Monday, March 10, 2008
Pope to ‘rehabilitate’ Martin Luther…
It seems, along with the unveiling of a statue to Gallileo, the Pope is due to declare that the former Augustinian priest and progenitor of one of the most successful religious revolutions in modern times. Martin Luther was not a heretic after all. The Irish Times:
Cardinal Walter Kaspar, president of the Vatican’s council for promoting Christian unity, said this week that “we have much to learn from Martin Luther, beginning with the importance he attached to the word of God”. Luther had “anticipated aspects of reform which the church has adopted over time”. Cardinal Kaspar felt this move by the pope would help ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic and Reformed/Protestant churches.
Belated H/T to Charles!
Mick Fealty @ 09:31 AM
Talk about slow learners!!
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 10:42 AMIt’s all part of his wider campaign..
Which could be characterised as an attempt to re-assert the imperial influence of Contantine’s over-rated medieval entity.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 10:50 AM“The Irish Times” (subs required).
Is Nevin’s side-line sniping, negative and narrow minded tone to be echoed through out this thread I wonder? Nobody posses “truth” though most of us are in search of it I think so when a positive move forward is taken by anybody, it should be applauded by all with sincerity and humility.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:22 AMNobody posses “truth” ...
Indeed, but the RC Church claims that it does ... hence your comments are somewhat ironic!
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:27 AMThe simple fact is that Roman Catholic doctrine and theology are fundamentally different to traditional evangelical Protestant theology and doctrine.
Of course they have similarities. Opposition to murder, doing good to the poor stuff like that are in all major religions and indeed all major sensible non religious doctrines and ethical systems.
The point is surely that Luther and Calvin were heretics by the standards of the RC church. They opposed the authority of the pope and the traditions of the church. They placed the authority of the bible above that; and fundamentalist Protestants still do.
We also part company from Rome on the mechanism by which people are saved: personal saving faith through Christ alone. We differ on the role of ministers / priests, we differ on the nature of the communion service.
I am not bashing the RC church here: what I am doing is pointing out the differences. Of course I believe that I am correct but yes occasionally there are things I question and I have doubts. I am sure any honest person of any religion would say the same.
My objection is to ecumenism: I am opposed to us shaving off all the corners so we can produce some sort of amorphous blob of generalist christianity (note with a small c). I would rather respectfully tell RCs that I differ from their analysis and be their friends despite that than chop up my religion and theirs in order to make a composite system we can all half agree on.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:39 AMLighten up, Jimmy. It was just a joke.
Perhaps Pope Benedict is attempting to undo some of the damage he did to ecumenical dialogue as chief author of Dominus Iesus.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:55 AMUntil Rome returns to the Bible, true Protestants should have nothing to do with it.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 01:03 PMTurgon,
“My objection is to ecumenism: I am opposed to us shaving off all the corners so we can produce some sort of amorphous blob of generalist christianity ...”
Such as the kind you noted earlier (“Opposition to murder, doing good to the poor stuff ...”)? If people share things in common what’s the harm in saying that you do and working together on them (so long as it doesn’t compromise your other values)?
Or is it that sticking to one’s own “gang”, and demonstrating how “different” your gang is to the other, is more important that spreading the “good news” that you can both agree on?
I’m ignorant of these things, so can I ask you, is that very Christian?
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 01:10 PMOn no Oilifear I have no problem at all with things like doing good together. As an example in Kenya the churches run very many of the hospitals. There is major cooperation between the Methodists, the Presbyterians and the RCs. The Presbyterian Church of East africa is however, very evangelical and fundamentalist and would be anti ecumenical.
I also whole heartedly support join initiatives to co operate on matters of social concern here in Northern Ireland and indeed in Ireland. There is little point in SVP and the Board of Social Witness doing exactly the same things in the same areas; clearly cooperation is appropriate.
What I respectfully dissent from is the idea of joint services (though I happily attend RC weddings and funerals); let alone trying to amalgamate the churches into one.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 01:25 PM“Until Rome returns to the Bible, true Protestants should have nothing to do with it.”
Which Protestants? And should true Protestants have anything to do with other Protestants?
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 01:28 PM‘what I am doing is pointing out the differences.’
How different are Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics and let’s include AtheistsAre they born differently ?
Do different bacteria feast off their bodies on a daily basis ?
Do they get sick/cancer / differently ?
Do they enjoy sex differently ?
Do they bleed differently?
When they die do they decompose differently ?
Do they have children differently ?
Do they have different day lengths or do they all share the same 24 hours ?
Do they learn differently ?
Do they have different weather ?
Do they die differently ?
Do they get suntans differently ?
Whether the Pope rehabilitates Martin Luther or vice versa might have mattered 500 years ago and would had there been a ‘peaceful’ Reformation probablly have saved the lives of 7 million Germans who died in the end for ’ differences’ over papal authority and theology.Well I suppose it beats dying over something really important lie how many angels can fit on the point of a needle .
Load of oul codswallop the lot of it !
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 01:30 PM“Do they enjoy sex differently ?”
You’ve obviously never seen “Monty Python’s Meaning of Life”...
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 01:38 PMDo they enjoy sex?
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 01:45 PM“We have much to learn from Martin Luther”
Shall we begin with “On the Jews and Their Lies”, Herr Ratzinger?Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 01:48 PMTurgon, thanks, then another question, if you will.
I assume that way-back-in-time your church split from Rome over some matter or another (more likely a whole raft of matters) and thus the reason why there exists two churches - the Roman one and yours that split from it - instead of just one.
Whatever the substance of the dispute that led your church to fracture from Rome, it is absolutely ridiculous to imagine that your crew could be wrong, so let’s assume that it was Rome that got their facts muddled up all those centuries ago. Now, suppose tomorrow morning the members of the Roman church woke up and, a little bit slow as we know that they are prone to being, realised, “Whoa! Actually, Turgon and Co. are bang on. We were wrong. They were right. Better make the appropriate changes as they had insisted on all those years ago.”
What would happen? Would you be happy to re-join Roman Catholcism now that the changes insisted upon had been made? Or would you insist that Roman Catholics join your church?
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 01:52 PMGreenflag,
Eloquent but a number of your elegant questions which bring to mind Shylock’s brilliant “Hath not a jew eyes” speech are really not very applicable:People are somewhat different to other mammals yet some of the questions would ellicit a similar repsonse if applied to cats and people:
Are they born differrently: Not really
Do different bacteria feast off their bodies on a daily basis ? No
Do they get sick/cancer / differently ? No
Do they enjoy sex differently ? Difficult to ascertain re cats and humans I accept
Do they bleed differently? No
When they die do they decompose differently ? No
Do they have children differently ? Okay a bit different but not very
Do they have different day lengths or do they all share the same 24 hours ? No
Do they learn differently ? Okay different between cats and people
Do they have different weather ? No
Do they die differently ? No
Do they get suntans differently ? Okay again different.So out of your 12 questions for 3/4 of them cats and people are dissimilar. Hence, it does illustrate that your questions are possibly less than relevant to this debate? Sorry to be nasty but I so enjoyed typing No a lot- takes me back to my youth.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 01:56 PMTurgon, the pertinent question is, do cats go to heaven?
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 01:59 PMOilifear,
I am not very interested in which churches people attend nor the exact method of worship they use. I do not like many modern hymns and prefer “proper” hymns, paslms and most of all paraphrases. I must admit to quite liking the traditional anglican form of service though to admit taht may be a bit heretical. However, my brother in law attends some odd pentacoastalist lot and they are just as good (if not better Christians) than us.
I actually think it is very useful to have different styles and types of churches and it allows people to find a form of church and a form of worship with which they are comfortable. The Holy Spirit leads people in different directions and God is happy to accept us all.
I believe God is just as happy with my worship wearing a dark suit, a Third Edition Church Hymnary in one hand and the other in my pocket as he is with someone waving their arms. God accepts difference and as such I am certain different churches are different in His will.
In terms of theology I think it is more important but again their can be differences. My wife is not a Calvinist but I firmly believe she is one of the most Christian people I have ever met.
What matters to me is that churches preach the need for one to be saved form one’s sins by faith in Christ and personally accepting Him. That one does that through any particular church is of no importance to me. I accept that many RCs may have done so despite what I see as the problems inherent in their church’s analysis.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 02:08 PMTurgon, that sounds very ecumenical, verging on à la carte, limited only by a suspicion of Roman Catholicism alone.
Now that Catholics, Luterans and Mehodists have resolved their dispute regarding justification, and when many Anglicans follow Catholic teaching on it, why do you set Catholicism apart?
I’ve no reason to fight with you, and I know you’re a smart (if not wise) man, but like the poster above who wrote, “Until Rome returns to the Bible, true Protestants should have nothing to do with it,” it does seem like you emphasise the differences between your faith an Roman Catholicism as being fatal, but are willing to air brush the differences between different non-Roman Catholic Christians churches and your own. To me, you appear to bundle all Protestants together and pit them as being on the other side a line to Roman Catholics.
Am I right about this? What do you think is the origin of that?
(And I’m sorry to push you on this, but you didn’t answer me question about cats. Also, what if the cat was Roman Catholic?)
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 02:32 PMIn terms of different churches; all I care about is whether or not they preach the need of personal salvation and a reasonable analysis of biblical living though I can be quite liberal on that.
I do not think the RC church does that. I worry that many CoE churches do not and even CoI, Presbyterian and Methodist churches do not here. That is why we were careful choosing our Presbyterian church and why we will probably soon leave it for a different denomination. As an example in the church we attend my wife would not have allowed our children to be christined as the child is welcomed into the church at that point. She regards that as close to blasphemy.
I regard many of the churches in the mainstream denominations especially in Belfast as failing to adequately proclaim the bible message. I have a great deal more confidence in many of the smaller sects. However, I try to judge no one’s faith and if anyone RC or otherwise tells me they have accepted Christ as their personal saviour I rejoice in that.
On the cats issue. We believe that only humans have souls and as such when they die go to heaven or (very sadly) to hell. It is a dichotomous variable. Heaven, will I am confident contain animals. Animals which die now cease to exist; they do not go to “cat heaven”.
As an aside I being a country person at heart find the idea of heaven as a city a bit less nice. However, it is clear there will also be a new earth. Apparently the reason why the city of heaven is focused on is that in biblical times and indeed until really quite recently) it was considered best to live in cities (indeed many still do).
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 03:07 PMThe Pope koshering up Martin Luther! This is too much.
Whatever’s next? Dropping the Latin mass I wouldn’t mind betting or allowing us to eat steak on a Friday. All this progress will drive away devout followers like myself. It’s enough to make a man turn protestant.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 03:29 PMNext for rehabilitation - RIP.
Soon we will discover he is infallible and was right all along!
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 03:47 PMOn the cats issue. We believe that only humans have souls and as such when they die go to heaven or (very sadly) to hell. It is a dichotomous variable. Heaven, will I am confident contain animals. Animals which die now cease to exist; they do not go to “cat heaven”.
Nothing brightens up the day more than reading the musings of a christian on what heaven will be like. Animals in heaven? Hopefully it’s only the nice kind like lambs, kittens and puppies. Who wants to spend eternity with an arm that has been half-gnawed off by a celestial crocodile?
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 03:54 PMTurgon
Are all your beliefs based on a book that has few confirmed facts? If so, I hope your leap of faith comes to a better end than David Trimble’s did.
As an atheist in the sense of a single God, I don’t even begin to understand your beliefs, but completely and fully support your right to have them and practice religion as you see fit.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 03:55 PM“Whatever’s next?”
I think it has to be a ban on line-dancing, Rory. This would help smooth a visit to Armagh.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 04:15 PM
