- Status
Of course I assumed someone as involved as you would have, but it is an open forum, after all, and the comments were meant for my Lutheran friend as well.
It is ironic, my pastor this afternoon made almost the exact same comment - in the otherr direction. I don’t expect the Catholic Church to distort, and I don’t want my church to, either. I think it is interesting, though, that some are not willing to look at new ways of expressing truth, guided by the Holy Spirit. While not saying you are one of those, you seem quick to dismiss what the statement says.
In truth, that Papal bull was a pretty strong push, and there was a lot of distorting going on in the 1500’s, not the least of which by Rome. But in any case, that was 500 years ago.
Do you believe that the USCCB and American Lutherans are involved in false ecumenism?
Do you believe that Cr. Ratzinger’s quote was false ecumenism?
Do you believe, as some Lutherans do, that the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was false ecumenism?
A good place to start, wouldn’t you say? And some of those things are newly agreed upon.
Thank God, and I believe many of us are reaching out as well.
Reconciliation will require effort on both sides. But more importantly, it will require mutual respect and love. Threads like this, which in its origin, had the title and effect of causing division and strife, only underminds what really needs to happen. Hope you’ll agree on that.
Blessings,
Jon
M
MDK
Guest
It must remain within the truth. Respect and love of another is to tell the truth. To be in communion with the Catholic Church, Lutheran churches have to “undistort” Luther’s doctrinal mistakes. The other mistake is of course that we are not one, as Christ and the Father are one. We must be committed to make this happen, like an engaged couple with sights set on union, and where there is a will to work things out.
Yet, that ship of Luther’s that got cast out took many understandings from Catholicism and mixed in Luther’s personal touches such as denying the authority that keeps the Church from error, and so has no true rudder. Things have happened in the last 500 years, but still remains that Luther changed things enough to just be wrong on some things, important things.
Perspective for the nature of your three questions. My statement regarding false ecumenism was not confined to the USCCB with Lutherans hammering things out, although I’ll answer your questions, there’s more to this obviously. The effort is nice, but has some way to go. The agreements are not fleshed out yet. I think the fruits of ecumenism will be shown in the future as we go into more details, and there will the effort be seen more clearly. I’m hoping they avoid false ecumenism, because it will just delay things.
The entire USCCB, probably not. Some individuals within, and outside, yes. Lutherans collectively are stretching the definition of “faith alone” so much, that it includes everything now, which means it is not faith alone, which is what we’ve been saying all along. I don’t know if that’s best called false ecumenism as much as a phase of moving toward more full truth. Even so, I want them to come on over and really get it ironed out. In regard to the individual Lutherans, I don’t know whether these individuals involved do tend to do this or do not. There are many who will say things that are with error(s), but it doesn’t necessarily seem to be an effort of ecumenism. The environment is one where temption to do so seems higher than I’ve ever seen it. Which means to me that the will to come together is higher than I’ve ever seen it. We just need to find a way to do it so that God is pleased and His teachings are definitely not trampled upon in the rush and we cooperate with Him to preserve His teachings.
I think you have to understand what he said in regard to salvation in the Lutheran church. It related more to the Catholic teaching that one can be saved even if they don’t have the true word taught and the valid sacraments. Someone who is invincibly ignorant by being indoctrinated and can’t see out of it, and someone who truly loves God even though having no valid Eucharist available can get to heaven. He was not saying that the Lutheran celebration of the Eucharist is valid. He was really stretching out a hand. I think that by not providing perspective on what was meant and what it doesn’t mean, it was not something I felt comfortable with. I think many people came away from that with the wrong ideas. I will not say it was false ecumenism, because what he said was true. It really needed proper perspective, though to keep lots of people from getting the wrong ideas, on both sides.
Then after he became Pope, there was the following statement regarding post Reformation churches… According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense"
He was focused on stretching out his hand when Cardinal, and brought in perspective here after becoming Pope. The other part of the perspective would be in the Church’s teaching regarding salvation as I briefly discussed above.
No. It’s a work in progress and has some way to go. I believe it has to be understood in perspective. Namely it’s what we can talk about, and share in common, not intended to be the fullness of truth and full up doctrine there. It has to have the perspective of the Catholic teaching on salvation as well. If one has these understandings, they should be fine. Trouble is I wish more did. I also believe that more and more Lutherans will feel it’s false ecumenism as this progresses. This is not born of pessimism about the people, but optimism about the direction this must go.
M
MDK
Guest
Any place where one has the truth, can be used as a stepping stone to come to the fullness of truth. Building a bridge is good. It must be built on these truthful stepping stones, and then planks.
Yes. I’ve never seen it like this. There is a lot of eagerness. It’s actually exciting.
It does require love. If we told you a lie, that would neither be love nor respect. It’s best to talk things out, as long as there is a framework that we must be one as Christians.
God bless those in both camps.
Michael
L
LutheranDK
Guest
This thread is getting old, and I have not read what transpired in it since my last post. So running the risk of beating another innocent dead horse, I have this question:
It had been said that the…HORRIBLE remarks Luther made about the Jews invalidate/disprove what non-RC Christians call his rediscovery of the Gospel. Because a person’s teachings cannot be true if they err in matters of morals, have I understood your position correctly?
Now, those remarks date from 1543, whereas the Reformation itself dates to the 1520’s and 1530’s.
So how does remarks uttered more than a decade after the events of the Reformation invalidate the Reformation itself? You cannot claim the above mentioned principle as working retrospectively, anyway?
In other words: How does the ramblings of old man Luther prove that the young Luther was wrong?
It had been said that the…HORRIBLE remarks Luther made about the Jews invalidate/disprove what non-RC Christians call his rediscovery of the Gospel. Because a person’s teachings cannot be true if they err in matters of morals, have I understood your position correctly?
Now, those remarks date from 1543, whereas the Reformation itself dates to the 1520’s and 1530’s.
So how does remarks uttered more than a decade after the events of the Reformation invalidate the Reformation itself? You cannot claim the above mentioned principle as working retrospectively, anyway?
In other words: How does the ramblings of old man Luther prove that the young Luther was wrong?
M
motstraumen
Guest
Jeg er enig med I LutheranDK, men vær forsigtig thi MDK mener han er sanhed overfor selve paven troer jeg. Han kan sige hvad han vil men om man protesterer mod ham er man et uhyr. Århus er et fint sted. Tak for indsatsen.
L
LutheranDK
Guest
Derfor har jeg også sat ham på min liste over dem jeg ignorerer - så kan heldigvis ikke se hvad han har skrevet.
Hvordan har du lært dansk?
M
motstraumen
Guest
The problem with this forum is that only one side has truth, it seems to me. The doctrines that propped up Rome over the other arch-churches was man-made, not divine. Martin Luther didn’t want a split in the church, that is fact. The abuses of Tetzel were sanctioned by Rome and the Roman hierarchy in Saxony and those abuses were leading faithful away from the truth. Until Rome admits these errors, they are not the true church, let alone the “bride”. The Catholic church led, despite schism, by the Holy Spirit is and members of said body are in many “church bodies.” Do we long for outward church unity? Yes. But I for one will not give up my vows and committments to Lutheran Doctrine because someone called MDK says I am in error. Do I make mistakes? yes, indeed. Do I get perturbed when my church and a leader who longed for a renewal in the church catholic? Yes, I do. I am sure there will be a ranting from MDK, the holder of all truths, so I apologize in advance to all the forum readers.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
It appears to me the behavior you point to on part of the CC seems so much like human stubbornness – it must be, well, human stubbornness. In other words there is no mystical spirit compelling the church to batter protestant churches at every opportunity. Rather this is all human folly.
P
PA650
Guest
I rarely take any statements on here personally, thus I’m certainly not offended by anything you have stated. In addition, whether Lutheranism or Catholicism holds the truth of Christianity has been a continuous debate ever since the Reformation. Many worthwhile points have been and are continuously raised on both sides of the debate. Therefore, it becomes a futile effort to debate a belief system when it will just be debated again in a thread on here a week from now. I own the compendium and the catechism of the Catholic church and of course the Book of Concord, which provide me with plentiful information pertaining to the beliefs of Lutheranism and Catholicism. I can certainly reach a sufficient conclusion regarding both of these belief systems without spending countless time defending Lutheranism on CAF. Perhaps a cop out on my part, but I’m highly confident in such Lutheran posters on here, such as JonNC in stating and defending the position of Lutheranism with humility.
M
motstraumen
Guest
Tak, for svaret, Jeg vidste ikke man kunne ignorere medleme her inde. Min mors familie var dansk og tysk, far var norsk så vi hørte alle disse sprog hjemme, særligt norsk som jeg vanligvis bruge. Mors familie var fra Halk i Haderslev og Süderlügum.Derfor har jeg også sat ham på min liste over dem jeg ignorerer - så kan heldigvis ikke se hvad han har skrevet.
Hvordan har du lært dansk?
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, JonNC,
It was a pleasure to have read your post.
Best wishes on your efforts to promote genuine and open discussions.
It was a pleasure to have read your post.
I’ve joined this thread rather late … and, reading the previous posts has had all the warmth and compassion of a nest of raging scorpions! The idea of presenting topics and arguments that are disputed in a civilized and social manner is truly a dying art!
Best wishes on your efforts to promote genuine and open discussions.
R
Rachel_Malloy
Guest
This thread is now closed. Feel free to open another thread to continue the discussion.
God bless!
Rachel
God bless!
Rachel
- Status