What Would It Take? (imagining)

  • Thread starter Thread starter SnowRose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lutherans have a misunderstanding of what councils actually do
 
I’m saying that the Catholic teaching is based on (at best) early 20th century biology/biochemical knowledge.
(It doesn’t affect me personally, I’m just exploring the Beaches To Die On)
 
SnowRose said:
On the Catholic side, the infallability and any compulsory Marian dogma would be difficult (the pre-Trent Mary appears to be fine). And the base of sexual teaching seems to be grounded in pre-modern scientific knowledge .
Click to expand...
Please cite compulsory Marian dogma. The only Marian dogma that must be accepted by Catholics is found in the Creed; “born of the Virgin Mary and made Man.” All other Marian issues are to be accepted freely if one cares to. The Assumption of the Blessed Mother is a doctrine honoring the Second Person of the Trinity, not Mary.
Infallibility is a gift from Christ to Peter and the Apostles assuring the church that it will be guided by the Holy Spirit not to teach error. And you want to do away with this? What do you propose in its place, using a Ouija board to determine if a teaching in a matter of faith and morals is correct or not?
And Catholic sexual teaching is based on the idea of a profound respect for the Creator sharing His great attribute of creator with man. Sex has a sacred purpose in, and only in, matrimony. How do you suggest we dumb that down?
Shalom.
 
Thank you. This one reason that I usually avoid online discussions. It ranks up ther with the , “Oh Yea” response.

If we can’t discuss core issues with respect and a desire to understand the other person and their view, no progress can be made.
 
SnowRose said:
’m saying that the Catholic teaching is based on (at best) early 20th century biology/biochemical knowledge.

(It doesn’t affect me personally, I’m just exploring the Beaches To Die On)
Click to expand...
I’m not sure where you get this idea, but it’s false. You might consider reading Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body to find out what the church teaches about sexuality.
 
SacredHeartBassist said:
Immaculate conception must be accepted.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is an infallible teaching. I never said it didn’t have to be accepted. I simply said it was a doctrine that honors and praises God, Mary was only the means God showed His love for her and for us.
 
Please cite compulsory Marian dogma. The only Marian dogma that must be accepted by Catholics is found in the Creed; “born of the Virgin Mary and made Man.” All other Marian issues are to be accepted freely if one cares to. The Assumption of the Blessed Mother is a doctrine honoring the Second Person of the Trinity, not Mary.

See, we agree on that.
I honor the Blessed Mother, I just believe the last 500 years of adiaphora to be excessive and I certainly do not pray to Her.

Infallibility is a gift from Christ to Peter and the Apostles assuring the church that it will be guided by the Holy Spirit not to teach error. And you want to do away with this? What do you propose in its place, using a Ouija board to determine if a teaching in a matter of faith and morals is correct or not?
Infallability is a historically late teaching. A teaching that makes sense given the time and place. It has the flavour of a toddler crying I’m Right And I’m Right Just Because, and so I forgive you for that.
If we are to move on you need to drop that. I understand you won’t, right now, and you’ll mouth any number of reasons why-not. That’s fine. I was just exploring the topic.

And Catholic sexual teaching is based on the idea of a profound respect for the Creator sharing His great attribute of creator with man. Sex has a sacred purpose in, and only in, matrimony. How do you suggest we dumb that down?
If you even need to ask that question, you have your answer. I do not need to instruct you, beyond praying.
 
SnowRose said:
See, we agree on that.
I honor the Blessed Mother, I just believe the last 500 years of adiaphora to be excessive and I certainly do not pray to Her.

Well, there is nothing in the last 500 years that any Catholic must believe beyond the doctrine of the Assumption. All else is private revelation that one may accept or ignore. Granted, there are some people who, IMO go overboard, but if it works for them, all well and good. You have that option also.

Infallability is a historically late teaching. A teaching that makes sense given the time and place. It has the flavour of a toddler crying I’m Right And I’m Right Just Because, and so I forgive you for that.
If we are to move on you need to drop that. I understand you won’t, right now, and you’ll mouth any number of reasons why-not. That’s fine. I was just exploring the topic.

Infallibility is based on Christ’s words in John, 14: 26. Though the doctrine of infallibility was formalized in the mid 19th century it has been believed by the Church since the time of the apostles. Many of the promulgations of the church are in response to questions that arise through history, and matters that have been a part of the “deposit of faith” since the time of the apostles need to be clarified. the aforementioned Doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Mother is a good example.

And Catholic sexual teaching is based on the idea of a profound respect for the Creator sharing His great attribute of creator with man. Sex has a sacred purpose in, and only in, matrimony. How do you suggest we dumb that down?
If you even need to ask that question, you have your answer. I do not need to instruct you, beyond praying.
Click to expand...
You said in your OP that the sexual teaching of the RCC is grounded in pre-modern scientific knowledge. Catholic sexual teaching considered human sexuality as a sacred gift from God given to “be fruitful and multiply” It is a sacred command, and “modern” science and its aftermath does not recognize such an idea. To modern society based on modern sexual science, sexual expression between human beings is no more significant than Rover and Fifi on the front lawn.
 
Last edited:
It’s split. There are still many provinces of the Anglican Communion that still uphold marriage as defined by Jesus Himself.
I get the feeling the mother church (CofE) will fracture eventually. Both sides in this issue insist it won’t happen but given the recent actions and the nastiness on social media, I have my doubts.
 
Last edited:
Personally (and this will ruffle some feathers of the less-ecumenical Lutherans on my ‘side’), papal infallibility may have a solution that’s amenable to both sides. And yes, I’m speaking of Infallibilty, not just primacy (which many Lutherans already could accept) or even supremacy (which the Lutheran Confessions are not necessarily opposed to, and indeed may long for).

I think it begins with Melanchthon‘s signature/statement to the Smalcald Articles, which included the appendix piece Treatise on the Power & Primacy of the Pope. He lays out a blueprint for how unity might be achieved. Only the ultra-ultramontanists would be driven nuts. Christendom would have the gift of a papacy with no overreaching fetters.
I, Philip Melanchthon, regard the above articles as right and Christian. However, concerning the pope I hold that, if he would allow the Gospel, we, too, may concede to him that superiority over the bishops which he possesses by human right, making this concession for the sake of peace and general unity among the Christians who are under him and may be so in the future.
Click to expand...
Because Melancthon wrote the Treatise, I think it’s fair to assume that his signature captures the spirit of that document. The Lutheran objections to the Papacy are totally conditional - and it wouldn’t take much to shift.

I think this holds true, even post 1869 — and that’s saying something; I think Vatican I did more harm to Christian unity than Trent or 1517 or 1054 ever did, as it all but doubled-down and solidified the previous divisions. The Infallibility issue would need to be clarified/developed to only having force when accorded with Scripture, and understood as a power of the church in general, not the pope in particular, though he would certainly serve as the church’s chief public representative to the world on such matters by virtue of the Petrine Office.

If this sounds far-fetched, consider: we’ve already seen the doctrine of infallibility restricted to a narrow understanding of ‘faith and morals,’ and even here we are seeing some Roman Catholics move to an even sparser application. (Ask two Roman Catholics how many infallible pronouncements there’ve been and you’ll receive no less than five answers.)

A few more brilliant Popes like Benedict XVI might solve this riddle. Then again, besides him, the Papacy has generally shown itself to be inflexible on matters related to reconciliation, yet very flexible on matters related to itself. Perhaps things will only change when Roman Catholics are trapped in a theological corner. I dread the day, but the return of a wicked pope or two who make horrible pronouncements may do better in the long run. Pray that never happens.
 
I think the biggest impediment to Lutheran-Catholic reunion is the unfamiliarity of the laity with actual Reformation history. So much fact has been replaced with polemic, and the Internet has been no friend in this regard.

The fault for this lies in both our communions. We do not catechize well enough, and so the average believer doesn’t know the difference, probably can’t name the Ten Commandments and likely can’t explain what they mean even if so. When a neophyte wishes to learn more, where do they turn? The internet, where they find angry polemics and half-truths.

A poster on these boards is posting various Reformation documents and discussing them. I think that’s a great place to begin; read Trent, read Augsburg, read Smalcald, read Chemnitz’s commentaries, and learn what truly separates us. Learn that we have more in common than not. Learn that Christ is still our center.
 
Aren’t there all kinds of committees and agreements between Catholics and Lutherans at this point? Have you read those documents, Snow Rose?
 
Yeah, I think just recently that Catholics and Lutherans acknowledge both side’s baptisms. Good step.
 
Yes. The Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogues have been going since Vatican II.

Eleven rounds of dialogue have touched on everything from easy things like Baptism to difficult topics like the Papacy. These have been a gift to both communions.

The difficulty comes in that there are essentially two types of Lutherans:
  1. “Quia” Lutherans, or “Confessional Lutherans,” who hold the Lutheran Confessional documents to be a correct understanding of Scripture. They tend to be very conservative, and do not share pulpit or altars with the second type of Lutherans.
  2. “Quatenus” Lutherans, who consider the Lutheran Confessional documents as merely historical documents that may or may not agree with their current interpretation of Scripture. These are essentially Lutheran in name only. They tend to be very liberal and permit female pastors, gay marriage, etc.
The Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues have reached an interesting point. The Roman Catholic Church has started to realize that discussions with Quatenus Lutherans are a moving target, and is beginning to focus on Confessional Lutheranism.
 
Yes, I have, thank you. Which is in part why I believe the topic can even be discussed here.
I’m stuck at work atm, sneak-reading but have a hard time posting.

And I apologize overall for my surly tone in the thread last night. As a single mother to active kids, I should know better than trying to maintain a sensible discussion while juggling teens.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top