Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther???

  • Thread starter Thread starter lethalbean95
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
New to the forum and looking forward to my pilgrimage to Wittenberg, Germany October 27-November 1, 2017.
And, of course: Welcome to the Forum! I hope you will manage to meet nice, as well as knowledgeable, people with whom to interact.
 
New to the forum and looking forward to my pilgrimage to Wittenberg, Germany October 27-November 1, 2017. Answer to praising Martin Luther? No-only worship Jesus, The Holy Ghost and God; for all others have sinned and only Jesus can redeem us.

Having studied Catholic history about ML, as well as non-Catholic documents and I find Luther, like all people, including the Pope, sin. And, like so many denominations, all have faulty histories, and there are no exceptions. So my pilgrimage is not to worship Martin Luther but to celebrate Jesus, the Lamb of God and His death providing the only way anyone can spend eternity with the Father.

I came to recognize my absolute need for redemption and prayed for forgiveness and that Jesus be the King of my life. That was 44 years ago and I’ve grown to love Him beyond anything I could have imagined. He is also first in my life beyond my wife and any other man or woman. But from what I’ve read on the forum today it would seem that my spiritual belief and faith in Jesus would have to be recanted to restore myself to Catholicism.

Please understand when say, Here I stand, I shall never deny Jesus is the Christ and my only Saviour-for there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved. If that firm belief is not sufficient to Our God and any denomination, including the Catholic Church requires Christ PLUS something, then all those teachers of will be held to account for deceiving millions with false doctrines since Christ is God’s perfect sacrifice.
What’s this Plus something?
 
Please note that the concept of an “ecumenism of return” has been set aside. This was well articulated by Pope Benedict XVI in:

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY TO COLOGNE: ADDRESS OF POPE BENEDICT XVI

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2005/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050819_ecumenical-meeting.html

*Dear Brothers and Sisters

/…/ I would like now to express the joy I feel on the occasion of my Visit to Germany, in being able to meet you and offer a warm greeting to you, the Representatives of the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities.

As a native of this Country, I am quite aware of the painful situation which the rupture of unity in the profession of the faith has entailed for so many individuals and families. This was one of the reasons why, immediately following my election as Bishop of Rome, I declared, as the Successor of the Apostle Peter, my firm commitment to making the recovery of full and visible Christian unity a priority of my Pontificate

In doing so, I wished consciously to follow in the footsteps of two of my great Predecessors: Pope Paul VI, who over 40 years ago signed the conciliar Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, and Pope John Paul II, who made that Document the inspiration for his activity

In ecumenical dialogue Germany without a doubt has a place of particular importance. We are the Country where the Reformation began; however, Germany is also one of the countries where the ecumenical movement of the 20th century originated* /…/

Together we can rejoice in the fact that the dialogue, with the passage of time, has brought about a renewed sense of our brotherhood and has created a more open and trusting climate between Christians belonging to the various Churches and Ecclesial Communities. My venerable Predecessor, in his Encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995), saw this as an especially significant fruit of dialogue (cf. nn. 41ff.; 64)

I feel the fact that we consider one another brothers and sisters, that we love one another, that together we are witnesses of Jesus Christ, should not be taken so much for granted. I believe that this brotherhood is in itself a very important fruit of dialogue that we must rejoice in, continue to foster and to practice

Among Christians, fraternity is not just a vague sentiment, nor is it a sign of indifference to truth. **As you just said, Bishop, it is grounded in the supernatural reality of the one Baptism which makes us all members of the one Body of Christ
**
Together we confess that Jesus Christ is God and Lord; together we acknowledge him as the one mediator between God and man (cf. I Tm 2: 5), and we emphasize that together we are members of his Body (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 22; Ut Unum Sint, n. 42)

Based on this essential foundation of Baptism, a reality comes from him which is a way of being, then of professing, believing and acting. Based on this crucial foundation, dialogue has borne its fruits and will continue to do so

I would like to mention the re-examination of the mutual condemnations, called for by John Paul II during his first Visit to Germany. I recall with some nostalgia that first Visit. I was able to be present when we were together at Mainz in a fairly small and authentic fraternal circle. Some questions were put to the Pope and he described a broad theological vision in which reciprocity was amply treated

That colloquium gave rise to an episcopal, that is, a Church commission, under ecclesial responsibility. Finally, with the contribution of theologians it led to the important Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999) and to an agreement on basic issues that had been a subject of controversy since the 16th century /…/

We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world

**On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!

It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity**: in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature

To this end, dialogue has its own contribution to make. More than an exchange of thoughts, an academic exercise, it is an exchange of gifts (cf. Ut Unum Sint, n. 28), **in which the Churches and the Ecclesial Communities can make available their own riches **(cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 15; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 3, 14ff.; Ut Unum Sint, nn. 10-14) /…/

With the help that comes from on high, we will also find practical solutions to the different questions which remain open, and in the end our desire for unity will come to fulfilment, whenever and however the Lord wills /…/
I hope the lutheran churches come back to the Church.
 
Does it really? Well, we should get the word out to many who are involved in ecumenical and interfaith work around the world.
Being ivolved in the ecunemial work doesnt necessarily mean you have to accept the branch theory.🙂

God Bless
 
Being ivolved in the ecunemial work doesnt necessarily mean you have to accept the branch theory.🙂
What language would you use, then, as you meet with theologians and academics to participate in ecumenical dialogue?
 
What language would you use, then, as you meet with theologians and academics to participate in ecumenical dialogue?
I am not sure of how they explain it to be honest. Also i apologize if the way replied to you at first seemed provocative I was going to explaom it further but wasnt sure of the best way so I decided to just post the first sentence.

Thanks

God Bless
 
Originally Posted by rabbitdonkey
The Church rejects the branch theory.
This question is often raised. I would point out, however, that nobody who is well-informed questions the fact that the Eastern Orthodox reject Branch Theory.

For example:

(1) The Orthodox will never depart from their conviction that the Orthodox Church is the Una Sancta. This is due to their faith that the Church is an historical entity and that we cannot seek her outside the tradition historically bequeathed and appropriated. Unless they have reasons to move to another Christian confession or Church, i.e. as long as they remain Orthodox, they will identify the Una Sancta with their church. But ecumenical experience is taking away all triumphalism from such a conviction. The Una Sancta transmitted in and through tradition is not a possession of the Orthodox. It is a reality judging us all (eschatological) and is something to be constantly received. The Ecumenical Movement offers the context of such a re-reception which takes place in common with the other Christians. This amounts to an overcoming of confessionalism: the Una Sancta is not statically “enclosed” in a certain credal “confession” calling for “conversions” to it.

(2) The Orthodox will have to keep pressing for a common stance on or vision of the Una Sancta in the Ecumenical Movement. In the process of ecumenical reception the “fellowship” of the member Churches will have to grow into a common vision and recognition of what the true Church is. This will be done through the intensification of ecclesiological studies as well as constant reminders of the significance of being and acting together as a matter of common faith and ecclesial vision. In this respect the Toronto statement will have to be stripped of its ecclesiological pluralism. I do not agree with the view that the WCC should not develop an ecclesiology. On the contrary I believe this to be a priority for it.

(3) With regard to the ecclesiological significance of the WCC itself, the Orthodox will not be in a position to accept the WCC as a Church, i.e. as a body that can be identified through the marks of the Una Sancta, for it lacks the presuppositions of such marks, at least from the perspective of Orthodox ecclesiology. But we must distinguish between being a Church and bearing ecclesiological significance. Anything that contributes to the building up of the Church or to the reception and fulfilment of the Church’s life and unity bears ecclesiological significance. In this respect the Ecumenical Movement and the WCC in particular are strongly qualified candidates, for they have as their primary object and raison d’ętre the restoration of the unity of the Church. This makes it imperative for the WCC to keep the unity of the Church at the centre of its life and concerns. It is this that makes it ecclesiologically significant.

Finally the question must be asked: does bearing an ecclesiological significance amount to having an ecclesial character? At this point terminology becomes extremely delicate. If by “ecclesial character” we wish to mean a “Church”, then in accordance with what was stated above such an ecclesial character should be denied. If on the other hand having an “ecclesial character” means participating in the event of a “fellowship” through which the Church’s unity is being restored, such a character clearly belongs to the nature of the Ecumenical Movement and the WCC. Denying, therefore, a priori and without explanation an ecclesial character to the Ecumenical Movement and the WCC would turn these into totally secular entities.

The Orthodox participate in the Ecumenical Movement out of their conviction that the unity of the Church is an inescapable imperative for all Christians. This unity cannot be restored or fulfilled except through the coming together of those who share the same faith in the Triune God and are baptized in His name. The fellowship that results from this coming together on such a basis and for such a purpose cannot but bear an ecclesiological significance, the precise nature of which will have to be defined. In the present paper I have tried to indicate the possibilities as well as the limits of such a definition. Certainly, the matter requires further reflection. I hope the discussion that will follow will contribute to this.
 
Does it really? Well, we should get the word out to many who are involved in ecumenical and interfaith work around the world.
I can recall as a protestant hearing Pope Benedict referring to us as “ecclesial communities”

Man i was so angry lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top