oppositions were constructed and handed down to the next generation. Here both sides have every reason to regret and lament the way in which they conducted their debates. Both Lutherans and Catholics bear the guilt that needs to be openly confessed in the remembrance of the events of 500 years ago. *
Evocation of fidelity to the Eighth Commandment seems singularly appropriate.

 

[Reuben_J]

You have a static view of human behaviour that is not realistically applicable.

Actually, because of the nature of theological dialogue, I do not engage in speculating about what Martin Luther – or any other figure – might have done or not done given a set of hypothesised variations of events. I consider that a useless exercise, at best.

That would be good diplomacy and politically correct.

Good to hear that. There is nothing good coming out of a Catholic priest who speculates about a very reverenced figure of another religion. Let that be handled by the Vatican.

The Church was hardly a monolithic reality for the less than 1500 years that preceded 1516. As but one example that has nothing to do with the Churches of the East, Saint Margaret, Queen of Scotland, is in part revered for her efforts to align the practices of the Celtic Church in the 10th century with those of the Continent, where she was from. We see this diversity very much asserting itself throughout that part of the world beyond the Channel across centuries as we regard Church history, for example, in the north of England.

That is interesting. It is not common knowledge among Catholics though. What is commonly known is that the other church before the Reformation was the schism with the Orthodox and before that, of course the Oriental Orthodox.

The statements from Rome since the pontificate of the Blessed Paul VI, and especially those of Pope Saint John Paul II, make very clear that Rome has accepted that the problems for how things were handled with the events of the 16th century lie on both sides.

If they are going to achieve something in ecumenism, that would be a good starting point. There is nothing to lose to say that Rome was to blame too.

History and commentaries however are often written with personalized leaning and may not agree with what the Popes have to say.

Ordinary Catholics are not obligated to agree too, not at pain of mortal sin. That is why you hear lay Catholics are more outspoken than you, especially if they are not involved in any personal capacity in a dialogue with the Protestant organizations or churches.