Matt Black Posted April 11, 2005 Author Share Posted April 11, 2005 [quote name='Archangel' date='Apr 9 2005, 02:17 AM'] Here's an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding the Council of Trent which was held in response to the Protestant heresies. [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm[/url] I guess bureaucracy moved slowly back then, and so the council did not convene until a year before Luther's death in 1546. [/quote] Yes, I'm aware of Trent, but I'm not sure it can be considered a General Ecumenical Council since the Orthodox were not represented. Also, why were no Lutherans present? To my mind, that was like having just the Arians or just the Catholic-Orthodox sides present at Nicaea I or Constantinople; it was one-sided and did not present an ecclesial consensus. This was particularly tragic,since when Catholics and Lutherans did finally manage to sit down together in the late 20th century, they were able to agree on a mutually acceptable definition of sola fide at Augsburg in 1999; what a pity this could not have been hammered out by them at Augsburg in 1530! Yours in Christ Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archangel Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 Were any other Protestant denominations or the Orthodox present at Augsburg in 1999? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Black Posted April 12, 2005 Author Share Posted April 12, 2005 No, good point; it was not ecumenical in that sense. But it did demonstrate that the rift could be healed and some kind of mutually acceptable accommodation reached between Catholics and Lutherans. I'm just saying that if that was done in 1999, it could have been done in theory in 1520-1, and saved us all a Lot of Bother Yours in Christ Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archangel Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 It would have been better if Luther had stayed within the Church rather than going off and starting his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Black Posted April 12, 2005 Author Share Posted April 12, 2005 Hang on a mo - didn't the Church excommunicate him? I'm not sure that he really had a lot of choice about it once that decision had been made Yours in Christ Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 The Church has participated in much Lutheran and Anglican dialogue. I'm reading one book on it now called ""Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in Ecumenical Dialogue" And the Church eventually was forced to excommunicate him, but not before trying their best to talk to him. He was paranoid and mentally instable. He initiated his removal from the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now