Unfortunately, yes to both. Conservative Lutherans do not hold those views.
Lutherans and Episcopalians accept same sex marriage, but Methodists do not iirc.
As for abortions, abortions are unacceptable at least until the life of the mother is threatened, in the case of rape or incest, or the baby has severe abnormalities and couldn’t live, per all three.
Some Lutherans…I don’t think Missouri or Wisconsin Synod would. As far as I know.
My apologies, but that was not my intent if you are referring to me.
The only information you gave about the meaning of dialogue was that Chesterton and Lewis et alia did not practise it. I asked why you say they did not dialogue, not because I thought they did, but to find out what you mean by dialogue.
For the record, Lewis was very much a practitioner of dialogue, Chesterton not so much, imo. But what I think is not the question, I was trying to find out how you judge if someone practices dialogue.
Of course not. That concept is not in keeping with Christ’s own words in Mark 10
How about ELCA?
It’s actually even worse than that , IIRC. Not gay marriage, but “committed relationships”, even of pastors.
The grew up in the LCA and ELCA, and watched them move away from scripture and the confessions.
The ELCA now has a bishop affirming polyamory. Another proud moment for the ELCA, I guess.
Wonder if they’ll be as progressive as Canada someday.
They do. But they also have literal goddess worship at one of their churches. They have gone off the deep-end.
People use the term “Ecumenical” too loosely nowadays.
Ecumenical dialogue involves partners within the range of Christian doctrinal orthodoxy, or what Lewis called Mere Christianity; participants holding to the Natural Law, belief in the historic core of dogma and morality.
This includes RCC, EO, LCMS, Anglican Continuum, and some groups within historical or Evangelical Protestantism, open to Christian Tradition, and prolife.
This does not include the majority of mainline Protestantism. They don’t have enough fixed doctrine, are too fixed on the secular culture. It also does not include groups such as Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses, for other reasons.
The Church can cooperate with Mormons and ELCA on a food pantry, and avoid inter group attacks.
By definition it only includes baptized Christians. As Cardinal Kasper put it when in charge of ecumenism:
The ecumenical dialogue and the interreligious dialogue are connected and overlap, but are not identical with each other another. There is a specific, qualitative difference between them and, therefore, they should not be confused. Ecumenical dialogues are not only based on the tolerance and respect due for every human and religious conviction; nor are they founded solely on liberal philanthropy or mere polite courtesy; on the contrary, ecumenical dialogue is rooted in the common faith in Jesus Christ and the reciprocal recognition of baptism, which means that all the baptized become members of the one Body of Christ (cf. Gal 3,28); I Cor 12,13; Ut unum sint, n. 42) and can pray the"Our Father" together, as Jesus taught us. In other religions the Church recognizes a ray of that truth “that enlightens every man” (Jn 1,9), but is revealed in its fullness only in Jesus Christ; only he is “the Way, the Truth and the Life” (Jn 14,6; cf. Nostra aetate, n. 2). It is therefore ambiguous to refer to interreligious dialogue in terms of macro-ecumenism or of a new and vaster phase of ecumenism.
Christians and the followers of other religions can pray, but cannot pray together. Every form of syncretism is to be excluded.
In as much as Vatican II defined the point of ecumenism as seeking the corporate reunion of all communities of baptized Christians, it applies to them all, no matter their other errors. However, certain forms of cooperation and “spiritual sharing” have been accepted for some groups, while excluded for certain “sects and new religious movements.” (See pars. 35-36 from the Directory for Ecumenism).
That’s how the Church’s ecumenism officials approach it anyway. Personally, I agree with you that certain forms of Protestantism, despite retaining a historical institutional continuity, now act more like “sects and new religious movements” and sometimes vice versa.
When reading documents on Ecumenism from the 1960s keep in mind the mainline denominations then were mostly orthodox. When the Vatican referred to dialogue among “baptized Christians”, they assumed “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”.
They assumed adherance to Creeds, assumed fellow believers in the Natural Law. They took for granted the same ancient New Testament, with no modern additions, whether the Book of Mormon or Gospel of Mary (added now by some).
True. Most mainline denominations have moved more evangelical and beyond today.
My understanding from Vatican II documents on the subject of ecumenical dialogue. An ecumenical dialogue can happen between the Latin Catholic Church amd the Orthodox churches plural.
A dialogue between Catholics and non Catholic Christians petains to reconciliation. On the grounds that protestant main line churches SEPARATED from tbeir Mother Church.
I am greatly encouraged by the 16 churches working and praying together in our town. The church ministers, including our Catholic priests meet and pray together monthly. Amazing things keep happening, we have opened up four houses for the homeless, a basics food bank, debt solutions, addiction recovery courses, good neighbours and Street Pastors to name but a few shared ministries.
The power of unity overcomes many problems, no single church in our town could do these things on their own.