Which Church??

[eazyduzit]

Hi y’all. New to the forum. Read most of this thread Interesting that no one mentioned the gospel. I would choose a church that St ill pro claims what Paul preached. If people make the same come plaint that they did about the gospel of grace that they did in RM. 6 then I know its the real deal.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi y’all. New to the forum. Read most of this thread Interesting that no one mentioned the gospel. I would choose a church that St ill pro claims what Paul preached. If people make the same come plaint that they did about the gospel of grace that they did in RM. 6 then I know its the real deal.

I’m pretty sure that every church, out of the tens of thousands of Christian denominations in existence today, claims to still teach what St. Paul preached.

How do you discern what church is actually doing this–that’s the question.

 

[joe371]

Then shouldn’t’ Catholics be following the purity of their founder?

You mean Jesus Christ - right? I can think of no one other person than Jesus who fits the bill, as the founder of the Catholic Church, and I tried as a former Protestant; can you?

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…

Just about all Christians, within their ecclesial community, would say that they are following the purity of their founder, typically claiming that their founder is Jesus, all the while claiming that Jesus was not the founder of the Catholic Church, at least in my experience.

 

[joe371]

I’m pretty sure that every church, out of the tens of thousands of Christian denominations in existence today, claims to still teach what St. Paul preached.

How do you discern what church is actually doing this–that’s the question.

Well, if the Holy Spirit is guiding everyone, then everyone, regardless of what they are teaching, is right, due to the idea that they are guided by God i.e. a sort of relative position as it pertains to the teachings of Jesus. It’s either that, or what the CC claims…

 

[JustaServant]

Hi y’all. New to the forum. Read most of this thread Interesting that no one mentioned the gospel. I would choose a church that St ill pro claims what Paul preached. If people make the same come plaint that they did about the gospel of grace that they did in RM. 6 then I know its the real deal.

Are you typing in tongues?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Randy,

Thanks for your response.

Let’s be optimistic for a moment. I think there is much misunderstanding regarding justification, but Catholics and Lutherans seem to be coming to the realization that they were saying the same thing but using different language.

Similarly, the Orthodox have a real issue with the filioque, but it may be that East and West simply misunderstood one another in the past and that this can be corrected.

So, is it possible that maybe Lutherans have misunderstood the re-presentation of the one sacrifice of Jesus, and if they understand it correctly and agree with it, progress might be made?

There is a great deal of reason for optimism, but there are impediments to progress which should be easy to overcome, and yet, are still problematic. There is a great deal of misunderstanding over the definitions of very basic but important terms. It is frustrating when you are in the middle of a discussion and realize that you and your dialogue partner are using different definitions. It seems to me that we will not have any hope of reunion unless we FIRST can come to agreement on what these basic words mean. Where did this disagreement on definitions come from?

**“At the heart of the church doctrine that came out of Luther’s Reformation was the axiom he enunciated in 1517: ‘The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.’ **As it stood, the axiom echoed the language of theologians East and West throughout the centuries, none of whom would have questioned it. Yet all the decisive terms in this axiom – such words as ‘church’, ‘gospel’, and ‘grace’ – came to mean something in the sixteenth century that many of these theologians would not quite have been able to recognize or acknowledge. Luther himself admitted as much when, in explaining it, he observed that ‘the gospel of God (as he had learned to understand it) is something that is not very well known to a large part of the church’ and something that he had not learned from the scholastic theologians.” Pelikan, “Reformation of Church and Dogma”, (1300-1700). (Written when Pelikan was still a Lutheran)

(In Luther’s quest for Salvation by Faith Alone) – “**One word stuck in his way, the word ‘righteousness’ in Romans 1:17 – ‘For the righteousness (iustitia) of God is revealed from faith to faith, for the just (or righteous) shall live by faith.’ ‘I hated this term ‘the righteousness of God,’ for by the use and custom of all the Doctors, I had been taught to understand ‘righteousness’ philosophically as they say, the formal or else the active righteousness by which God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous.” **Marius, pg. 192

In also discussing Luther’s ‘arrival’ at Salvation by Faith Alone, Lutheran Theologian Paul Tillich states:

“**It is Luther who derives a new concept of conscience from the experience of justification through faith; neither Paul nor Augustine did so.” **Tillich, “The Protestant Era”, pg. 145

**“For now, the Leipzig Debate prompted him to redefine his definition of the church more precisely.” **(Lutheran Theologian) Markus Wriedt, “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”, pg. 99

So – Luther redefined several critical terms such as ‘church’, ‘conscience’, ‘justification’, ‘grace’, ‘gospel’, and ‘priesthood’ to name just a few. I would suggest that after 1500 years, maybe Christianity had already figured out the correct definition of terms, and didn’t really ‘need’ someone to redefine them ALL.

Would it be out of line to suggest that in our dialogues, Lutherans and Catholics use the definitions of various terms that are 2000 years old rather than 500 years old?

I guess another important question is:

“By what authority” did Luther, admittedly, redefine those extremely important terms like ‘church’, ‘gospel’, and ‘grace’?

Some things to think about possibly?

God Bless You Randy, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi ben,

Thanks for your responses.

Patrick Ohare in book “facts about Luther” I believe talks of “excessive language and emotion” on both sides of the issue that distort the truth.

How about Sylvester Prieras master of sacred palace of Rome, on Luther wrote,“leper, loathsome, false libeled, calumniator, a dog and a son of a b____, born to bite and snap at the sky with his dogfish mouth having a brain of brass and a nose of iron” 1519

Denifle, Grisar, Chochlaeus, O’Hare are all quite biased in vilifying Luther. Seems like the internet and Tan publishing house are rivaling what Chick publications are criticized for : biased propaganda ,not to mention some poor scholarship with some lack of references. Others are saying this, even some Catholic scholars (Adolph Herti, Jared Wicks, Joseph Lortz). Even the Catholic encyclopedia says Grisars work not as balanced as can be.

You mentioned O’Hare first. I happen to have his book. You have NEVER seen me quote it have you? I don’t because I think that his bias clouded his assessment of Luther. I also happen to have the Cochlaeus book too. Same comment, although I would suggest that as a contemporary opponent of Luther, Cochleaus probably knew him better than the ‘later day’ adversaries. I NEVER quote him. I also never quote Denifile, in spite of the fact that I have an electronic copy of his book. I don’t quote these people because I don’t think they are fair to Luther. I believe that their bias clouds their assessments of Luther in the same way that I think that Luther’s hatred of Catholics and the Catholic Church blinded him to the Truth.

I do happen to use Grisar quite a bit, although not anywhere near as much as I could, and personally I believe that you would have to have a pretty pronounced PRO-Luther bias to consider Grisar to be too biased to trusted. That being said, I have to ask you: How much of Grisar’s 6 Volume biography of Luther have you have actually read?

For the record, the 6 volume Grisar set is extremely well referenced and is chock full of FACTS. I recognize that as a Catholic, Grisar doesn’t have the same credibility (for Protestants) as do the Lutheran and Protestant Scholars that I prefer to quote. However, I have never seen anyone refute Grisar on the historical facts, and that is generally how and why I quote him. In fact, when I quote him I almost always remember to mention that he is a Catholic so that people will be aware that they are not reading a Protestant Scholar, especially given that that is normally who I post. As a Catholic, Grisar is very much into the facts and not at all into generalizations and ‘feelings’. When he makes an assessment, he backs it up with a plethora of references and actual substance. As you might suspect, I like that approach.

In addition, you seem less than ‘enamored’ with Tan books. The same question applies here also. How many Tan books have you read ben? If none, then, specifically and exactly, where do you get the idea that Tan is somehow in the same UNIVERSE as Chick? Where?

You mention Prieras, Herti, Wicks, and Lortz, which I find to be an interesting combination. It seems to me that you have been reading some kind of website or blog and so I have to ask:

**Ben – would you mind telling me the name of the site where you got all of this ‘information’? **

God Bless You ben, I look forward to your answer, Topper

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hi y’all. New to the forum. Read most of this thread Interesting that no one mentioned the gospel. I would choose a church that Still proclaims what Paul preached. If people make the same come plaint that they did about the gospel of grace that they did in RM. 6 then I know its the real deal.

I can answer your implied question by quoting from the liturgy; specifically the gospel is preached in every mass when the Eucharistic prayer is said. One need only listen to hear it.

Father, it is our duty and salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks through your beloved Son, Jesus Christ.

He is the Word through whom you made the universe, the Savior you sent to redeem us. By the power of the Holy Spirit he took flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary.

For our sake he opened his arms on the cross; he put an end to death and revealed the resurrection. In this he fulfilled your will and won for you a holy people.

And so we join the angels and saints in proclaiming your glory:

Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might,
Heaven and earth are full of your glory.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.
Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness.

Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body + and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread and gave you thanks, He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you, and eat it;
this is my body which will be given up for you.

When the supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it;
this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

Let us proclaim the mystery of faith:
Lord, by your cross and resurrection, you have set us free. You are the Savior of the World.
In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup. We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you. May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.

Lord, remember your Church throughout the world; make us grow in love, together with {Benedict} our Pope, {name of local bishop}, our bishop, and all the clergy.

Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again; bring them and all the departed into the light of your presence. Have mercy on us all; make us worthy to share eternal life with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, and with all the saints who have done your will throughout the ages. May we praise you in union with them, and give you glory through your Son, Jesus Christ.

Through him, with him, and in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever.

Amen​

I hope you have an opportunity to attend mass and hear the gospel for yourself.

 

[benhur]

Are you typing in tongues?

Too funny thanks

 

[Randy_Carson]

Are you typing in tongues?

If he were, could you use translate.google.com to interpret it?

 

[joe371]

Hi y’all. New to the forum. Read most of this thread Interesting that no one mentioned the gospel. I would choose a church that St ill pro claims what Paul preached. If people make the same come plaint that they did about the gospel of grace that they did in RM. 6 then I know its the real deal.

So you would select a church based on those church leaders who mention the gospel…that proclaims what Paul preached? Well, that is every church, regardless of denomination.

 

[benhur]

I shouldn’t be laughing at that, but IS funny.

But when Luther is “excessive” it is not funny anymore but "vile’ ?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper,
If you’ll remember, my intent was to stay positive. I have no idea where you get the idea that I intended to challenge Dr. Carroll’s credentials. In fact, please take note, it is I who refer to him with his title of “Doctor”.

Your intent was to ‘stay positive’ and my intent is to uncover the facts and reveal them on the thread. These are quite different intentions. The fact is Jon that the FACTS are NOT positive for Melanchthon or Luther or Lutheranism. In staying ‘positive’ it appears that you are ignoring those facts. Melanchthon of course was trying to ‘stay positive’, but portraying a false representation of the Lutheran faith and in fact intentionally committing a lie on a matter of Christian doctrine.

I prefer to deal with the facts as they are, and strongly believe that ‘staying positive’ only covers over our differences and their source. Furthermore, I believe that the ONLY way that we are going to be able to work effectively towards unity is if we ACTUALLY DEAL with the problem as it is. If the historical evidence shows that the Augsburg Confession was a dishonest representation of the Lutheran faith – well then – that is the historical fact that needs to be dealt with.

The fact is you are wrong. Melanchthon throughout his career worked for reconciliation, with Rome, with the South Germans (Bucer), with the Swiss (Calvin), with Orthodoxy.

Melanchthon was not duplicitous here. He arrived at Augsburg (without Luther who remained in Coburg), only to find out that more was needed than simply a refuting of the abuses within the Church at the time with the Torgau articles.

OK Jon, you say that the ‘fact is that you are wrong’. As you know I am ALL ABOUT the facts. Your statement indicates that you have some facts which PROVE me wrong. I am listening. Please present those facts. Rather than simply stating that I am wrong without any specific evidence to support your claim, prove me wrong.

It is true that Melanchthon worked towards reunification throughout his career, but if you really want to ‘stay positive’ you probably don’t want to delve into the facts of those efforts. As you know he ‘wandered’ significantly from Lutheran belief towards the end and created his own schism. He is not exactly a “loyal hero” in many Lutheran circles as you well know, but that would be a subject for another thread of course, not this one.

You say that “Melanchthon was not duplicitous here”. Yet you know for a fact that Carroll’s statement is accurate and in fact you have not refuted it. You know that Melanchthon stated that, among other things:

** “We have no dogmas which differ from the Roman Church”….**

Jon, I don’t know what your definition of “duplicitous” is, but the actual definition denotes a ‘deliberate deception’. Are you saying that Melanchton’s statement about no differing dogmas is NOT a deliberate deception? How about his claim that:
**
“We reverence the authority of the Pope of Rome” **

Melanchthon here is speaking of Eck. Melanchthon truly believed that what he wrote was consistent with historic Christian doctrine.

I would like to know how Eck figures into this deception. Furthermore, you can pick your poison here. Either Melanchthon’s statement was a bald-faced lie, and the Augsburg Confession was a deliberate deception, which by the way fooled no one at the time as Carroll pointed out, OR Melanchthon was such a poor theologian that he didn’t understand the then massive difference between Catholic and Lutheran theology.

Just for the record, the fact that Melanchthon somehow ‘forgot’ to include in the Augsburg Confession the all of the contentious issues speak for the charge of ‘bald-faced’ rather than ‘poor Theologian’. Given that you deny the accusation, it is necessary to repost the actual Carroll quote so that people can review the evidence for themselves.

 

[Topper17]

“By July it was clear that on matters of doctrine the Lutherans at Augsburg were dissimulating, concealing their real beliefs in the hope if avoiding a final breach without making genuine concessions. On July 6 Melanchthon made the incredible statement: “We have no dogmas which differ from the Roman Church……We reverence the authority of the Pope of Rome, and are prepared to remain in allegiance to the Church if only the Pope does not repudiate us,” As it happened, on the very same day Luther, in an exposition to Archbishop Albert of Mainz, declared: “Remember that you are not dealing with human beings when you have affairs with the Pope and his crew, but with veritable devils’” Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christendom”, pg. 103

**“It made no mention of Luther’s teaching on the authority of the Pope, predestination, the priesthood of all believers, indelible sacramental ordination, the number of sacraments, and purgatory, nor of his condemnation of all Masses as public or private. There were enormous omissions as everyone present [at Augsburg] knew.” **Carroll, pg. 102

Jon, that is the quote in question. You have not refuted the facts as stated by Carroll, but you have drawn conclusions which are COMPLETELY in opposition to the facts that you do not refute.

**You may applaud Melanchthon for trying to ‘stay positive’ but I don’t. **

Further, throughout his career, as Dave Armstrong writes about, Melanchthon honestly wanted reconciliation with Rome, and was not so willing to give up on it as Luther was.

I disagree with your conclusion about Melanchthon, but won’t participate in your attempts to expand this into something it is not. Dr. Carroll’s credentials are not in dispute here.

Nobody is disputing whether Melanchthon honestly wanted reconciliation with Rome, but it is completely beside the point. The accusation of lying about the Augsburg Confession and his statement about “no dogmas” is very specific and has absolutely nothing to do with his ‘general attitude’ over the course of his career. That being said, IF, as it definitely appears, he did lie and the Confession was a dishonest representation, then that does NOT speak well of Lutheranism, at least from my point of view.

The fact is Jon that, personally, I believe that lying about a matter of faith in order to get people to agree with your beliefs is one of the WORST lies possible. It is a sin against God in that it is an intentional LIE about a matter of Christian Doctrine. It is a FAR more serious matter than simply being unconsciously incorrect about a matter of doctrine. It is a deliberate deception.

The fact that you are unable to give any ground here Jon only keeps the subject alive and requires me to provide even more evidence supporting my position. The issue of deliberate deception on a matter of doctrine or to improve or defend one’s religious reputation could be expanded, either here or on another thread.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[eazyduzit]

So you would select a church based on those church leaders who mention the gospel…that proclaims what Paul preached? Well, that is every church, regardless of denomination.

Thanks for your reply Joe, actually I find very few churches that preach grace as St. Paul did . If so the reaction is the same - So then why don’t we just keep on sinning so that grace may abound? To law keepers gospel of grace always seems like a licence to sin.For example, you would probably say that about Joseph Prince as many protestants do.

 

[ahs]

If you go on line you will see all kinds of Protestants stating the the Catholic Church is not the true Church. Which Church do Protestants align themselves with? One Protestant web site says that1 Tim. 3:15 (the Church is the pillar of truth) means Christianity as a whole.That can’t be so because there needs to be consistency of truth, and mega denominations dont lend themselves to that. What is the Protestant “church?”

Hopefully it’s THIS Church:

• Which Church is THE Church of the Bible?

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12626294]

Your intent was to ‘stay positive’ and my intent is to uncover the facts and reveal them on the thread. These are quite different intentions. The fact is Jon that the FACTS are NOT positive for Melanchthon or Luther or Lutheranism. In staying ‘positive’ it appears that you are ignoring those facts. Melanchthon of course was trying to ‘stay positive’, but portraying a false representation of the Lutheran faith and in fact intentionally committing a lie on a matter of Christian doctrine.

I think you’ve nailed the difference between us here. Ours are different intentions. There are lots of negative things about important Catholics throughout history that one could “uncover… and reveal on the thread”. I choose not to participate in that kind of old fashioned scorched earth style of polemics. In my view there has been far too much of that between our communions over the centuries. You, OTOH, seem to believe that it is your calling to do that.

I prefer to deal with the facts as they are, and strongly believe that ‘staying positive’ only covers over our differences and their source. Furthermore, I believe that the ONLY way that we are going to be able to work effectively towards unity is if we ACTUALLY DEAL with the problem as it is. If the historical evidence shows that the Augsburg Confession was a dishonest representation of the Lutheran faith – well then – that is the historical fact that needs to be dealt with.

Yes, its apparent that staying positive does not serve your goals and intentions. The problem is that your approach works against unity. You act as if you yourself are bringing to light things previously unknown. We’ve discussed this before, Topper. You’ve made it clear in previous threads that you don’t trust Catholic leadership in ecumenical discussion (as this paragraph again indicates), or perhaps you think they don’t know the truth about the Augsburg Confession. It’s as if you believe that you know more about the CA than Cardinal Ratzinger did.

If you believe that the CA is a “dishonest representation”, then it seems already we have no starting place for dialogue. There is a difference between not agreeing with what a document says, and claiming it is dishonest. I do not think Unam Sanctam, as an example, is dishonest, even though I strongly agree with it. If Cardinal Ratzinger were even momentarily willing to consider CA as a Catholic confession, I would consider your position that it is a “dishonest representation” as not even worth discussing or considering.

OK Jon, you say that the ‘fact is that you are wrong’. As you know I am ALL ABOUT the facts. Your statement indicates that you have some facts which PROVE me wrong. I am listening. Please present those facts. Rather than simply stating that I am wrong without any specific evidence to support your claim, prove me wrong.

Actually, I don’t think you are “all about the facts”. If it were, and you thought Catholic teaching was the fact of the true faith, then that would be the largest percentage of your apologia.

It is true that Melanchthon worked towards reunification throughout his career, but if you really want to ‘stay positive’ you probably don’t want to delve into the facts of those efforts. As you know he ‘wandered’ significantly from Lutheran belief towards the end and created his own schism. He is not exactly a “loyal hero” in many Lutheran circles as you well know, but that would be a subject for another thread of course, not this one.

Exactly. But that’s not dishonesty. That’s not being a liar, as you so boldly charged. Melanchthon was the “ELCA” of his time. I don’t think the ELCA is dishonest, just misguided.

You say that “Melanchthon was not duplicitous here”. Yet you know for a fact that Carroll’s statement is accurate and in fact you have not refuted it. You know that Melanchthon stated that, among other things:

** “We have no dogmas which differ from the Roman Church”….**

I do not think Melanchthon believed his presentation at Augsburg was outside the Catholic faith.

Jon, I don’t know what your definition of “duplicitous” is, but the actual definition denotes a ‘deliberate deception’. Are you saying that Melanchton’s statement about no differing dogmas is NOT a deliberate deception? How about his claim that:
**
“We reverence the authority of the Pope of Rome” **

Exactly, and I don’t believe there was a deliberate deception.

I would like to know how Eck figures into this deception. Furthermore, you can pick your poison here. Either Melanchthon’s statement was a bald-faced lie, and the Augsburg Confession was a deliberate deception, which by the way fooled no one at the time as Carroll pointed out, OR Melanchthon was such a poor theologian that he didn’t understand the then massive difference between Catholic and Lutheran theology.

Topper, I provided the link. Read it.

Just for the record, the fact that Melanchthon somehow ‘forgot’ to include in the Augsburg Confession the all of the contentious issues speak for the charge of ‘bald-faced’ rather than ‘poor Theologian’. Given that you deny the accusation, it is necessary to repost the actual Carroll quote so that people can review the evidence for themselves.

Read the conclusion to the CA, Topper.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for your reply Joe, actually I find very few churches that preach grace as St. Paul did .

The Catholic Church does.

From our catechism:
1848 As St. Paul affirms, “Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” But to do its work grace must uncover sin so as to convert our hearts and bestow on us “righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Like a physician who probes the wound before treating it, God, by his Word and by his Spirit, casts a living light on sin:

Conversion requires convincing of sin; it includes the interior judgment of conscience, and this, being a proof of the action of the Spirit of truth in man’s inmost being, becomes at the same time the start of a new grant of grace and love: “Receive the Holy Spirit.” Thus in this “convincing concerning sin” we discover a double gift: the gift of the truth of conscience and the gift of the certainty of redemption. The Spirit of truth is the Consoler.

More…

1508 The Holy Spirit gives to some a special charism of healing so as to make manifest the power of the grace of the risen Lord. But even the most intense prayers do not always obtain the healing of all illnesses. Thus St. Paul must learn from the Lord that “my grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness,” and that the sufferings to be endured can mean that “in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his Body, that is, the Church.”

And here…

412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, “Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away.” And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’”

 

[PRmerger]

The Catholic Church does.

More…

1963 According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good, yet still imperfect. Like a tutor it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a “law of concupiscence” in the human heart. However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.

And…

442 Such is not the case for Simon Peter when he confesses Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God”, for Jesus responds solemnly: “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” Similarly Paul will write, regarding his conversion on the road to Damascus, “When he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles…” “And in the synagogues immediately [Paul] proclaimed Jesus, saying, ‘He is the Son of God.’” From the beginning this acknowledgment of Christ’s divine sonship will be the center of the apostolic faith, first professed by Peter as the Church’s foundation.

And…

2003 Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning “favor,” “gratuitous gift,” “benefit.” Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.

 

[JonNC]

If you believe that the CA is a “dishonest representation”, then it seems already we have no starting place for dialogue. There is a difference between not agreeing with what a document says, and claiming it is dishonest. I do not think Unam Sanctam, as an example, is dishonest, even though I strongly disagree with it. If Cardinal Ratzinger were even momentarily willing to consider CA as a Catholic confession, I would consider your position that it is a “dishonest representation” as not even worth discussing or considering.

Jon