Reformation at 500

For those deep thinkers out there.
User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 13226
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by tuttle » Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:52 pm

Rusty wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Rusty wrote:
tuttle wrote:I thought this exchange from last summer was appropriate for this thread:
tuttle wrote:
Del wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Del wrote: It is time for the faithful Evangelicals and the faithful remnant of Catholics to forget our petty disputes and join effort to save the world from itself.
This is rather desirous. Though I wonder how 'petty' the disputes really are. Worship and theology are hardly petty and I wonder to what degree those would keep each group from cooperating in certain ways. That said, to be sure, there is lots of pettiness that needs to fall by the wayside, but I do wonder if it would be possible, or if there would be a day where there is some kind of conservative coalition between the two. I look at some magazines like Touchstone and First Things and see that there is some precedent, and guys like Chesterton and Lewis are beloved by each side to the Nth degree. I happened to listen in to a Mass that was on Catholic Radio during Independence Day and I found myself in lock step agreement with what was preached. Obviously I would differ to a high degree on certain elements and interpretations of what's going on in the liturgy, but the fact that I found myself in more agreement with that priest than I could at the run of the mill evangelical circus down the road, brought this very thing (cooperation on a certain level) to mind. I would think that something like the latest court decision would only serve to draw these groups together.
The divide that separates American Catholics and Evangelicals remains the same.

Meanwhile, the divide separating Christians from the post-Christian world has grown immense and is accelerating. Our interfaith concerns are growing insignificant, by comparison. Our common problem is that there is an antagonist world out there... and it wants to take our children. Christian families should be more afraid of losing our children to the siren of sexual license, rather than worrying that the bebopping Pentecostals might be attractive to little Mary and John-Paul.

We need to work at saving our culture, so we can maintain a good place to raise Christian children. A culture is built on families, and associations of families. Christian families need to be a community.
As the 500th anniversary of the Reformation approaches, I'm growing more and more curious as to what the reaction from both sides will be. The fact that the Pope asked the Waldensians for forgiveness only spurs my curiosity. I'm under no illusion to assume that there will be a grand reconciliation in the near future regarding doctrinal agreement and a sort of meshing togetherness, but I do wonder how far things will go that the Roman Catholic Church and segments of evangelicalism can, in some official way, recognize/enable some form of partnership and brotherhood in spite of staunch differences. The Evangelicals and Catholics Together documents and more apt, the Joint Declaration on Justification with the Lutheran Church, are both I think, good stepping stones. They've opened a way, even though there are folks on both sides who don't see that anything has really changed.

Trent is the big issue I think. Even the Joint Declaration on Justification wiggled around it rather than repealing it (for obvious reasons of course). But it's still the biggest roadblock to reconciliation.

But even if we don't nail down half a millenia of theological disputes, there ought to at least be an informal cooperation, likely based on love and charity rather than whether we can cooperate with folks who hold the nth degree on justification by faith alone (again, not that it isn't important). Like I said, Touchstone and First Things magazines are intriguing in that they are achieving this to a degree, though I'd like to see something really big develop.
Let's assume that the Catholics and the Lutherans solve their dispute and come to agreement, recognize each other, etc, whatever.
Assume partnership, brotherhood, intermarriage - whatever you desire. What would it mean? What would change as a result?

AFAIK there is not even one Lutheran on CPS. There are a lot of other Protestant splinter groups. What would an agreement between Lutherans and Catholics mean for other protestant denominations? And then for the larger world?


Remember, Del set the problem out:
Del wrote:It is time for the faithful Evangelicals and the faithful remnant of Catholics to forget our petty disputes and join effort to save the world from itself.
... and the motivation is quite defensive:
Del wrote:Our common problem is that there is an antagonist world out there... and it wants to take our children. Christian families should be more afraid of losing our children to the siren of sexual license, rather than worrying that the bebopping Pentecostals might be attractive to little Mary and John-Paul.
He's saying Faith is not enough. That people of faith need to control everybody's pee-pees. LOL! And the way that is done is in the bible. It's about authority and homogeneity with faith. The people that first came to America did so to escape religious persecution, to have religious freedom. I agree that it soon turned back to control and homogeneity with faith but written into the US Constitution is religious freedom and that implicitly includes freedom not to believe.

Try and remember the Pew Research US Religious Landscape report from last year.

If you're to gain control of all pee-pee's you're gonna need more than a treaty between Lutherans and Catholics.
I'll let the pee-pee issue mellow.

I think the more relevant issue is what I highlighted above (I know you like highlights :mrgreen: )

You ask what it would mean/what would change as the result of a Catholic/Lutheran resolution. Well it depends upon what kind of 'agreement' they come to. They've already come to a certain number of agreements (ie; Joint Declaration on Justification) but they only go so far. Another way to look at 'agreement' is to view it informally. Which is what Del and I were discussing. An informal cooperation between the local Catholic and the local Protestant. Neighbors joining in prayer and community, standing upon the things they agree upon and for charity's sake setting aside for the time being the things that divide them.

I think, as wos has pointed out, the only real solid official way the rift will be healed is either a protestant full acceptance of Trent or a Catholic backtracking on Trent. That's the line in the sand as it currently stands. There are and have been loads of protestants (individuals) embracing Trent as they become Catholic and loads of Catholics (individuals) rejecting Trent as they become Protestant.

So if there were an official (as I put forward) change regarding Catholics and Lutherans, Trent will be at the center of it. If Lutherans embrace Trent, then, sure, it will make some huge waves within Protestantism, but I would think it wouldn't make nearly the impact that Rome would make if they were to redact Trent (if such a thing is even possible...I don't know).

But if Rome ever redacted it I think the change would be HUGE within Protestantism. It wouldn't be just the Lutherans that would be affected. I'm not sure exactly how it would play out, but I think I could say that Protestantism as we know it today would be forever altered.
But Tuttle, you're stuck on the barriers to agreement between Lutherans and Catholics. Assume they get agreement ... what would it mean? Feel free to use your imagination.

There are other Protestant groups that are not Lutheran, for just one example The Church of England - one flavour of Anglican. They've moderated a bit but no Catholic can be in the line of succession to the throne. And the reason is because the sovereign is also the Governor of The Church of England. This is the 21st Century. So Lutheran's agreeing with Catholics will not change that at all. I suspect that there are doctrinal differences between all the various protestant splinters otherwise they'd all be Lutherans. So what changes? Rome is not necessarily in harmony with all the other protestant groups.

And in the larger problem of the decline in Christianity in the western nations - how could the Lutheran-Catholic rapprochement change anything on this score?
My point is that if they do agree it will be based on Trent one way or the other. Either Lutherans embrace it or Rome redacts it. For any official agreement to occur that has to be it. So my assumption in your scenario has to revolve around that.
Christmas is Yule, dummies! We're doing the same thing, just better!

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 19403
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by wosbald » Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:30 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:Can what Trent declared about Protestant belief become nullified by a pope at some point? I'm not saying the pope is at that point. I'm more or less wondering if it is even possible. (I may have asked this at some point before but can't remember)
Would you be open to nullifying Nicea? If not, why one and not the other?
"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
Onyx
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Posts: 10857
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Skeptopolis

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by Onyx » Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:49 pm

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:Can what Trent declared about Protestant belief become nullified by a pope at some point? I'm not saying the pope is at that point. I'm more or less wondering if it is even possible. (I may have asked this at some point before but can't remember)
Would you be open to nullifying Nicea? If not, why one and not the other?
I would. In the spirit of brotherly reconciliation, I'll nullify Nicea. You're welcome.

User avatar
Rusty
In Memoriam
Posts: 25059
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by Rusty » Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:14 pm

Onyx wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:Can what Trent declared about Protestant belief become nullified by a pope at some point? I'm not saying the pope is at that point. I'm more or less wondering if it is even possible. (I may have asked this at some point before but can't remember)
Would you be open to nullifying Nicea? If not, why one and not the other?
I would. In the spirit of brotherly reconciliation, I'll nullify Nicea. You're welcome.
The arians would love you. Can we do something about the date for Easter too? Wasn't Jesus there for Passover anyway?

So despite obvious symptoms to the contrary, assume they kissed and made up... what would that do and what would it mean? Does it really matter anymore?

I think Tuttle was asking whether it's theoretically possible or theoretically impossible rather than asking anyone to do it.
What is so important about Nicea anyway?
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21904
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Home Sweet California at the Beach!

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by Thunktank » Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:31 pm

Rusty wrote:
Onyx wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:Can what Trent declared about Protestant belief become nullified by a pope at some point? I'm not saying the pope is at that point. I'm more or less wondering if it is even possible. (I may have asked this at some point before but can't remember)
Would you be open to nullifying Nicea? If not, why one and not the other?
I would. In the spirit of brotherly reconciliation, I'll nullify Nicea. You're welcome.
The arians would love you. Can we do something about the date for Easter too? Wasn't Jesus there for Passover anyway?

So despite obvious symptoms to the contrary, assume they kissed and made up... what would that do and what would it mean? Does it really matter anymore?

I think Tuttle was asking whether it's theoretically possible or theoretically impossible rather than asking anyone to do it.
What is so important about Nicea anyway?
8O

It speaks to the what the Holy Tinity is by affirming the Uncreated nature of Jesus Christ.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -Yoda

“I grew up in a church with Ned Flanders. Down to the mustache. But so did a bunch of people I assume, which makes it so fun-diddly-unny.” -tuttle

User avatar
Rusty
In Memoriam
Posts: 25059
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by Rusty » Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:36 pm

Thunktank wrote:
Rusty wrote:
Onyx wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:Can what Trent declared about Protestant belief become nullified by a pope at some point? I'm not saying the pope is at that point. I'm more or less wondering if it is even possible. (I may have asked this at some point before but can't remember)
Would you be open to nullifying Nicea? If not, why one and not the other?
I would. In the spirit of brotherly reconciliation, I'll nullify Nicea. You're welcome.
The arians would love you. Can we do something about the date for Easter too? Wasn't Jesus there for Passover anyway?

So despite obvious symptoms to the contrary, assume they kissed and made up... what would that do and what would it mean? Does it really matter anymore?

I think Tuttle was asking whether it's theoretically possible or theoretically impossible rather than asking anyone to do it.
What is so important about Nicea anyway?
8O

It speaks to the what the Holy Tinity is by affirming the Uncreated nature of Jesus Christ.
Yes, but he was created, just like all of us, and God is one, if he exists at all. Jesus was a mortal man. So call me Newtonian.

Do you wanna argue about Easter too?
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
Onyx
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Posts: 10857
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Skeptopolis

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by Onyx » Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:00 pm

Rusty wrote:
Thunktank wrote:
Rusty wrote:
Onyx wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:Can what Trent declared about Protestant belief become nullified by a pope at some point? I'm not saying the pope is at that point. I'm more or less wondering if it is even possible. (I may have asked this at some point before but can't remember)
Would you be open to nullifying Nicea? If not, why one and not the other?
I would. In the spirit of brotherly reconciliation, I'll nullify Nicea. You're welcome.
The arians would love you. Can we do something about the date for Easter too? Wasn't Jesus there for Passover anyway?

So despite obvious symptoms to the contrary, assume they kissed and made up... what would that do and what would it mean? Does it really matter anymore?

I think Tuttle was asking whether it's theoretically possible or theoretically impossible rather than asking anyone to do it.
What is so important about Nicea anyway?
8O

It speaks to the what the Holy Tinity is by affirming the Uncreated nature of Jesus Christ.
Yes, but he was created, just like all of us, and God is one, if he exists at all. Jesus was a mortal man. So call me Newtonian.

Do you wanna argue about Easter too?
Wosbald's response is right on the mark. I've come from a protestant break-away sect... (lots of increasingly extreme ways of saying that), and we did not hold to the Nicene Creed. Now, we were too small to matter to anyone in the mainstream, although others also reject Nicea, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. Anyway, the point is that Tuttle might wonder whether the Catholic Church can give a little on Trent. And that's exactly like asking whether Protestants like Tuttle can give a little on Nicea. They can't.

They can't because to do so forfeits the one thing that they have, which is claim to the knowledge of the divine. If they were wrong on that, then they'll end up like me, dropping any pretensions of divine knowledge. So I can live without the Nicene Creed (as did the First Century disciples) but these guys, Wos and Tuttle, can't because they believe in a doctrine of infallibility. Even the Protestants, although they sometimes deny it. They simply cannot say they've been wrong all this time unless they're willing to walk away from everything that they are trying to reconcile.

Catholics like Wosbald can't give on Trent while remaining Catholic. And Protestants can't give on Trent, because if they do, they'll become Catholic. So they best they can hope for is - statements of understanding, statements of common ground, common purpose, or perhaps even an agreement to downplay any emphasis on Trent. That's cool and all, but the answer to Tuttle's question is no.

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21904
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Home Sweet California at the Beach!

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by Thunktank » Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:35 pm

Rusty wrote:
Thunktank wrote:
Rusty wrote:
Onyx wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:Can what Trent declared about Protestant belief become nullified by a pope at some point? I'm not saying the pope is at that point. I'm more or less wondering if it is even possible. (I may have asked this at some point before but can't remember)
Would you be open to nullifying Nicea? If not, why one and not the other?
I would. In the spirit of brotherly reconciliation, I'll nullify Nicea. You're welcome.
The arians would love you. Can we do something about the date for Easter too? Wasn't Jesus there for Passover anyway?

So despite obvious symptoms to the contrary, assume they kissed and made up... what would that do and what would it mean? Does it really matter anymore?

I think Tuttle was asking whether it's theoretically possible or theoretically impossible rather than asking anyone to do it.
What is so important about Nicea anyway?
8O

It speaks to the what the Holy Tinity is by affirming the Uncreated nature of Jesus Christ.
Yes, but he was created, just like all of us, and God is one, if he exists at all. Jesus was a mortal man. So call me Newtonian.

Do you wanna argue about Easter too?
It's all about bunnies. Nice pretty and fertile bunnies.

We may be Newtonian, we like our revelation with more evidence and proof rather than word of mouth. But Christians as you know from being here can have mysteriously powerful opinions about things that defy our evidence and proof! It matters to them because it's about the nature and makeup of God. Otherwise it wouldn't be worth arguing about and calling anathema over.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -Yoda

“I grew up in a church with Ned Flanders. Down to the mustache. But so did a bunch of people I assume, which makes it so fun-diddly-unny.” -tuttle

User avatar
Rusty
In Memoriam
Posts: 25059
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by Rusty » Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:01 pm

Thunktank wrote:
Rusty wrote:
Thunktank wrote:
Rusty wrote:
Onyx wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:Can what Trent declared about Protestant belief become nullified by a pope at some point? I'm not saying the pope is at that point. I'm more or less wondering if it is even possible. (I may have asked this at some point before but can't remember)
Would you be open to nullifying Nicea? If not, why one and not the other?
I would. In the spirit of brotherly reconciliation, I'll nullify Nicea. You're welcome.
The arians would love you. Can we do something about the date for Easter too? Wasn't Jesus there for Passover anyway?

So despite obvious symptoms to the contrary, assume they kissed and made up... what would that do and what would it mean? Does it really matter anymore?

I think Tuttle was asking whether it's theoretically possible or theoretically impossible rather than asking anyone to do it.
What is so important about Nicea anyway?
8O

It speaks to the what the Holy Tinity is by affirming the Uncreated nature of Jesus Christ.
Yes, but he was created, just like all of us, and God is one, if he exists at all. Jesus was a mortal man. So call me Newtonian.

Do you wanna argue about Easter too?
It's all about bunnies. Nice pretty and fertile bunnies.

We may be Newtonian, we like our revelation with more evidence and proof rather than word of mouth. But Christians as you know from being here can have mysteriously powerful opinions about things that defy our evidence and proof! It matters to them because it's about the nature and makeup of God. Otherwise it wouldn't be worth arguing about and calling anathema over.
Yes, well my opinion is not very well informed on this topic anyway. So I don't object to Christians having a different idea and the history to back it up. But it's an extraordinary idea. The Brits had a law in the late 1600's for the punishment of anyone that believed differently and said so. I think the punishment was death. Newton was always secretive but about this issue (denying the trinity) he was on dangerous ground & could have been in real trouble. Nevertheless he apparently got along with John Locke and Newton did discuss it with him and in letters between them.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 19403
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by wosbald » Tue Sep 13, 2016 7:23 am

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Jocose wrote:It's my understanding that "Protestantism was hatched from the egg which Rome laid" … [redacted for space]
I tend to get what the author is saying. It certainly isn't the first time I've heard this perspective from an Eastern Orthodox believer. But in all fairness, this pov is the same pov that the world more or less hates America for. It's the same kind of pov that causes an American Midwesterner to look at anyone with narrowed eyes and call them all Chinese.

I understand that there is a large cultural difference between East and West and that both have developed different Christian cultures, but to more or less look upon it and say, "well, it's basically the same thing from my point of view" really only indicates that they haven't looked at it all that close. It's true Protestantism was born out of Roman Catholicism, but to simply equate the two as being virtually the same thing only highlights what you don't know. There is a great many things (and people!) I admire within Eastern Orthodoxy and I have learned and benefited from people and teachings/books that come from that angle. But there is no denying that a note of smugness tends to creep in when there are comments made about Western Christianity.
Nevertheless, I would say that there is a certain kernel of truth in it, inasmuch as only the generalized Western mindset could make Protestantism a "thinkable possibility". Just as only the generalized Eastern mindset could do the same vis-à-vis Sophianism.

True, each heresy may reciprocally migrate to some degree, but neither is likely to gain strong traction outside of its more native soil.
"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 13226
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by tuttle » Tue Sep 13, 2016 8:20 am

Onyx wrote:
Rusty wrote:
Thunktank wrote:
Rusty wrote:
Onyx wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:Can what Trent declared about Protestant belief become nullified by a pope at some point? I'm not saying the pope is at that point. I'm more or less wondering if it is even possible. (I may have asked this at some point before but can't remember)
Would you be open to nullifying Nicea? If not, why one and not the other?
I would. In the spirit of brotherly reconciliation, I'll nullify Nicea. You're welcome.
The arians would love you. Can we do something about the date for Easter too? Wasn't Jesus there for Passover anyway?

So despite obvious symptoms to the contrary, assume they kissed and made up... what would that do and what would it mean? Does it really matter anymore?

I think Tuttle was asking whether it's theoretically possible or theoretically impossible rather than asking anyone to do it.
What is so important about Nicea anyway?
8O

It speaks to the what the Holy Tinity is by affirming the Uncreated nature of Jesus Christ.
Yes, but he was created, just like all of us, and God is one, if he exists at all. Jesus was a mortal man. So call me Newtonian.

Do you wanna argue about Easter too?
Wosbald's response is right on the mark. I've come from a protestant break-away sect... (lots of increasingly extreme ways of saying that), and we did not hold to the Nicene Creed. Now, we were too small to matter to anyone in the mainstream, although others also reject Nicea, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. Anyway, the point is that Tuttle might wonder whether the Catholic Church can give a little on Trent. And that's exactly like asking whether Protestants like Tuttle can give a little on Nicea. They can't.

They can't because to do so forfeits the one thing that they have, which is claim to the knowledge of the divine. If they were wrong on that, then they'll end up like me, dropping any pretensions of divine knowledge. So I can live without the Nicene Creed (as did the First Century disciples) but these guys, Wos and Tuttle, can't because they believe in a doctrine of infallibility. Even the Protestants, although they sometimes deny it. They simply cannot say they've been wrong all this time unless they're willing to walk away from everything that they are trying to reconcile.

Catholics like Wosbald can't give on Trent while remaining Catholic. And Protestants can't give on Trent, because if they do, they'll become Catholic. So they best they can hope for is - statements of understanding, statements of common ground, common purpose, or perhaps even an agreement to downplay any emphasis on Trent. That's cool and all, but the answer to Tuttle's question is no.
A couple things,

First, yes I was asking about the theoretical possibility. Can a Pope or Council override a previous Council (thereby nullifying it...nullify might not be the best word)? One way to look at what I'm asking might be this: Let's say the Pope is so moved by his dealings with the Lutherans and other Protestants that he actually speaks ex cathedra about the anathemas of Trent being wrong. I'm speaking speculatively...If this were to happen, which authority does the Church then follow? Is there historical precedent for something like what I outlined above? Or has the RCC via councils or popes never contradicted/overridden itself?

Second, (more of a clarification than anything) protestants consider Nicea as part of their heritage and align with the outcome of the doctrines formed out of it, but we embrace it because of the Scriptural foundation and we are bound to it because we believe it, not because it's a fiat from a council. You'll find protestants rejecting and embracing councils and creeds pre-1517, and their rejection/embracing hinges upon if support is found in Scripture. Roman Catholics (as far as I know) are not at liberty to reject a council/doctrine of the Church when it doesn't jive with Scripture. Therefore, if a Pope nullifies Nicea, a protestant is not bound to accept the nullification and can go right on believing in the Trinity as Nicea laid out. Such is the freedom (and danger) of the Protestant. Our belief of it binds us to it, not the other way around.

This is exactly why the ball of real fellowship/unity is in the Catholic court. Protestants are free to reject/ignore Trent and can consider Catholics their brothers and sisters in Christ**. Even worship alongside them. Invite them to take communion alongside them. Catholics, because of Trent, cannot "officially" do the same, think the same, act the same, towards Protestants.


**I'm not saying all Protestants do...but all Protestants are free to do so. There is no stipulation or requirement from above telling them not to.
Christmas is Yule, dummies! We're doing the same thing, just better!

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 13226
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by tuttle » Tue Sep 13, 2016 8:26 am

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Jocose wrote:It's my understanding that "Protestantism was hatched from the egg which Rome laid" … [redacted for space]
I tend to get what the author is saying. It certainly isn't the first time I've heard this perspective from an Eastern Orthodox believer. But in all fairness, this pov is the same pov that the world more or less hates America for. It's the same kind of pov that causes an American Midwesterner to look at anyone with narrowed eyes and call them all Chinese.

I understand that there is a large cultural difference between East and West and that both have developed different Christian cultures, but to more or less look upon it and say, "well, it's basically the same thing from my point of view" really only indicates that they haven't looked at it all that close. It's true Protestantism was born out of Roman Catholicism, but to simply equate the two as being virtually the same thing only highlights what you don't know. There is a great many things (and people!) I admire within Eastern Orthodoxy and I have learned and benefited from people and teachings/books that come from that angle. But there is no denying that a note of smugness tends to creep in when there are comments made about Western Christianity.
Nevertheless, I would say that there is a certain kernel of truth in it, inasmuch as only the generalized Western mindset could make Protestantism a "thinkable possibility". Just as only the generalized Eastern mindset could do the same vis-à-vis Sophianism.

True, each heresy may reciprocally migrate to some degree, but neither is likely to gain strong traction outside of its more native soil.
I also think there is a kernel of truth. It's what I meant by I get what the author was saying. It's just something I constantly hear from the EO perspective.
Christmas is Yule, dummies! We're doing the same thing, just better!

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 19403
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by wosbald » Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:02 am

+JMJ+

Reformed churches endorse Catholic-Lutheran accord on key Reformation disputee
Image

PARIS - Amid ceremonies this year marking the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, one of Protestantism’s leading branches has officially said it now agrees with the Vatican on the main issue at the root of its split from the Roman Catholic Church half a millennium ago.

The World Communion of Reformed Churches, holding its once-in-seven-years worldwide General Council in Germany, signed a declaration this week endorsing the 1999 Catholic-Lutheran agreement on how Christians might be worthy of salvation in the eyes of God.

The ceremony took place in Wittenberg, where in 1517 Martin Luther unveiled the 95 Theses that launched the Reformation and with it centuries of dispute about whether eternal salvation comes from faith alone - the position of the new Protestant movement - or if it also requires good works on Earth as Catholics argued.

This decision by the WCRC - representing 80 million members of Congregational, Presbyterian, Reformed, United, Uniting and Waldensian churches - marked another step in a gradual but remarkable reconciliation on this issue among Christians who once fought wars and declared each other heretics over just such questions.

The World Methodist Council formally endorsed the Catholic-Lutheran accord, known as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, in 2006. The Anglican Communion is expected to do the same later this year.

The WCRC “now joyfully accepts the invitation to associate” with the Joint Declaration, it said in the document signed at an ecumenical prayer service. “We rejoice together that the historical doctrinal differences on the doctrine of justification no longer divide us.” …
"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 37711
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by Del » Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:36 pm

Getting the leadership of some Protestant denominations to agree on a point of two of theology is.... well, it matters to them, I guess.

The problem of factions now is much more tribal and cultural than theological.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
Jocose
a large Chinese man named Wu
a large Chinese man named Wu
Posts: 21213
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Moonbase Alpha
Contact:

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by Jocose » Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:39 pm

Luther was generally positive toward the Eastern Orthodox church, especially because it rejected many of the things he most disliked about the Roman Catholic church: clerical celibacy, papal supremacy, purgatory, indulgences, and Communion by bread alone. He frequently referred to the beliefs and practices of the "Greek church," as he called it, as evidence that Catholics had deviated from principles upon which Christians formerly agreed.

Article here
"And for Freds sake, DO NOT point anyone towards CPS or you'll put them off of both Christianity and pipe smoking forever." ~ FredS



Image

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 19403
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by wosbald » Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:23 pm

+JMJ+
Jocose wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:39 pm
Luther was generally positive toward the Eastern Orthodox church, especially because it rejected many of the things he most disliked about the Roman Catholic church: clerical celibacy, papal supremacy, purgatory, indulgences, and Communion by bread alone. He frequently referred to the beliefs and practices of the "Greek church," as he called it, as evidence that Catholics had deviated from principles upon which Christians formerly agreed.

Article here
Right. Instead of Purgatory, ya get Aerial Toll Houses.

Something tells me that Luther wouldn't have been so keen on that, either.
"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
Jocose
a large Chinese man named Wu
a large Chinese man named Wu
Posts: 21213
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Moonbase Alpha
Contact:

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by Jocose » Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:57 pm

wosbald wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:23 pm
+JMJ+
Jocose wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:39 pm
Luther was generally positive toward the Eastern Orthodox church, especially because it rejected many of the things he most disliked about the Roman Catholic church: clerical celibacy, papal supremacy, purgatory, indulgences, and Communion by bread alone. He frequently referred to the beliefs and practices of the "Greek church," as he called it, as evidence that Catholics had deviated from principles upon which Christians formerly agreed.

Article here
Right. Instead of Purgatory, ya get Aerial Toll Houses.

Something tells me that Luther wouldn't have been so keen on that, either.
In some forms, the teaching is taught in hagiographical and other spiritual texts from quite early in the history of the Church, but it has never been formally promulgated by any ecumenical council. A number of the Orthodox saints, modern elders and theologians have openly endorsed it, but some theologians and bishops, starting from the last century, have condemned it as heretical and gnostic in origin.

Wiki link
"And for Freds sake, DO NOT point anyone towards CPS or you'll put them off of both Christianity and pipe smoking forever." ~ FredS



Image

User avatar
Onyx
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Posts: 10857
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Skeptopolis

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by Onyx » Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:11 pm

Every time I see this thread, I momentarily think I'm getting a "500 Internal Server Error".

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 19403
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by wosbald » Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:20 pm

+JMJ+
Jocose wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:57 pm
wosbald wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:23 pm
Jocose wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:39 pm
Luther was generally positive toward the Eastern Orthodox church, especially because it rejected many of the things he most disliked about the Roman Catholic church: clerical celibacy, papal supremacy, purgatory, indulgences, and Communion by bread alone. He frequently referred to the beliefs and practices of the "Greek church," as he called it, as evidence that Catholics had deviated from principles upon which Christians formerly agreed.

Article here
Right. Instead of Purgatory, ya get Aerial Toll Houses.

Something tells me that Luther wouldn't have been so keen on that, either.
In some forms, the teaching is taught in hagiographical and other spiritual texts from quite early in the history of the Church, but it has never been formally promulgated by any ecumenical council. A number of the Orthodox saints, modern elders and theologians have openly endorsed it, but some theologians and bishops, starting from the last century, have condemned it as heretical and gnostic in origin.

Wiki link
And?

FTR, I got no problem with the Toll House doctrine, provided that it's understood within the boundaries of the Faith. But that's the case with Purgatory, as well. The PurgatAerial framework is conceptually problematic and easily distorted. That some folk heresies have sprung up around the Toll Houses is neither surprising nor does it invalidate the doctrine ipso facto.

The point is that Orthodoxy has its own Purgatorial impulse. It has its own inbuilt analogue, regardless of how this analogue is qualified, downplayed or even shuffled under the rug. This impulse is going to manifest glaringly (and often, mawkishly) in folk spiritualities, whether the official hierarchy wants it to or not.

And it's precisely this which Luther would never have countenanced, had he fully turned to the East (and was not rebuffed by them). One the honeymoon period was over, Luther would have found the shine to have worn off his turd mighty quickly.
"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21904
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Home Sweet California at the Beach!

Re: Reformation at 500

Post by Thunktank » Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:47 pm

wosbald wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:20 pm
+JMJ+
Jocose wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:57 pm
wosbald wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:23 pm
Jocose wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:39 pm
Luther was generally positive toward the Eastern Orthodox church, especially because it rejected many of the things he most disliked about the Roman Catholic church: clerical celibacy, papal supremacy, purgatory, indulgences, and Communion by bread alone. He frequently referred to the beliefs and practices of the "Greek church," as he called it, as evidence that Catholics had deviated from principles upon which Christians formerly agreed.

Article here
Right. Instead of Purgatory, ya get Aerial Toll Houses.

Something tells me that Luther wouldn't have been so keen on that, either.
In some forms, the teaching is taught in hagiographical and other spiritual texts from quite early in the history of the Church, but it has never been formally promulgated by any ecumenical council. A number of the Orthodox saints, modern elders and theologians have openly endorsed it, but some theologians and bishops, starting from the last century, have condemned it as heretical and gnostic in origin.

Wiki link
And?

FTR, I got no problem with the Toll House doctrine, provided that it's understood within the boundaries of the Faith. But that's the case with Purgatory, as well. The PurgatAerial framework is conceptually problematic and easily distorted. That some folk heresies have sprung up around the Toll Houses is neither surprising nor does it invalidate the doctrine ipso facto.

The point is that Orthodoxy has its own Purgatorial impulse. It has its own inbuilt analogue, regardless of how this analogue is qualified, downplayed or even shuffled under the rug. This impulse is going to manifest glaringly (and often, mawkishly) in folk spiritualities, whether the official hierarchy wants it to or not.

And it's precisely this which Luther would never have countenanced, had he fully turned to the East (and was not rebuffed by them). One the honeymoon period was over, Luther would have found the shine to have worn off his turd mighty quickly.
I remember Br. Nikolai was a proponent of toll houses, more as a concept than exacting dogma. If nothing else, it's food for thought. Interestingly, as I remember it however, the saints who taught it, didn't use the same passages of Scripture to defend the concept that the Catholics typically do in the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Not that it matters, just interesting given the fact that both are speaking of the soul immediately following death of the body.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -Yoda

“I grew up in a church with Ned Flanders. Down to the mustache. But so did a bunch of people I assume, which makes it so fun-diddly-unny.” -tuttle

Post Reply