Lutheran/Catholic Dialogue

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I am proposing a continuing prayerful discussion between myself and Athanasias in the spirit of our previous thread here: Priesthood?

I am proposing a series of discussions to explore not only what divides us, but what we share. This series of discussions would take the form of an Article by Article exploration of the of the Augsburg Confession in light of the corresponding Articles of the "Confutatio Pontificia".

My choice for a translation of the Augsburg Confession is the one found here: Welcome to the Book of Concord. This website also contains a good English translation of the Confutatio, however if my good friend Athanasias has another preference for an English translation, I am fine with that also.

I propose that what ever relevant sources either of us might wish to use in the progression of these discussions be allowed.

I also want personal thoughts and opinions that may be at odds with these respective historic documents be allowed and encouraged.

I would also like the conversation to pertain only to the contents of the respective Articles because just about everywhere the conversation may drift will be covered in successive discussions.

I am inviting Athanasias to give his input here as well.

If you are OK with it Athanasias, I would like to place the Peanut Gallery thread in GT, and maybe a copy in both TLC; OBOB as well (three thread is the upper limit before they are considered spam so we could do this). The rules of these respective forums would apply to their threads. I think this would stimulate much discussion; and we may be able to set a good example for future discussions between others.

 

[Athanasias]

I am proposing a continuing prayerful discussion between myself and Athanasias in the spirit of our previous thread here: Priesthood?

I am proposing a series of discussions to explore not only what divides us, but what we share. This series of discussions would take the form of an Article by Article exploration of the of the Augsburg Confession in light of the corresponding Articles of the "Confutatio Pontificia".

My choice for a translation of the Augsburg Confession is the one found here: Welcome to the Book of Concord. This website also contains a good English translation of the Confutatio, however if my good friend Athanasias has another preference for an English translation, I am fine with that also.

I propose that what ever relevant sources either of us might wish to use in the progression of these discussions be allowed.

I also want personal thoughts and opinions that may be at odds with these respective historic documents be allowed and encouraged.

I would also like the conversation to pertain only to the contents of the respective Articles because just about everywhere the conversation may drift will be covered in successive discussions.

I am inviting Athanasias to give his input here as well.

If you are OK with it Athanasias, I would like to place the Peanut Gallery thread in GT, and maybe a copy in both TLC; OBOB as well (three thread is the upper limit before they are considered spam so we could do this). The rules of these respective forums would apply to their threads. I think this would stimulate much discussion; and we may be able to set a good example for future discussions between others.

This sounds like alot of fun and I am honored to be considered to do this dialog. Thanks Mark my brother! Sounds great! It will be very useful in ecumenical dialog and prayerful discussion and i will learn alot because I will get the great opportunity to read the Lutheran confessions and hear a devout educated Lutheran on them.


I realize that both documents Ie Augsburg and Trent were done at a time that utilized a bit of polemic on both sides and both sides were up in arms. Today the same truths are held by the Catholic Church but they would be presented with alot less polemic. We believe that Trent was doctrinally correct even today as Vatican II did nothing to change the doctrines of the Catholic Church but just updated some practices as Saint John Paul the Great would say and how the doctrines are taught. So I would expect that Confessional good hearted Lutherans also still abide by the Augsburgs teachings too. Now some of the excommunications have been lifted which is really neat but nothing doctrinally has changed from our point of view. This will be fun.

I must admit I have no idea what the Confutatio Pontifica is but I am somewhat familiar with the Council of Trent which was the Catholic Churches official council and documents put out to define many Catholic doctrines in the response to the protestant reformation. I would feel comfortable using Trent and Vatican II . Is that ok?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

This sounds like alot of fun and I am honored to be considered to do this dialog. Thanks Mark my brother! Sounds great! It will be very useful in ecumenical dialog and prayerful discussion and i will learn alot because I will get the great opportunity to read the Lutheran confessions and hear a devout educated Lutheran on them.


I realize that both documents Ie Augsburg and Trent were done at a time that utilized a bit of polemic on both sides and both sides were up in arms. Today the same truths are held by the Catholic Church but they would be presented with alot less polemic. We believe that Trent was doctrinally
correct even today as Vatican II did nothing to change the doctrines of the Catholic Church but just updated some practices as Saint John Paul the Great would say and how the doctrines are taught. So I would expect that Confessional good hearted Lutherans also still abide by the Augsburgs teachings too. Now some of the excommunications have been lifted which is really neat but nothing doctrinally has changed from our point of view. This will be fun.

This was a time in history when much was changing; the world was being explored; scientific knowledge was expanding; and with printing, ideas both good and bad were being shared. Good Christian men on both sides employed classic rhetoric to defend their positions. What was normal then would be seen today as a bit over the top. I believe that some of the polemics were just that. It is my hope that we can sort through some of this stuff with plain language and hearts that are less hard than our forefathers nearly 500 years ago.

I must admit I have no idea what the Confutatio Pontifica is but I am somewhat familiar with the Council of Trent which was the Catholic Churches official council and documents put out to define many Catholic doctrines in the response to the protestant reformation. I would feel comfortable using Trent and Vatican II . Is that ok?

Considering the effect the Augsburg Confession (AC), the Confutato Pontifica (CP) and the Apology (Explanation of the AC) had on Western Christianity, I am a bit surprised that so few Catholics are even aware of the CP. Time wise, the AC was presented to Charles V at the Diet of Augsburg on June 25, 1530. The Apology was published April-May 1531. The CP was read to the Lutheran Princes and theologians sometime, I believe in 1530, but at that time it was not published and no "hard" copies were given out. The Apology was a response to the CP based on transcripts taken down at the time it was read. It is generally understood that the Catholics intended it not as a "talking point", but as a definitive statement.

The CP was published at the time of Trent, I believe, to be used as a reference in the discussions and deliberations of that council.

I have no issue with using Trent and Vatican II in our discussion (or any other information that helps illustrate meaning, intent and understanding); however it is my hope that we can look at the CP as a starting point rather than the "my way or the highway" statement it was intended to be.

The format I would like to follow would be to post and discuss each article and the corresponding response in the CP in their own thread. Some of these discussions will be very brief, as there are some articles where there is virtually full agreement; others will be longer. If you are agreeable, after the stipulations post, I would like to post both the Article of the AC being discussed, and the pertinent response from the CP. Since I'll be setting these up, how be you have the first response?

I am truly looking forward to this with a great sense of joyful anticipation, and I pray that our efforts may benefit not only our understanding but that of those who observe our efforts.

I may indeed be in over my head here but such is how we learn!

Grace, peace and mercy.

Mark

 

[Athanasias]

Sure I am willing to do this. It will be fun. I am no expert but I can do my best.It is my understanding that Eck had a debate with Luther which was public and that Trent was the official infallible teaching and response to the protestant reformation from a Catholic point of view but I am willing to look at the other document too and give my 2 cents. Can you give me a few weeks till we start though because I am in the middle of serious discussion on the Catholic understanding of predestination, the elect, freewill, mortal sin, and the fall of man with a Calvinist.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Sure thing, take your time. It's been just short of 500 years; what's a couple more weeks?. With all that we both have going on, I hope you don't mind a leisurely pace like our last discussion.

I will draft the stipulations and post them here in the proposal thread, if there are any changes or modifications you would like, take your time, look it over and let me know.

Can you give me a few weeks till we start though because I am in the middle of serious discussion on the Catholic understanding of predestination, the elect, freewill, mortal sin, and the fall of man with a Calvinist.

Hands full? I'd say.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Topic: Catholic Lutheran Dialogue - The Augsburg Confession and the Confutatio Pontificia - Where we were then, and where we are now. (First in a series of Article by Article discussions relating to these historic documents.

Title: CHIEF ARTICLES OF FAITH - Article I - GOD

1. MarkRohfrietsch will represent the Lutheran Position; Athanasias will represent the Catholic position.
2. Following the historic pattern, the opening posts of each discussion in this series will consist of the particular Articles itself , and the corresponding response as presented from the Confutatio. Mark will then open the discussion with Athanasias responding.
3. Sincethis is a one-on-one discussion rather than a debate the number of rounds will be three each, however, by consent of both participants, if the discussion has run it's course, the disucssion may be closed eary; if it has not run it's course, the participants may agree to extend it. (Some articles such as the firsthistorically resulted in little dispute, so the discussion may be quite short; others not so much)
4. The posts will be alternating.
5. Since both of us lead busy lives, we will not be setting a time between posts.
6. The maximum length for each post; in the interest of promoting more participation in the Peanut Galleries (more members will read shorter posts than long ones) we will be keeping the content to a maximum of 500 words. Again, the discussion can be extended as required.
7. All quotes and outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% copyright rule.
8. Start date-Very soon.
9. In this discussion there will be three Peanut Galleries; one will be set up in General Theology , One Bread, One Body - Catholic, and Theologia Crucis - Lutherans. Please note that the Christian Only rules apply in General Theology, and the Congregational rules apply in both the OBOB and TCL threads.

 

[Athanasias]

Topic: Catholic Lutheran Dialogue - The Augsburg Confession and the Confutatio Pontificia - Where we were then, and where we are now. (First in a series of Article by Article discussions relating to these historic documents.

Title: CHIEF ARTICLES OF FAITH - Article I - GOD

1. MarkRohfrietsch will represent the Lutheran Position; Athanasias will represent the Catholic position.
2. Following the historic pattern, the opening posts of each discussion in this series will consist of the particular Articles itself , and the corresponding response as presented from the Confutatio. Mark will then open the discussion with Athanasias responding.
3. Sincethis is a one-on-one discussion rather than a debate the number of rounds will be three each, however, by consent of both participants, if the discussion has run it's course, the disucssion may be closed eary; if it has not run it's course, the participants may agree to extend it. (Some articles such as the firsthistorically resulted in little dispute, so the discussion may be quite short; others not so much)
4. The posts will be alternating.
5. Since both of us lead busy lives, we will not be setting a time between posts.
6. The maximum length for each post; in the interest of promoting more participation in the Peanut Galleries (more members will read shorter posts than long ones) we will be keeping the content to a maximum of 500 words. Again, the discussion can be extended as required.
7. All quotes and outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% copyright rule.
8. Start date-Very soon.
9. In this discussion there will be three Peanut Galleries; one will be set up in General Theology , One Bread, One Body - Catholic, and Theologia Crucis - Lutherans. Please note that the Christian Only rules apply in General Theology, and the Congregational rules apply in both the OBOB and TCL threads.

Hi Mark my good brother! I think this sounds awesome. Just a few suggestions if thats ok. I am not sure how long 500 words comes out to be(like 1 page or half a page etc). I certainly can try to be short and succinct in my explanations but since I am not familiar with the text , and since there may be some sections that need a longer in depth treatment just to get a better rounded understanding of each others historical positions, would it be possible to as you say extend those responses when they come up? The other thing I would suggest is this. I have no idea how many parts there are to the confutio or the Augsburg response. Maybe it would be beneficial to do one round per each question for each of us? We can take it slow. What do you think of this? I have to confess I am ignorant of both documents so I will read what you write on them and try to understand them and respond charitably with my own knowledge and for the really hard issues I will try to link them with the Council of Trent which in our understanding was the infallible council that laid out many official Catholics doctrines definitively and answered the protestant objections(albeit sometimes in a harsh way). Is that ok?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Hi Mark my good brother! I think this sounds awesome. Just a few suggestions if thats ok. I am not sure how long 500 words comes out to be(like 1 page or half a page etc). I certainly can try to be short and succinct in my explanations but since I am not familiar with the text , and since there may be some sections that need a longer in depth treatment just to get a better rounded understanding of each others historical positions, would it be possible to as you say extend those responses when they come up? The other thing I would suggest is this. I have no idea how many parts there are to the confutio or the Augsburg response. Maybe it would be beneficial to do one round per each question for each of us? We can take it slow. What do you think of this? I have to confess I am ignorant of both documents so I will read what you write on them and try to understand them and respond charitably with my own knowledge and for the really hard issues I will try to link them with the Council of Trent which in our understanding was the infallible council that laid out many official Catholics doctrines definitively and answered the protestant objections(albeit sometimes in a harsh way). Is that ok?

Certainly, Trent is a valid resource; regardless of how harsh the rhetoric; I will be referring to the other documents of the Concordia. (The Fathers of Lutheranism were not exactly noted for being all warm and fuzzy in our confessions either! It was the norm of the times.

I regress, but I think we would all be further ahead if everyone were as frank as our forefathers.

The smaller word limit was at the suggestion of one of the advisers; hoping to stimulate more participation by regular members in the PG threads. I too did not know how many lines were 500 words; I do know in high school, I could whip off a 500 word paper in not time flat; even 2000 words was not a big deal... most days. The way it was defined back then was 5 characters(which included spaces) per word; 10 words per line. Using the default font size (this one) we have 140 characters per line; 140 / 5 = 28 words per line, which would be about 18 lines.Your quote above is about one line short of 500 words. Not enough.

For this discussion I'm going to set the limit at one page. If we type a response, and it won't post; then we need to trim. Since we can extend these discussions as we require, I don't see an issue with a page; points can be questioned and expanded upon in subsequent posts.

feel free to read my response to you in Cf for the rules and if your ok with that start the dialog whenever you want to. Thanks.

As per your note, I shall proceed.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Athanasias,

I have opened the formal debate here; posted references, and my opening post is up: Title: CHIEF ARTICLES OF FAITH - Article I - GOD, I am now opening the Peanut Gallery threads; and closing this one.