Not that anything changed, mind you!

[Maxentius]

If this is true, quite a few RC apologists will have their hands full for a millennium or so:

"Pope Benedict will issue his findings on Luther (1483-1546) in September after discussing him at his annual seminar of 40 fellow theologians — known as the Ratzinger Schlerkreis — at Castelgandolfo, the papal summer residence. According to Vatican insiders the Pope will argue that Luther, who was excommunicated and condemned for heresy, was not a heretic.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, the head of the pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said the move would help to promote ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. It is also designed to counteract the impact of July's papal statement describing the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as defective and “not proper Churches.”

Again, if true, it will be fun to watch the parsing to explain how "nothing changed" goes about. :hehe:

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3492299.ece

Found link on http://cyberbrethren.typepad.com/

[Sasha Fierce]

Oops, I just saw this and created a new thread. I'll try and delete it.
Anyway....

How does one go about being un-excommunicated?

[The Curtmudgeon]

How does one go about being un-excommunicated?

I'm sure it'll be much the same as they did for Galileo...

Dear Mr Galileo please forgive the long delay-o
You see we've been quite busy trying to settle an old schism
And of late we've had financial and other matters consequential
That demanded prompt attention though it was our best intention
To have let you know much sooner before the recent bout of rumours
That we fear we were too hasty with your excommunication


And in light of further knowledge and much discussion in the college
We've reassessed the situation and wish now in expiation
To revoke your former sentence and in a spirit of repentence
To extend our approbation of your cosmic explanation
And again we beg your pardon realizing its been hard on
A man of your education to have a tarnished reputation


And we trust if in the future your ideas need some nurture
That you'll have no hesitation to discuss the situation
With our confidential experts and hopefully we may avert
The long deliberation of such sacred litigation
And we send with deepest amity our best wishes for eternity
And we trust your suffering will cease and your soul forever rest in peace.
Amen.

The (:cheers: Robbie!) Curtmudgeon

[Maxentius]

Oops, I just saw this and created a new thread. I'll try and delete it.
Anyway....

How does one go about being un-excommunicated?

I think it is just a formal declaration. If I recall correctly, the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope rescinded the excommunications from the Great Schism. I am not sure what is supposed to happen to one who has already died. To be honest, I am skeptical of this article. If this is done a lot of questions about papal infallibility will naturally arise, given the straightforward statements in Trent, and Luther's statements in the Smallkald Articles.

[Jin-Roh]

Such will be an interesting thing to watch, especially considering some of his recent words on protestatism.

[Jezz]

I think it is just a formal declaration. If I recall correctly, the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope rescinded the excommunications from the Great Schism.
The difference on the Orthodox side being, of course, that a single Patriarch - even the Patriarch of Constantinople, does not have the right to act in the name of the Church by himself. It is a matter of historical record that, in spite of Patriarch Athenagoras' lifting of the anathema, our churches remain out of communion with each other until this day - that is to say, the Orthodox Church has not accepted his decision.

I am not sure what is supposed to happen to one who has already died. To be honest, I am skeptical of this article. If this is done a lot of questions about papal infallibility will naturally arise, given the straightforward statements in Trent, and Luther's statements in the Smallkald Articles.
Ditto. If the pope did lift anathemas against Luther, it would prove that the RCC is not the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church...

[maudman]

If this is true, quite a few RC apologists will have their hands full for a millennium or so:

"Pope Benedict will issue his findings on Luther (1483-1546) in September after discussing him at his annual seminar of 40 fellow theologians — known as the Ratzinger Schlerkreis — at Castelgandolfo, the papal summer residence. According to Vatican insiders the Pope will argue that Luther, who was excommunicated and condemned for heresy, was not a heretic.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, the head of the pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said the move would help to promote ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. It is also designed to counteract the impact of July's papal statement describing the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as defective and “not proper Churches.”

Again, if true, it will be fun to watch the parsing to explain how "nothing changed" goes about. :hehe:

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3492299.ece

Found link on http://cyberbrethren.typepad.com/


Hey Max!

I'm not really shocked about this and I'm glad to see this. And I think there is something to it because my Preist say's alot of posative things towards Prot'S.

It has been one of my strongest arguments towards Protestants who deviated from luthranisms. That Luther and Lutherans are more catholic thann they are and that they should look closer at lutheran understanding before condeming us. The article may be genuine as far as there are certain things being considered, or going to be reflected as to how the church actually felt about Luther and why the excommunication. Of which it really isn't hard to understand. Luther was Catholic and most all his letters Early reflect great reverence toward the Pope. What I also find interesting, is that Luther....... and i've tried to make Protestants ware of this. He HATED! The reformation the revolution. It was totally against what he was trying to do.

It was really about one thing that caused Luthers excommunication, and it proved to be true because the revolution that he hated follwed and proves the point and the concerns of not only the Pope but Luther himself. It was a perilous time for the CHurch.

MDN

[Maxentius]

maudman,

Hey Max!

I'm not really shocked about this and I'm glad to see this. And I think there is something to it because my Preist say's alot of posative things towards Prot'S.

We're not all bad. :hehe:

Anyway, my problem isn't with the excommunication being removed from Luther, that actually makes me happy. From my POV, the glacier is moving again. The problem is that, objectively, what Luther taught and believed was anathematized, and he was told to recant or he will go to hell by the pope himself. He didn't recant, so from a RC POV, he doed a heretic denying central doctrines. I don't see how we can square the circle here.

Having said that, there are some RC clrergy and historians who are more charitable to Luther than was the case in the past. My grandmother thought he was almost the devil incarnate, my father was a lot more sympathetic.

It has been one of my strongest arguments towards Protestants who deviated from luthranisms. That Luther and Lutherans are more catholic thann they are and that they should look closer at lutheran understanding before condeming us.

One problem is that many prots look at things which appear catholic, and reject them on that basis. "If Rome does it, it must be wrong". It is not universal of course, but it is especially prevalent among what I would call "American Evangelicalism".

[maudman]

maudman,



The problem is that, objectively, what Luther taught and believed was anathematized, and he was told to recant or he will go to hell by the pope himself. He didn't recant, so from a RC POV, he doed a heretic denying central doctrines. I don't see how we can square the circle here.


Hello Max

To formally set apart or be cut off from isn't impossible to undo Max. It may seem to many Protestant's that this is the case. Hell has many attributes or states. But basically it means to be cut off from God or the presence of the Church. Not seeing isnt the same as impossible to those that believe. Remeber MAX your talking about a church that say's and believes ""whatever it binds on earth shall be bound in heaven"". Scripture is full of examples of those bound and loosened from Hell. The chains of whatever limits or constrains. The condition of being cut off or set apart.

If the church can't practice the mercy and the grace of God in this world then who can. The light of God visible. It's not as much as how can the church to us Roman Catholic's do such a thing? (although I'm sure there would be those in the church that would see it as Prot's and yourself in trying to reconcile such a thing) That such a thing can be undone. But who will accept this. Remeber the Gospel is who will accept the forgiveness offered.

Heresy isn't a just an external thing? It is the formal declaration of apposing views. The fact that Luther had thought different is testimony of how things were in the Church and has alway's been. It was in fact that Luther later began this formal declaring as he later was being distanced or cut off.

Heresy is a sin, but many many in the church are heretics, because we all have views that come up short of full understanding. Not only of whats written in the scripture but even at times what the church say's as revelation of that which is written. Priests, Cardnials, Bishops and lay persons all have some heresy. What makes heresy a sin is apposing the church with our beliefs. This is how these thigs are seen in the church. If I believe something and my priest say's this isn't the truth or I'm wrong he has the power to say its wrong because it goes against the church. But he's not going to tell me to quit thinking and at times he may tell me I'm right. I may be wrong or right but the church has official doctrine.

Luther really wasn't in the postion of Authority in the Church from a Papal Point of view and this may have been most or more of the Problem. Not that things would have been any different in the out come, but that Authority and Leadership had its avenues or venues and Luther simply wasn't in that status in the church. Leaders in the Church have access to info that we don't and in the catholic Church these things were only known and seen by the Leaders of which also had Authority. At times the church say's you just do it. Because we say so, and in the kingdom of God this is also how it is, so its not unjust! Not everybody poseeses the ability to discern all things. I think Luther's stand in his rightness of the immoral behavior of certain clergy may have snowballed into unforseen affects an carelessly overlooked.

But it wasn't just Luther and this the church also knows. There were many forces coat tailing Luther. There were simply to many things that weren't Christian forces as much as secular that stood to gain from the revolution that came. This Luther knew and is probably why so many Protestant denominations ould later spring from unbridled intellectual discernments. Sometimes the difference between the path of destuction and eternal Life was ones respect for Authority. And in those times that concept, was loosening its hold in certain parts of the empire.




One problem is that many prots look at things which appear catholic, and reject them on that basis. "If Rome does it, it must be wrong". It is not universal of course, but it is especially prevalent among what I would call "American Evangelicalism".

Yes, this is true. I think because in American Culture the revolution wasn't just a liberation of english taxation but any influence of the Catholic Church an those like it in so many ways. The secular forces at work in the American revolution was just a continuation of the Protestant revolution.

I think this is why Luther hated the Protestant revolution. He thought that the forces behind the revolution were mainly materialistic in motive, from the Poor and its material depravity, too the weathy that sought to gain Power over the existing construct. I think he felt they were twisting his motives into justifacation for things he wasn't in agreement with.

Peace and God Bless

MDN

[Sasha Fierce]

One problem is that many prots look at things which appear catholic, and reject them on that basis. "If Rome does it, it must be wrong". It is not universal of course, but it is especially prevalent among what I would call "American Evangelicalism".

Howdy Max. Happy belated birthday, by the way.
Anyhoo...is that the reason why Luther had so much trouble with James?

[Maxentius]

Howdy Max. Happy belated birthday, by the way.
Anyhoo...is that the reason why Luther had so much trouble with James?

Luther's trouble with James was twofold--the Gospel was not to be found in it, at least according to Luther, and it reflected some of the latest scholarship of his day.