This story pops up every now and again. It is in vain that we try to explain that there is no point to lifting an excommunication from a dead man, when excommunication ends at the moment of death anyway.
But that misses the point. If we were honest, we would acknowledge that what Dr Gassmann is asking for in his call to “declare officially that its [the Catholic Church’s] excommunication of Martin Luther no longer applies” is a re-evaluation by the Church of the founding father of the school of theology to which Dr Gassmann belongs.
The fact is that that is a complicated business. We have seen that even with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, there is some question as to the exact degree of agreement that has been reached. (Chris Burgwald’s dissertation “The Sinfulness of the Justified” seems to offer enough evidence that, while the JDDJ does not actually succeed in doing what it claims to have done – ie. overcoming a “church-dividing” issue (if it had done so, why are we still divided?) – it does go some way to uncovering possible future directions along this line.)
On Saturday I am giving a lecture to our “School of Prayer” on Lutheran Spirituality. It may surprise some readers of this blog that in fact I often come across features in Catholic spirituality that are very close (if not identical) to Lutheran doctrine. Chris Burgwald cites one of them in his dissertation: St Therese of Lisieux’s statement
“In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in our eyes. I with, tehn, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.”
The simple fact is that such ideas are more often to be found in writings on spiritual theology rather than dogmatic theology, which points to the fact that the greater part of Lutheran doctrine was concerned with pastoral and experiental theology rather than objective and metaphysical theology.
My point is that there are certainly aspects of Luther’s theology which can and ought to be re-evaluated. Not only is there much in his theology which agrees with Catholic theology, but there is much that could bring greater insight into the Gospel and a more lively application of the doctrines of the faith in the lives of Catholic believers.
At the same time there are real errors in his theology which the Church will never be able to grant or re-evaluate positively. Luther is a tree on which there is rich and healthy fruit, but also some fruit that is infected and unhealthy.
Perhaps then, the first step towards “rehabilitating” Luther would be to adopt a somewhat more nuanced judgement, one which neither attempted to declare everything he taught to be heresy, nor attempted to raise him to the level of a doctor of the Church. We need to learn to make distinctions – something which I believe Dr Martin himself once declared was the core of the theological endeavour.
My personal judgement is that we should make a distinction between Luther’s spirituality and the specifically Lutheran doctrines that arose out of an application of that spirituality in a polemical attitude towards the Catholic Church. When I describe myself as “a Lutheran in communion with the bishop of Rome”, it is Lutheran spirituality, not Lutheran doctrine which characterises my Lutheran-ness. In every case of dogmatic theology, I submit to the teachings of the Catholic Church. But, when divorced from the polemics which surrounded them in the 16th Century, Luther’s spiritual insights are truly valuable. Luther’s theology of the Cross, his Christocentrism, his understanding of the Deus revelatus and Deus absconditus, even the famous “simul” (when understood as simul justus et concupiscentius – David Yeago is surely right when he points out that Catholics and Lutherans do not differ in their doctrine of concupiscence, only in their moral evaluation of it as sin “in the strict sense”) all give life and depth to the true faith of the Catholic Church.
I believe that the ultimate error of the Lutheran Church (and perhaps even Luther himself?) was to raise the deeply mystical insights of Luther’s spirituality to the level of public dogma – and then to rob it of all vitality by developing it into a scholastic system. How else was it possible for them to make the claim that “justification by faith alone” (which is ultimately a spiritual and mystical insight) was “the article” (ie. a dogmatic proposition) “on which the Church stands or falls”? It may very well be an insight upon which the individual believer’s relationship with God stands or falls (this is spiritual and pastoral theology) but can it be said to be the doctrine by which all other dogma is to be judged (this is dogmatic theology)?
It is ironic that the Lutherans allowed a mystical insight to trump the actual dogma of the Church, because Luther himself was a critic of mystics and enthusiasts who did not submit their ideas to the “external Word”. For Catholic spiritual theologians, the “external Word” is always that which the Church teaches. Personal mysticism submits to public magisterium.
All this being said, when Luther’s spiritual insights ARE submissive to the dogma of the Church, they have great benefit and great power. I for one would happily see a refreshed evaluation of these aspects of Luther’s teaching in the Church today.
CP,
As David said at the outset, excommunications are not lifted against the dead – they have, after all, already appealed such decisions at a Higher Tribunal.
It is as if Pope Honorius III died and went (via purgatory) to heaven, only to be demoted therefrom after his posthumous condemnation (for failing to act against the monothelite heresy) at one of the early Councils.
A family I know are quite Catholic, still offering up their prayers and sacrifices for the holy souls in purgatory – but if one of them does something silly or unfortunate, they say in jest, “All the souls went back to Purgatory!”
I think a sense of humour is a Catholic sine qua non: think of St Teresa of Avila – “God deliver me from silly devotions and sour-faced saints!” and (upon nearly being drowned) “Lord, if this is the way you treat your friends, no wonder you have so few!”
So what is it about St Bernard that so greatly appeals to Lutherans – PW, I know you like him; but I take it you would leave aside certain themes of his Marian sermons…
Dear Joshua,
St. Bernard’s devotion of the Holy Virgin obviously took a form at times that Lutherans are uncomfortable with. But how could we not love the man of whom we read, in the Life of Bernard, chapter 12:
“When he appeared to be drawing his last breath, as his mental powers failed, he seemed to be presenting himself before the tribunal of his Lord. But there was also present over against him Satan, assailing him with wicked accusations. But, when he had had his say, the man of God also had to speak on his own part. Undaunted and unperturbed, he said, ‘I confess that I am not worthy and that I cannot obtain the kingdom of heaven through any of my own merits. However, my Lord is obtaining it with a twofold right, namely, through the inheritance of the Father and by the merit of His suffering; with the one He is content, and the other He gives to me; because of this gift, since He vindicates this to me by right, I am not disturbed.’ By this word the enemy was routed.
I think Cardinal Pole is right when he said:
I think they knew quite well what Luther stood for; some of the propositions are extracted virtually word for word from, if I recall correctly, the 95 theses, and others come from remarks that Luther made at, if I recall correctly, the Leipzig disputation (these remarks were on the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils and Hussitism). I suspect that one could go through the list of propositions and match them to propositions in the writings and recorded remarks of Luther
Pope Leo was clearly acting in receipt of the facts.
No amount of subsequent ‘hand-washing’ will alter that.
Frank continues to delight:
Now tht’s true charity..I say along with Pope Leo cast out the Lutheran heresy.
More Far Right than right, however.
..and Pastor Weedon is simply correct:
But how could we not love the man of whom we read, in the Life of Bernard, chapter 12:
…
rantize: to post with excessive enthusiasm.
Josh, I will send you an article from the Concordia Theological Quarterly on Luther and Bernard.
Your Eminence, I am suggesting in fact that there IS something of spiritual value in Luther’s writings that you won’t find simply from reading post-Reformation Catholic spirituality – just as, I guess, one can say that there is stuff in St John of the Cross that you won’t find in St Francis De Sales. And yet, just because you don’t find it in St Francis doesn’t mean St John was wrong. Just so, Luther has insights that are not contrary to the Catholic faith and yet are not to be found exactly as such in other spiritual writers. One has to allow each their own genius in these matters – we are not dealing with dogmatic theology here, after all. Nevertheless, caution is always wise – even in some Catholic writers. Eg. reading some writings of Thomas Merton can be very beneficial – but I would recommend caution to the unwary there too!
As regards analysing Exsurge Domine, naturally this is something that will take more time (which I don’t have right now), but my first impression is that one will not get an accurate idea of Luther’s theology (either dogmatic or spiritual) from reading it. I, of course, as a faithful Catholic, assent to NONE of the propositions condemned in ED, but then I would posit that few actual Lutherans would recognise their own faith in the propositions which ED condemns. As for it shaping later formulations of Lutheran doctrine – I would not be surprised if later Lutheranism specifically avoided teaching the doctrines that Leo condemned in the form that he condemned them and hence that is the reason why I do not recognise them as being accurate representations of Lutheran doctrine. But I would have to check this out further.
And Frank, its a funny thing, but I find no difficulty with the formulations of the Counci of Trent – which are quite precise and also very nuanced in the way they state their case, always making sure that grace has the upper hand at all times – and yet I cannot bring myself to embrace what your friend Dr Ott sees as a simple precis of Trent. In fact, Ott seems to put his own emphasis into the matter. Which is not surprising – the same would happen if you or I attempted a synthesis of all Catholic doctrine. You and I would say what we thought it meant. Hence, Fr Damian’s advice is quite correct: always go to the original and most authoritative magisterial source on a matter.
Pastor Weedon,
I would say these “death bed confessions”, such as that of Bernard or Therese or even of Luther himself, are classic “Coram Deo” statements, rather than dogmatic statements about the doctrine of justification in general. Death seems to have a way of sharpening and narrowing one’s theological focus!
David,
But that is precisely the meaning of the doctrine of justification: it has to do with that coram Deo moment we will all face when everything else is stripped aside. As I like to say it, the Lutheran doctrine seeks to prepare you to die a blessed death in the confidence that he who knows how to do so will then understand how to live the blessed life.
Kind regards!
Correct again, Pastor.
To have no fear of death enables live to be lived.
Doctrine of Justification >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory of purgatory.
rester – God, Day 7
Why would you submit your personal mysticism to a public magisterium that has no knowledge of mysticism? What would they know?
Siddha jacky,I would say that the RCc Hierarchy does know and does have knowledge about mysticism. One only needs to read some of JPII’s writings to get a handle on that.
by the way you are writing gives me the impression of gnosticism
Frank quoted:
“Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them.” Seems to me that you exactly fall under Pope Leo’s condemnation and you are an official of the Church…..
Looks like you’re going down, David!
Looks like B16 is going with you!
(or to state the obvious: which Pope is wrong? )
Gnosticism! Perish the thought! Go and wash your mouth out!
Matthias, where does the church teach, systematically, the pathways to mystical experience? How can anyone pontificate (yes I know) about such matters when he has not experienced them himself?
Indeed, Vicci: which pope is wrong? This is what modernist Catholics refuse to face up to.
And Matthias, knowledge about mysticism is worlds away from mystical experience.
Pastor Weedon said: But that is precisely the meaning of the doctrine of justification: it has to do with that coram Deo moment we will all face when everything else is stripped aside.
I don’t think that is the way St Paul was arguing it in the letter to the Galatians, Pastor. There his concern seems much more to say how it is that Gentiles can have a claim to the inheritance that was promised to the sons of Abraham. Quite a different kettle of fish – although undoubtedly related on a different level of theology.
Vicci said (re Exsurge Domine): Looks like you’re going down, David! Looks like B16 is going with you!
Carlo responsed: Indeed, Vicci: which pope is wrong? This is what modernist Catholics refuse to face up to.
Well, Carlo, one could also say that this is something the Traditionalists refuse to face up to as well! :)
The simple matter is that neither is wrong. Leo acted in the way that he saw as pastorally responsible for his time (and he was right), Benedict acts in the way that he thinks is pastorally responsible for the very different situation today five hundred years later (and he is right too). Quite simply, Pope Leo’s authority to forbid the reading of Luther’s works does not apply beyond his pontificate.
Jacky said: knowledge about mysticism is worlds away from mystical experience.
I quite agree. It is just as true as to say learning about (eg.) philosophy is a different matter from doing it. What you say is not in contradiction to what I have been saying on this blog. No human being can intervene in the individual’s direct experience of the divine – except of course the man Christ Jesus without whom any true experience of the divine is impossible. That is not to say that the individual can therefore claim his own religious experience to be the supreme authority in his life – that would be gnosticism. Christians believe in the direct, mystical religious experience – that after all is what the work of the Holy Spirit is all about – but since Christianity is a communal religion in which the Church (ie. the body of Christ – there’s Christ in his human mediatorship again) has an essential role in the life of the Spirit, external authorities such as Scripture, Tradition, the Pope and the Magisterium all come into play.
Sorry Siddha Jacky but my experience of people with the same outlook as you -and I am only going by what you have said here-indicates that they want more and get disappointed when they discover that what is required is
-Acknowledgement that they are sinners
-That Christ has died for their sins and that He rose again and that they have faith by accepting Christ and His Atoning work.That we worship the Triune God by assembling with other Christians-an exoteric mystic approach but what you allude to is the esoteric which includes :
The various levels within catharism of adherent,believer and finally Perfect.
Sufism,where the sufi wants to be united with God . There are debates about Sufism as to whether it is science or mysticism
Interesting too that the word “mystical” in the Catholic tradition almost always refers to either the Church or the Eucharist (both called “the Mystical Body of Christ”). So, Jacky, mysticism yes, but external body, also yes. That’s what the difference is between Christianity and either Gnosticism or Eastern religions.
In other words David, it’s the same old story: you want to interfere in the direct experience and skew it an a particular direction (“the man Christ Jesus without whom any true experience of the divine is impossible”), which of course makes a complete nonsense of the experience itself. It is possible to talk about mystical experience in this way only if you don’t know what it is.
“That’s what the difference is between Christianity and either Gnosticism or Eastern religions.”
That’s the problem. Christianity has suppressed and persecuted mysticism for hundreds of years, and is now groping its way towards some feeble accommodation with it, without any real sense of what it is all about. It is largely foreign to Christianity (especially in its Western manifestations), which has always been much more comfortable with power and coercion. The Eastern religions, by contrast, have always been founded on it and have never really departed from that foundation.
A couple of points Matthias: “exoteric mysticism” is an oxymoron, and “mysticism/science” is a false dichotomy.
Siddha jacky refer to Wickepedia re Sufism. If you want to look east go for it,but mysticism that you say is not in Christianity has been there always eg Brother Lawrence,Thomas aKemphis,Richard Rolle,Julian of Norwich,Hildegaard of Bingum.
A Christianity accomodating to mysticism in the eastern sense or new age is no longer Christianity but syncretism-for Christ is removed.
Of course you’re right about the mystics throughout church history Matthias, but they have always been regarded with suspicion by church authorities and have often been disciplined and forced to recant statements they have made about their experiences.
The reason the church has had some mystics among its number is because the religion itself was founded, as all religions are in my opinion, on the direct experience of the divine, and there have always been a few who have held on to that knowledge despite the attempts of the church to suppress it. There may be no evidence to prove it, but I have little doubt that Jesus himself was the source of that knowledge, but he was certainly not the first or the last. I also have little doubt that he would not recognise the institution of the church as something he had founded.
That’s the problem. Christianity has suppressed and persecuted mysticism for hundreds of years, and is now groping its way towards some feeble accommodation with it, without any real sense of what it is all about.
Let’s see now, I could have mysticism OR I could have God-made-man. Hmmmm. Mysticism. Or God-made-man. Hmmmm. Tough choice!
(Assuming there it is even an either/or and not a both/and).
Whatever does God-made-man mean Louise?
but they have always been regarded with suspicion by church authorities… despite the attempts of the church to suppress it.
On the contrary, Jacky. The Catholic Church has always been a potent breeding ground for mystics precisely because of its dual nature, at once external and internal, both mystically invisible and starkly visible.
And of the names that Matthias quoted, Dame Julian gets into the Catechism. Not too suspicious, eh?
I know that this is not truly on the topic of the post, but:
I’ve been earnestly contemplating the claim of Ott that it is “de fide” that “Besides faith, further acts of disposition must be present.” The German reads, “Zum Glauben müssen noch weitere Dispositionsakte hinzukommen” which is probably better translated as “to faith must further acts of disposition be added” – this is clearly an attempt to summarise Trents teaching that faith, as understood by Trent, is insufficient for justification and that the exercise of free will by Adults is necesssary, namely their cooperation with God’s grace.
But, I can’t help but feel that Ott misses the mark in his summary – Trent talks nowhere of “ACTS of disposition.” Is it best described as an “act of disposition” to turn to consider the mercy of God or to hope that God will be propitious, or to love God as the fountain of all justice? Is purposing to receive baptism an action?
Further, Trent is concerned, here (in chapter 6 of the decree), as far as I can tell, not with what people must do to be justified but with how God justifies sinners. The particular chapter is full of the language of grace, of God who excites and assists the sinner to turn toward him, to repent of sin, to love him, to desire baptism and new life in and under him. To summarise the chapter only in terms of what is necessary on the part of man is deficient.
The same critique can be levelled at the summary “The sinner can and must prepare himself by the help of actual grace for the reception of grace by which he is justified.” If I were Ott, I would summarise chapter 5 of the decree ( and the 3rd and 4th canons) thusly, It is by the prevenient grace of God and the cooperation of man’s freewill with said grace that the sinner is disposed to seek to be justified.
Is trent dealing with Luther here or with Calvin?
Anyone know of an online source for the decrees and canons of Trent in Latin.
“God-made-man” ?
try Genesis?
soon after the bit about: “In the Beginning..”
(sorry, it’s Friday…)
dogma: bitch with pups
“The Catholic Church has always been a potent breeding ground for mystics…”
That is a truly extraordinary claim David. I repeat the question I put to Matthias earlier: where does the church teach, systematically, the pathways to mystical experience?
Good point Louise. But I am moving on to the next com box as i think Siddha jacky fails to understand that Christianity is about a relationship with God through Jesus His Son,and anyway the Church-whatever denomination,sorry Frank and Carlo- is fair game these days.”Religion” is out spiritual is in and has greater significance . ‘repentance” and “salvation” are not even considered. I have even seen the concept of Atonement nicely broken up into ‘At One Ment” and a new Age meaning attached. Ah… pass the incense er sorry Dark ale please Schutz
inyorendo: what happens when you break too quickly at traffic lights
And furthermore, how can an experience bound by rules and subjected to doctrinal scrutiny and institutional disciplines possibly be an experience of boundlessness, as true mystical experience must be?
Matthias, of course “repentance” and “salvation” are considered, they just have a different (and dare I say more profound) meaning than you allow. As to your comment “I have even seen the concept of Atonement nicely broken up into ‘At One Ment’…”, you are showing your ignorance here. Check the etymology of the word from Webster’s Online Dictionary:
atone
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
atoned; aton·ing
Etymology:
Middle English, to become reconciled, from at on in harmony, from at + on (one)
Date:
1574
Looks like those hippies were right on this one!
Yes i know what Atonement means and for us Christians it is being reconciled with God through Christ’s Death and Resurrection.
you just want to water down Christianity to suite your spiritual experience and cannot believe that Christ died for us whilst we were yet sinners-we still are yet forgiven.Which is why the people who blog here attend Confession and Mass or Holy Communion to maintain their relationship with the God Who is here and He is never,never Silent.
You have every right to hold your beliefs but i believe that you should have a look at salvation and repentance as we see it .
Mr SChutz as some here have noted Pope Leo’s Bull is enitirely correct in it’s estimation of the pernicious error of Luther. I am stunned that you can defend a man whose venality led him to urge the rapacious German nobles to flay the peasants, and who also according to the record was a vicious anti Jew. I will say this of Luther; he stands condemene and all that he brough to the Church was error and division. Next we’ll hear you telling us what agood chap Mahomet was!!!!!! ANd by the way on whose authority can you say that Pope Leo’s Bull is only for his lifetime. I tell you that the teachings of the Popes are for all Catholics and at all times.
Is trent dealing with Luther here or with Calvin?
It is answering both, Fr Damian. Luther said someplace that the unregenerate man is a “block of wood” with regard to free will – completely passive to the grace of God – before regeneration the will was “in bondage”. This is what the arguement with Erasmus was about.
Luther was dogmatically wrong, but rightly motivated if we keep in mind once again the distinction between “coram deo” theology and objective metaphysical theology. Luther was attempting to disqualify any person boasting in their own merits. Trent would have equally been aghast if anyone attempted to say that it was by their own merits that they came to faith. Nevertheless Luther was wrong to disqualify free will (as Trent decisively decided long after Luther was dead and gone). To do so finally ends up with Calvinistic double predestination: you are saved if God wants you to be and damned if God wants you to be and you don’t get a say in it: God is sovereign.
Jacky: And furthermore, how can an experience bound by rules and subjected to doctrinal scrutiny and institutional disciplines possibly be an experience of boundlessness, as true mystical experience must be?
If you knew the heart of man truly, Jacky, you would know that true freedom does not come from freedom from “rules”, “disciplines” etc. Can I suggest you have a read of Papa Benny’s address to the Roman Seminary? You will find the link to it here: http://cumecclesia.blogspot.com/2009/02/pope-on-freedom-of-christian.html.
Please read it and tell me what you think of it. It is authentic Christian teaching on the nature of freedom.
The Church has a long and glorious history of teaching in the area of mysticism, but has not systematised it for precisely the reason you point out – you cannot make one person’s path of spiritual experince normative for all. Objective truth, on the other hand, is normative for all.
Thus in personal experience there is freedom and in community there is submission.
Matthias it is well said what you wrote, I would put it simpler to jacky : Consider the claims of the Catholic Faith and accept them for they only are the Truth and all men must be subject to Holy Roman Pontiff.
Here’s a puzzle for you, Frank.
You condemn any who have read Luther on the basis of Pope Leo X’s bull Exsurge Domine.
You claim that Exsurge Domine is an accurate portrayal of Luther’s writings.
Pray tell, how is this possible if you have not read him? If you have read him, are you not condemned?
Mr Schutz now we have Luther dogmatically wrong but “rightly motivated”…….please spare us….is that what led him to forsake the cloister and cohabit with a nun?
I can condemn Luther BECAUSE the Pope comndemns him. As they say these days that’s Catholicism 101 and it is fundamental Catholic belief, you don’t need to swim in the sewer to know it stinks.
David,
Thanks for the clarification re free will. Its years since I read documents related to the Erasmus – Luther debate…. I’ve forgotten sso much
Frank,
It is very possible to be wrong for the right reason. You’re still wrong, but it is somewhat more understandable.
You can certainly feel justified in condemning Luther because of the condemnation of Pope Leo X if you like. What you cannot do is assess whether Pope Leo X had an accurate handle on what Luther was on about and whether what Leo condemned was in fact what Luther taught. You can only learn if that is true by studying Luther. Condemnations in the past have been overturned on the basis of scientific investigation, you know. Remember Gallileo?
And here’s a thought: the rather stringent prohibition of reading Luther’s books seems to me to be something new to the Catholic world. In fact, the free availability of books WAS very new – thanks to the invention of the printing press not fifty years earlier. Luther monopolised on this invention. He set up shop in the local printing house. He was a new kind of heretic – the kind whose views were spread by through writing rather than through preaching. Leo’s attempt to shut down Luther by forbidding people to read his books is the equivalent to calls for Internet filters these days. Understandable but ultimately in vain (as the doomed Index of Prohibited books goes to show). Interesting if you look up the Index in the 1911 CAtholic Encyclopedia. You get this entry:
“The Index of Prohibited Books, or simply “Index”, is used in a restricted sense to signify the exact list or catalogue of books, the reading of which was once forbidden to Catholics by the highest ecclesiastical authority.” My emphasis. I wonder if the prohibition of Exsurge Domine can likewise be seen to have “once” applied?
Wikipedia says that “The Index Librorum Prohibitorum (“List of Prohibited Books”) was a list of publications prohibited by the Roman Catholic Church. It was abolished on June 14, 1966 by Pope Paul VI.”
Do you know if Luther’s works were on the banned list? If they were, can we assume that Paul VI has overturned Leo X?
Yes, I just checked here:
http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/search/censored_publications/result.html?author=&cauthor=&title=&country=8052&language=&censored_year=&censortype=&published_year=&censorreason=&sort=au&page=214
All of Luther's works were on the Index. Pope Paul VI has removed the Index. Hence we can read Luther's works. Poor old Pope Leo X and Exsurge Domine not withstanding.
Next question, does anyone know the document in which Pope Paul VI suppressed the Index? I can’t find it..,
Mr Schutz you seem far too interested in the pestiferous Luther for my taste. Your sr on the Index proves nothing. You seek to criticise Pope Leo when you know full well that if Luther and his cohort had obeyed you would ahve been a Catholic and not a heretic having to convert! Why are you so insistent on justifying a heretic? Why do you think that you know beter than Pope Leo did? Mr SChutz you and I are laity and NOT the Pope. I understand your mixed marriage situation but I feel that you do a whole lot better by burying old Luther and his rot. In the words of a wonderful old irish priests many years bac’ ” what do we owe the protestants? Absolutley nothing!”
‘Siddha jacky fails to understand that Christianity is about a relationship with God through Jesus His Son.’
Matthias, I don’t wish to be indelicate but I feel duty-bound to inform you that Jesus is dead, and the possibility of a personal relationship with him has long since passed.
‘If you knew the heart of man truly, Jacky, you would know that true freedom does not come from freedom from “rules”, “disciplines”…’
You misunderstand me David. I am fully aware of the need for rules and disciplines in the spiritual life. What is antipathetic to progress on the mystical path, however, is the sense that one can’t trust one’s own experience unless it is filtered through the interpretations of others. And what kills it stone dead is being told that it must conform to a set of predetermined conditions before it can be accepted as genuine. (“No human being can intervene in the individual’s direct experience of the divine – except of course the man Christ Jesus without whom any true experience of the divine is impossible.”)
The truth is that no formula, no form of words, no hierarchy, no imaginal being, no learning however profound, no theology, nothing whatsoever in the phenomenal world has the power to contain, restrict or define this experience, but they all have the power to destroy it, and they have been busily doing exactly that, unwittingly or otherwise, for a very long time.
Furthermore, I was not suggesting that the church should systematise its teaching about mysticism, but rather that it needs to approach its practice in a systematic fashion. There is a big difference.
I’m with Frank on the Luther question. The Church has said all that needs to be said about him, and there is no point in trying to rehabilitate the reputation of a man who was the most notorious heretic in Church history and who is already burning in Hell for all eternity.
On Hell: Pope John Paul II
Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it. The thought of hell — and even less the improper use of biblical images — must not create anxiety or despair, but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom within the proclamation that the risen Jesus has conquered Satan, giving us the Spirit of God who makes us cry “Abba, Father!” (Rm 8:15; Gal 4:6).
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999_en.html
Thank you Frank for your comments.It is people like you and others here,including our host, who are the defenders of the Historic Christian faith and have no patience with a watered down faith. Judging by the name “Siddha” perchance there is a Buddhist influence there. Perhaps I am wrong on that point.Siddha Jacky you have highlighted the difference between you and me,and others on this blog,-your rejection of Jesus as the Resurrected Lord.I think you have stated your case clearly,need we argue anymore?