Posted on 10/25/2016 9:04:25 AM PDT by ebb tide
In a new interview in Crux, Auxiliary Bishop William Kenney of Birmingham, England — co-chair of the international dialogue between the Lutheran World Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity — offers us a glimpse of what to expect in Lund, Sweden, on October 31, when Pope Francis joins the LWF to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Reformation.
It’s a long interview, and much of it is background on the event, but what really stood out what this:
(Excerpt) Read more at onepeterfive.com ...
Or maybe the people who SAY we got it all wrong got it all wrong.
It’s insulting for any clergy, Protestant OR Catholic to talk like this.
The Reformation happened for actual reasons, and to suggest that it was simply some accident in history renders the actually issues at hand to mere trivia.
Obviously YMMV on what was right and what was wrong, but to suggest that the past 500 years of history is all because of a “misunderstanding” is asinine. Especially considering the amount of lives lost.
You cannot rebuild Catholic faith by trying to tear others down.
Ecumenical bishops (or bishops appointed to ecumenical bodies) draw a paycheck for being ecumenical, so they’re ecumenical. No surprises there.
That is a good post. Are you familiar with the radid/radically leftist MIT linguist, Noam Chomsky? He plays a nasty little trick in similar situations. Nanely, in cases where he disagrees, he’ll argue that it’s all a matter of linguistics. In cases where he’s emotionally invested, he’ll paint his opponents as subhuman devils.
Example. Chompsky doesn’t believe in God. Therefore, any discussion about the existence of God is all semantics. I.e.: according to Chomsky, a Christian and an atheist could/would harmoniously agree on this subject, if only the ‘word,’ “God,” were properly defined. [This is just Chompsky’s way of sticking it to Christians.]
Otoh, being a fire-breathing, radical’s radical re the environment, Chomsky views anyone not on the hyper-ultra-uber Green bandwagon as of the devil. (Or would, if he believed in the devil.)
Anyway, that’s the thought I had when I read your post. Take it fwiw.
It’s the same old “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” garbage.
Here is a lengthy review of it: http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A149/evangelicals-and-catholics-together
Some exerpts:
Far from safeguarding evangelical distinctives, the document relegated them all to the status of non-essentials. By expressly stating, “Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ,” the document suggests that none of the differences between Catholics and evangelicals involve any doctrines of eternal significance.
Yet that was the whole point of the Reformation. Rome viewed the Reformers as apostates and excommunicated them. The Reformers became convinced that Rome’s deviation from biblical doctrine was so serious that the Papal system represented false Christianity. Both sides understood that the doctrines at stake were fundamental. “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” while acknowledging that all those doctrinal differences still exist, simply assumes without discussion that none of them makes the difference between authentic Christianity and “a different gospel.” That assumption itself is a monumental doctrinal shift—abandoning more than four hundred years of evangelical consensus...
Is Union with Rome a Worthy Goal?
Should evangelicals wish to see the Protestant Reformation undone? Certainly not. The Reformation was not a tragedy but a glorious victory. The result of the Reformation was not a breach in the true body of Christ but the recovery of the gospel of grace from the near obscurity it had fallen into under Catholic abuses. Protestants who doubt that ought to study church history.
Some claim the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s brought Rome and evangelicals closer together doctrinally. They say Rome further reformed herself and opened the door for ecumenical rapprochement. But Vatican II only solidified the stance Rome took against the Reformation. Rome declared herself “irreformable.”
Some fair minded self-criticism is also in order.
I am Catholic. I have read the 95 Thesis.
Luther was not all wrong.
Pope Francis creates the great misunderstandings
It’s not about Luther vs whoever happens to be the Pope.
Protestants have their own feet of clay. So does the Catholic Church.
Nothing will change until our Lord returns.
Uh. No. Breaking free from a corrupt system, printing the Word into a common language for all to read; just for a start. Nothing wrong with that. If someone can tell me where in the Bible it says I must do penance in order to receive forgiveness, please do so.
>>If someone can tell me where in the Bible it says I must do penance in order to receive forgiveness, please do so.<<
Luke 13:3
No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish.
Job 42:6
Therefore I reprehend myself, and do penance in dust and ashes.
Ecclesiasticus 2:22
If we do not penance, we shall fall into the hands of the Lord, and not into the hands of men.
Jeremiah 31:19
For after thou didst convert me, I did penance: and after thou didst shew unto me, I struck my thigh: I am confounded and ashamed, because I have borne the reproach of my youth.
Lamentations 2:14
Thy prophets have seen false and foolish things for thee: and they have not laid open thy iniquity, to excite thee to penance: but they have seen for thee false revelations and banishments.
Ezekiel 18:21
But if the wicked do penance for all his sins which he hath committed, and keep all my commandments, and do judgment, and justice, living he shall live, and shall not die.
Matthew 3:8
Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance.
Matthew 11:20
Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein were done the most of his miracles, for that they had not done penance.
Romans 2:4
Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and patience, and longsuffering? Knowest thou not, that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance?
Apocalypse 2:5
Be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen: and do penance, and do the first works. Or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance.
And there’s more:
http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?t=0&q=penance&b=drb
It’s insulting for any clergy, Protestant OR Catholic to talk like this. The Reformation happened for actual reasons, and to suggest that it was simply some accident in history renders the actually issues at hand to mere trivia. Obviously YMMV on what was right and what was wrong, but to suggest that the past 500 years of history is all because of a “misunderstanding” is asinine. Especially considering the amount of lives lost.
Indeed, yet,
The document was approved by Rome, which binds Catholics whether they like it or not; the Lutherans are made up of about 100 churches, and there were about 37 who didn’t, back then, sign up to it. Some have come into line since.
Luke 13:3 No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance [metanoeō], you shall all likewise perish.
Metanoeō does not mean "do penance," a contrite action, but metanoeō refers to the change of heart that results in such actions. Therefore, reading further on, the Lord says in Luke 17:4: "And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him." There is no action here, but a change of heart, that, if true, would result in corresponding actions. Likewise one can repent of something: "And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not." (Rev 2:21)
Thus Paul states in Act 26:20: "But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance."
A soul who believes the gospel message repents by deciding to turn to God in faith, believing on His as Lord and Savior, and the works which follow correspond to repentance and are what you would call penance, but repentance comes first, like as believing comes before works of faith, though Scripturally the former is salvific if it is such that will effect the latter. In other words, true repentance is a change effected by faith in the gospel message, in deciding to believe on the Lord Jesus, and this repentant faith is true if it is such that effects corresponding actions.
The sinner believes on the gospel message calling for repentance and faith, (Acts 20:21) and thus he decides to believe on the risen Lord Jesus to save him on His account, by His sinless shed blood. The sinner has therefore repented, changing from trusting in a false means of salvation, and a false Lord, to trust in the Lord Jesus, and therefore corresponding actions will follow, according to the level of light and grace one has received. And which includes repentance when convicted of not obeying His Lord.
Therefore it is not true that one must perform acts of repentance to be forgiven, although God can require this of certain souls due to their unprepared hearts, but it is true that works corresponding to repentant faith must follow (given opportunity) if such faith is true, and salvific. Therefore the solution is not to do works in order to be saved, but to believe with the kind of faith that effects obedience. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; (Hebrews 3:14)
And some Catholics have the nerve to condemn and accuse others of changing the Bible to fit their doctrines!
You may soon be advised to enjoy a lengthy stroll upon a truncated quay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.