Ecumenism

[EvangelCatholic]

Another factor was that little thing called the Smalcaldic League which was an economic and military alliance. Henry VIII wanted to be part of this, but refused to sign the The Smalcald Articles. All members had to sign on to this as a Statement of Faith, and The Smalcald Articles are part of the Book of Concord.

The Smalcald Articles would be interesting to explore in comparison to contemporary Catholic expression via Dialogue with Lutherans.

 

[MKJ]

England had a relatively strong monarchy
I mean, Spain and France also had nobility

Well, I am getting a bit out of my depth here, but my understanding has been that the nobility in England was able to hold its own better than in some other nations. So they were able to do things like impose the magna carta, even though King John wasn't what you would call keen. England had a parliment became a constitutional monarchy in the 17th century IIRC, so the power of the monarch by that point was not great.

In any case, weren't France and Spain actually both trying to physically control Italy during the Reformation era? Or am I all mixed up?

 

[Rhamiel]

in general, the monarchies of the Middle Ages were relatively weak compared to the Early Modern period
having to deal with Nobles, Free Cities in the Holy Roman Empire, Trade Guilds, the Church

I mean, Spain did not even regain all of its land until 1492

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Well, I am getting a bit out of my depth here, but my understanding has been that the nobility in England was able to hold its own better than in some other nations. So they were able to do things like impose the magna carta, even though King John wasn't what you would call keen. England had a parliment became a constitutional monarchy in the 17th century IIRC, so the power of the monarch by that point was not great.

In any case, weren't France and Spain actually both trying to physically control Italy during the Reformation era? Or am I all mixed up?

It's interesting that Lutheran Troops helped defend the Vatican and Rome against the French, and it was not unknown for Lutherans and Catholics to unite against the Calvinists as well.

The Smalcald Articles would be interesting to explore in comparison to contemporary Catholic expression via Dialogue with Lutherans.

As one reads the unaltered 1580 edition of the BoC it is very clear that the Augsburg Confession and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession were documents of conciliation; everything else that followed those were documents of independence; from the Large and Small Catechisms through the SA and the Forumulae of Concord.

Melanchthon and the Philipist movement thought otherwise, but neither Rome nor the Geneso Lutherans were buying it. What history now calls the Geneso Lutherans Eventually became the Lutherans of the Age of Orthodoxy (of which Bach was a product), and today, what are the Confessional Synods.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

It's interesting that Lutheran Troops helped defend the Vatican and Rome against the French, and it was not unknown for Lutherans and Catholics to unite against the Calvinists as well.

As one reads the unaltered 1580 edition of the BoC it is very clear that the Augsburg Confession and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession were documents of conciliation; everything else that followed those were documents of independence; from the Large and Small Catechisms through the SA and the Forumulae of Concord.

Melanchthon and the Philipist movement thought otherwise, but neither Rome nor the Geneso Lutherans were buying it. What history now calls the Geneso Lutherans Eventually became the Lutherans of the Age of Orthodoxy (of which Bach was a product), and today, what are the Confessional Synods.

The history of the post-Reformation is quite intriguing but also quite sad. The wars between Christians hundreds of years ago remind me of the vicious battles going on between Islamic groups today.

 

[Rhamiel]

The history of the post-Reformation is quite intriguing but also quite sad. The wars between Christians hundreds of years ago remind me of the vicious battles going on between Islamic groups today.

you are not the first to make such a connection

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The history of the post-Reformation is quite intriguing but also quite sad. The wars between Christians hundreds of years ago remind me of the vicious battles going on between Islamic groups today.

you are not the first to make such a connection

Indeed. Histories lessons are not often learned.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks very much, Hedrick.

I am trying not to go too many directions at once, but I'm starting to get some satisfaction (at least until I get more practical experience on practices) on the subject I've been focusing on, and this one does keep coming back up in my mind. I'd like to get some discussion on it and see where it goes.

I'm not sure I can devote myself to it as much as I'd like (I am due to start a new job in a few days and there is a tremendous amount of preparation I need to do) but I just keep coming back to these questions in my mind.

Thanks again for this. I'm going to post a thread in the TT forum, for one.

The NIGCT commentary listed three common understandings:

1) “distinguishing between the sacred eucharistic elements of the Lord’s body and ordinary bread from the table.” This is a common historical view among Catholics and some Protestants, including Reformed. He doesn’t cite any modern critical commentators as holding that view.
2) “to respect for the congregation of believers as the body of the Lord.” This is held by many current interpreters, including my other commentary (Anchor Bible).
3) ““Right judgment” extends to what it means to be identified with, and involved in, the cross of Christ, in anticipation of judgment. In this sense our verse states that they must recognize what characterizes the body as different, i.e., be mindful of the uniqueness of Christ, who is separated from others in the sense of giving himself for others in sheer grace.” This is the view of the NIGCT commentary.

What question was Paul answering by this comment? The context was a church where people were apparently eating individually, without proper concern for others. There is also a suggestion of factions. The problem wasn’t that people held the wrong theology of the Real Presence, so that for example they thought the presence was only symbolic or only spiritual. Rather, their attitudes didn’t take Christ seriously, however he is present. I think either of (2) or (3) would be consistent with the context.

I would say that Calvin’s commentary gets the sense correctly, probably based on sense (3).

“He adds the reason—because they distinguish not the Lord’s body, that is, as a sacred thing from a profane. “They handle the sacred body of Christ with unwashen hands, (Mark 7:2,)2 nay more, as if it were a thing of nought, they consider not how great is the value of it.3 They will therefore pay the penalty of so dreadful a profanation.” Let my readers keep in mind what I stated a little ago,4 that the body5 is presented to them, though their unworthiness deprives them of a participation in it.”

In case you haven’t heard it before, here’s an argument for 2, from the Anchor Bible:

“The corporate significance of the meal has already been introduced at 10:16 (cf. supra, pp. 250–253). The term “body” was applicable to the Passover societies that were formed for the festival; the group joining in the meal became a new kind of entity with such a close binding connection that all of the persons are members of each other (an idea which Paul develops in 12:12–26). This idea grips his mind, for he elsewhere calls the church the body of Christ (Rom 12:5; 1 Cor 12:13, 27; Eph 1:22–23, 4:4, 12, 16; Col 1:18, 2:17, 3:15). He thought of the body of Christ as present, active, and purified for his manifestation to the world after he was no longer present in the flesh. The body in which he is now present is the body of believers. Paul regularly refers to the physical, historical existence of Jesus Christ on earth by the term “flesh” (sarx; cf. Rom 1:3, 9:5; 2 Cor 5:16; Col 1:22; etc. The only possible exception is Rom 7:4, and the intent there is possibly a double meaning.) Body, then, in this passage may be understood to refer to the church, here recognized in its chief act of common worship, the Lord’s Supper.”

This argument seems compelling to me. It has been criticized because it uses body differently than in version 27. But in 27 he uses body and blood, where in 29 only body.

Fee (NICNT) takes a variant of (2), seeing 27-28 and 29-30 as referring to different abuses. He sees a reference to 10:17, which sees body as reflecting the believers, and particularly their unity. Note that 10:16-17 show exactly the transition from Christ's body and blood to the body of believers. That seems a convincing response to the objection.

(I also checked Hermeneia. They don't deal with this question at all, which seems pretty weird.)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

MY (probably worthless) perspectives.....


1. The church ALREADY is one..... always has been, always will be, ain't nothing we can do to change that. I believe, teach and confess that the church IS one, holy, catholic communion of saints. That ALL Christians ARE one family, one body, one church, one fellowship - fully and equally brothers and sisters.


2. Not ALL Christians agree on ALL issues - and never have (and, this side of heaven, probably never will). There's nothing wrong with attempting to wrap our puny, limited, sinful, human brains around the things of God - and pin down specific articulations of that. We just don't agree on all that (a LOT of it, not all of it), or on the precise verbal articulations of it. It would be nice if we would...... I think God would be pleased if we would..... but it's NEVER been the case and I ain't too hopeful (I was ten years ago but I grew up).


3. Not ALL Christians (past and present - or even just present) all worship at one service in one building as official, formal members of one parish. Never have, probably never will (this side of heaven, anyway). Christian people DO gather (the meaning of the word "church") and I think that's a good thing..... and those assemblies (parishes) AT TIMES do associate and cooperate formally (denominations) and I think that's a good thing, too. But none of that has to do with "church" in the strict and biblical sense of US - all of US - Christian PEOPLE - being one, holy, catholic communion, spread out over all the centuries and continents (ENTIRELY regardless of what parish we may or may not be officially registered at, ENTIRELY regardless of what denomination such parish may or may not be legally affiliated with or owned by, but solely by virtue of the gift of faith God placed in their heart/souls).


4. Thus..... I don't put a WHOLE lot of stock in everyone dotting their "I's" and crossing their "T's" identically. Never have before in 2000 years, so I'm not holding my breath. Frankly, I think our egos being too big and our brains being too small probably prevents that. NONETHELESS, I wish..... wish....... almost entirely in vain..... that we would TALK more openly, more honestly, and much much much more humbly - to better understand if not to actually agree. But in my very long life (including 10 years here at CF), I've become 99% sure this will never happen in any significant way: on an individual level, perhaps..... beyond that, nope. But I still think it would be good. But I do not hope for one parish or denomination.... anymore than one world government or one world bank or one world automobile.


5. On that note, one of the things I LOVE about metro Southern California is all the diversity..... In food for example, there are EXCELLENT restaurants serving GOOD combinations of ingredients and GOOD ways to prep them: Mexican, BBQ, Cantonese, Hungarian, Indian, Thai, Pervian, British, Manderin, German, Italian, Korean, Spanish, Greek, so it's pretty endless. What a wonderful world...... better than if we were all forced into McDonald's 3 times a way, 7 days a week..... And in the last 10 years, my little local bank has experienced several mergers and buy-outs..... what used to be local, free, with EXCELLENT friendly service is now..... (tears coming to my eyes.....) a big national bank that is very inconvenient, expensive and pretty much no service. Mergers..... I've learned..... usually result in something worse.



Sorry.....


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It takes a LOT of ego to insist, "I'M right.... and if you don't absolutely, totally agree with ME, ergo you are wrong."

I don't have that ego. I came pretty close when I was about 13 but then..... life beat the _____ out it.

What resulted is not less faith just more humility.




.

 

[FireDragon76]

Mark, maybe your concern is the same as mine. I'm going to agree with Anhelyna. If one believes that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, would it be a kind thing to allow it to be received by those who did not believe so?

Considering I believe most Christians have abused Paul's admonition for centuries... I don't see the problem. Paul could be talking about not discerning the Body of Christ, the Church, in the poor members of the congregation.

 

[Korah]

I saw it as countries with strong monarchies wanted to keep the status quo, stick with something that they were sure would support their legitimacy

countries with strong merchant classes did not like the power of the Church to influence laws that kept them from exploiting the poor, so a weaker Church is better for Big Business

It's much simpler actually.
Nordic countries became Protestant. Non-Nordic countries did not.
Lutheran Germany is not so strictly Nordic. Lutheranism is not so strictly Protestant.
EDITED TO ADD:
The parallelism is too neat to spoil by correcting it, but it's not that simple. Lutheranism took over in all the purely Nordic countries as well. I was trying to elucidate Carleton Coon's The Races of Europe in which his map showed the Scandinavian and Baltic countries as Nordic whereas Germany was primarily Alpine, Borreby and other. A more exacting analysis would show that the German-origin branches of US. Lutheranism are not-so-Nordic in race whereas the Scandinavian-origin branches (the ELCA) are Nordic in race. As for the 16th Century there were few primarily Calvinist regions to fit the Nordic scenario, but the one country most Calvinistic at the time was the Netherlands, a "purely" Nordic country.
AND MORE COMPLICATION:
So it follows that back then Nordics were the most likely to be Calvinists, but eventually Calvinist theology most penetrated the non-Nordics of Germany and their American branches while the least Calvinistic ELCA is the most composed of Nordic offshoots of the Scandinavian and Baltic countries they emigrated from? Doesn't make sense to me either. I'm just callin' them as I (M. A. in European History) sees 'em.

 

[Standing Up]

Lutheran, Catholic and Orthodox all agree on the Eucharist. Transubstantiation as a description is rejected by both Lutheran and Orthodox Christians but the Real Presence is proclaimed by all three Churches. The Dialogue focused much attention on the Mass and why Eucharistic hospitality is recommended.

Sadly, other developments have likely delayed implementation of the Commission on Unity. Female priests/ bishops and normalization of gay relationships. The Church of Rome is struggling with the consequences of modern belief.

They don't agree on the Eucharist. That's the ecumenical unsolvable problem, as it now stands. RC and EO view it as a sacrifice. P does not think of it as a sacrifice that was done once for all.