Ecumenism

[MarkRohfrietsch]

hmmm, this is all very new to me
I thought Lutherans rejected the idea of Transubstantiation whole heartedly
also, some Lutherans have women priests
I know not all do, but the Lutheran Churches supported by the States in the Nordic countries all have women priests and the ELCA has women priests, is not the ELCA the biggest Lutheran Church in the USA?

There in lies the issue.

Even in the LCMS (the second largest Lutheran Chruch in the USA) and LCC where female clergy are not an issue, where same sex unions are not an issue, where pro-life/pro-choice is not an issue (as it is between the CC and the ELCA), there are still the issues of the use of the doctrine of Transubstantiation to describe the real presence; Papal authority and Papal infallibility.

Until all of these issues affecting the ELCA are resolved, inter-communion is only a utopian dream; while the LCMS/LCC seem to have a leg up on the moral, ethical and Theological issues that separate the ELCA and the Catholic Church, we understand that we are still a very long way off from sharing fellowship of the Altar. There are, however, many other ways that we can cooperate regarding society and the world. One example I gave above, would be to stand together on issues such as female ordination, same sex unions and Pro-life. On these things the LCMS/LCC and the CC are already on the same page, and we are already supporting each other publicly in these matters.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

hmmm, this is all very new to me
I thought Lutherans rejected the idea of Transubstantiation whole heartedly
also, some Lutherans have women priests
I know not all do, but the Lutheran Churches supported by the States in the Nordic countries all have women priests and the ELCA has women priests, is not the ELCA the biggest Lutheran Church in the USA?

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.

 

[MKJ]

Yet the curious thing is that other Apostolic Churches, notably the Coptic Orthodox Church seem to accept the apostolic validity of the Church of England, especially given recent talks.

Well, TBH I would have said that the traditional Roman Catholic rejection of them (not more recent concerns around women bishops and such) seems pretty dodgy to me - it always seemed a bit like sour grapes. Even a fair number of Catholic theologians have found the reasons outlined a little implausible. So maybe they just don't think it is that great an argument?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

There in lies the issue.

Even in the LCMS (the second largest Lutheran Chruch in the USA) and LCC where female clergy are not an issue, where same sex unions are not an issue, where pro-life/pro-choice is not an issue (as it is between the CC and the ELCA), there are still the issues of the use of the doctrine of Transubstantiation to describe the real presence; Papal authority and Papal infallibility.

Until all of these issues affecting the ELCA are resolved, inter-communion is only a utopian dream; while the LCMS/LCC seem to have a leg up on the moral, ethical and Theological issues that separate the ELCA and the Catholic Church, we understand that we are still a very long way off from sharing fellowship of the Altar. There are, however, many other ways that we can cooperate regarding society and the world. One example I gave above, would be to stand together on issues such as female ordination, same sex unions and Pro-life. On these things the LCMS/LCC and the CC are already on the same page, and we are already supporting each other publicly in these matters.

All 3 issues received extensive dialogue. I don't have access to documentation at the moment but the conclusions are well worth reading.

1] Eucharist: agreement
2] Papal Authority: consensus
3] Infallibility: disagreement, but the level of accommodation is quite extraordinary to allow Lutheran objection/ rejection of Vatican I dogma but accept the authority of the holy See. Orthodox do not accept infallibility and also papal authority. Actually all of Christendom rejects infallibility. This has not been ignored by the Roman Church in Dialogue; 'ex cathedra'
since Vatican II is not a requirement for full-communion.

I'll post excerpts later.

 

[MKJ]

There in lies the issue.

Even in the LCMS (the second largest Lutheran Chruch in the USA) and LCC where female clergy are not an issue, where same sex unions are not an issue, where pro-life/pro-choice is not an issue (as it is between the CC and the ELCA), there are still the issues of the use of the doctrine of Transubstantiation to describe the real presence; Papal authority and Papal infallibility.

Until all of these issues affecting the ELCA are resolved, inter-communion is only a utopian dream; while the LCMS/LCC seem to have a leg up on the moral, ethical and Theological issues that separate the ELCA and the Catholic Church, we understand that we are still a very long way off from sharing fellowship of the Altar. There are, however, many other ways that we can cooperate regarding society and the world. One example I gave above, would be to stand together on issues such as female ordination, same sex unions and Pro-life. On these things the LCMS/LCC and the CC are already on the same page, and we are already supporting each other publicly in these matters.

In my opinion transubstantiation is much less of a question than it was - the attitude of the reformation Catholic Church seems to have been odd, almost reactionary. Many Lutherans and Anglicans would not accept it, but would be happy with St Thomas' understanding of it, and it is hard to say that is not a proper Catholic understanding.

 

[Rhamiel]

The Church of Rome is struggling with the consequences of modern belief.

I do not really see the Church of Rome struggling with this

the rest of the world seems to be struggling with holding Christian morals about the abominable sin of sodomy

 

[Rhamiel]

In my opinion transubstantiation is much less of a question than it was - the attitude of the reformation Catholic Church seems to have been odd, almost reactionary. Many Lutherans and Anglicans would not accept it, but would be happy with St Thomas' understanding of it, and it is hard to say that is not a proper Catholic understanding.

yeah, the Catholic Church of the Counter Reformation was a lot more dogmatic and reactionary then the Church of the Middle Ages

but it is understandable that the Church might get a bit of a bunker mentality, with Bishops like John Fisher being put to death

 

[MKJ]

yeah, the Catholic Church of the Counter Reformation was a lot more dogmatic and reactionary then the Church of the Middle Ages

but it is understandable that the Church might get a bit of a bunker mentality, with Bishops like John Fisher being put to death

My feeling is that it was a bad period for religion in many ways. totally aside from schismatic issues.

But really, the level of the resistance of the Church at that time to any kind of reform was what led to the Reformation, so I tend to think that was there first. A lot of the things the Reformers were upset about were real problems, and serious ones.

I tend to think the root of the problem may have been the secular role the Church was playing - it seemed to overshadow and shape the spiritual role rather than the other way around. I think it is telling that the countries which became Protestant were mostly ones that were having inter-governmental conflicts with Rome. And that sort of problem also happened in the Protestant groups that adopted similar models where government and Church were the same, and mostly it has not been a problem since there have been clear separations between roles.

 

[Rhamiel]

My feeling is that it was a bad period for religion in many ways. totally aside from schismatic issues.

But really, the level of the resistance of the Church at that time to any kind of reform was what led to the Reformation, so I tend to think that was there first. A lot of the things the Reformers were upset about were real problems, and serious ones.

I tend to think the root of the problem may have been the secular role the Church was playing - it seemed to overshadow and shape the spiritual role rather than the other way around. I think it is telling that the countries which became Protestant were mostly ones that were having inter-governmental conflicts with Rome. And that sort of problem also happened in the Protestant groups that adopted similar models where government and Church were the same, and mostly it has not been a problem since there have been clear separations between roles.

I thought it had more to do with economics?
with the exceptions of Italy and England
the Countries with strong monarchies stayed Catholic, the countries with strong merchant class became Protestant

 

[~Anastasia~]

I thought it had more to do with economics?
with the exceptions of Italy and England
the Countries with strong monarchies stayed Catholic, the countries with strong merchant class became Protestant

That is rather interesting, if the correlation is true. I wonder how Orthodoxy fits in historically? I've never heard of this, nor looked into it.

It is interesting though.

 

[Rhamiel]

That is rather interesting, if the correlation is true. I wonder how Orthodoxy fits in historically? I've never heard of this, nor looked into it.

It is interesting though.

France, Spain and Portugal had strong monarchies

Holland and the Germanic States had strong merchant class

So did Italy, but Italy had the Papal States right in the middle

England also had a strong monarchy, and would have probably stayed Catholic (or at least mixed) if it was not for Henry VIII and Elizabeth
edit
I do not really know much about the countries of Northern Europe
sorry to all the Finns, Danes, Swedes and others

 

[hedrick]

I thought it had more to do with economics?
with the exceptions of Italy and England
the Countries with strong monarchies stayed Catholic, the countries with strong merchant class became Protestant

I’d say the issues varied. It’s pretty clear that the Swiss cities (Calvin) had economic and national reasons for wanting to be independent of their old feudal rulers. In Germany, Luther fanned German resistance against sending lots of money to Rome, but the same rulers continued.

Why did they support Luther? My feeling is that at least part of it was genuine religious conviction. A lot probably had to do with corruption, and people like Tetzel, who violated even the standards that existed then. To me the real figure of the German Reformation isn’t Luther: someone would have played that role no matter what. It was Frederick. Why did he side with Luther? All the theologians he consulted told him the Luther was right, and that Scripture supported him. There may also have been some political and social issues. But people took religion very, very seriously. I wouldn’t downplay the fairly widespread conviction that the Church had to change. The real question for many leaders wasn’t whether Luther was right, but whether they could really bring themselves to break with the Pope and official hierarchy. Whether they understood or cared about the details of justification by faith alone is less clear, but on other things, there was a good deal of sympathy with Luther among people like Erasmus who decided to stay with the Church.

The popes during that period were a disaster for the Church. If they hadn’t squashed the conciliar movement, and had provided reasonable hope for reform, it’s unlikely that Luther would have gotten support. England was even weirder. The Pope was unable to give Henry a divorce for purely secular reasons.

I consider the Reformation a judgement by God on the Church. I see it as a replay of the Tower of Babel. It put the Church in a position where it no longer had the kind of unchallenged monopoly that would let it get back into that situation. That’s part of why I’m suspicious of forms of ecumenism that would rebuild a single Church. I think that would remove a protection that God instituted. Intercommunion, more agreement on doctrine, even a consolidation of all the mainline denominations. Sure. But I have no desire to rebuild the Tower.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

France, Spain and Portugal had strong monarchies

Holland and the Germanic States had strong merchant class

So did Italy, but Italy had the Papal States right in the middle

England also had a strong monarchy, and would have probably stayed Catholic (or at least mixed) if it was not for Henry VIII and Elizabeth
edit
I do not really know much about the countries of Northern Europe
sorry to all the Finns, Danes, Swedes and others

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.

 

[GoingByzantine]

I consider the Reformation a judgement by God on the Church. I see it as a replay of the Tower of Babel. It put the Church in a position where it no longer had the kind of unchallenged monopoly that would let it get back into that situation. That’s part of why I’m suspicious of forms of ecumenism that would rebuild a single Church. I think that would remove a protection that God instituted. Intercommunion, more agreement on doctrine, even a consolidation of all the mainline denominations. Sure. But I have no desire to rebuild the Tower.

Where does that leave everyone who broke away before the Protestant Reformation?

 

[MKJ]

I thought it had more to do with economics?
with the exceptions of Italy and England
the Countries with strong monarchies stayed Catholic, the countries with strong merchant class became Protestant

Hmm, that is interesting. I suppose in the countries like England where the monarch wasn't as powerful, it tended to be because there was a noble class that had a right to power in itself, which limited the power of the monarch. I'm not sure how that is related.

But as far as those strong monarchies goes, most of them were able to dominate the papacy, whereas the papacy was always struggling to dominate the countries that became Protestant. Perhaps the monarchs in those countries were less able to wield power in such a way that they could hold their own against the power of the papacy? So for them, severing ties would solve that problem and allow them to concentrate on maintaining power in their own country? But for the monarchies, they could use the papacy for their own ends, so there would be no reason to break ties.

This is all just speculation on my part though.

 

[MKJ]

France, Spain and Portugal had strong monarchies

Holland and the Germanic States had strong merchant class

So did Italy, but Italy had the Papal States right in the middle

England also had a strong monarchy, and would have probably stayed Catholic (or at least mixed) if it was not for Henry VIII and Elizabeth
edit
I do not really know much about the countries of Northern Europe
sorry to all the Finns, Danes, Swedes and others

Elizabeth was a strong monarch, but the monarchy of England has always been limited in its power by the nobility, and then by Parliament.

 

[Rhamiel]

Elizabeth was a strong monarch, but the monarchy of England has always been limited in its power by the nobility, and then by Parliament.

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

 

[Rhamiel]

Hmm, that is interesting. I suppose in the countries like England where the monarch wasn't as powerful, it tended to be because there was a noble class that had a right to power in itself, which limited the power of the monarch. I'm not sure how that is related.

But as far as those strong monarchies goes, most of them were able to dominate the papacy, whereas the papacy was always struggling to dominate the countries that became Protestant. Perhaps the monarchs in those countries were less able to wield power in such a way that they could hold their own against the power of the papacy? So for them, severing ties would solve that problem and allow them to concentrate on maintaining power in their own country? But for the monarchies, they could use the papacy for their own ends, so there would be no reason to break ties.

This is all just speculation on my part though.

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

 

[GoingByzantine]

I think it's a core-periphery sort of thing, the states closer to the Vatican were more likely to stay Catholic as opposed to those on the periphery.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Politics played a large role in all the splits.