An open question for Lutherans

[guanophore]

Has he repudiated any doctrine regarding the papacy?

No, but you clearly cannot prove your assertion that “he teaches” this doctrine.

When the pope decides to exert his supreme, full, immediate, and universal power for the care of your soul, do you have an option to disobey and remain in good standing?  If not, then you must submit to such authority.

We submit to His authority because we believe it was given to him by Christ, and we trust in the Lord with all our hearts.

That being said, the pope is not infallible in the sense that he is impeccable (cannot make a mistake or commit a sin). Infallibility refers to the negative gift that protects the Church from falling into error. It is meant to keep the doctrine pure.

The Holy Father may fail to make the best choice about how to feed and care for the flock (as a pastor) but he will not lead us through the gates of hell by teaching false doctrine.

Your post was equating his responsibility for pastoral duties to “infallibility” and this is an error.

Do you believe that Jesus charged Peter with the care and feeding of his flock?

 

[steido01]

No, but you clearly cannot prove your assertion that “he teaches” this doctrine.

You’re correct in that we’d be hard pressed to find a quote from Pope Francis teaching doctrines we find disagreeable. Just as difficult when it comes to Benedict, whose theology may come closest to Lutheranism than any pope yet. But our objections are not to the men in the office, who are certainly among the most excellent of shepherds in many of their pastoral duties. Our objections are to the claims of the office laid down by their medieval predecessors (Unam Sanctam, any number of Leo X’s bulls, etc.), and confirmed at Vatican I and the CCC. No modern pope has repudiated those disagreeable beliefs. This shows either an agreement with those beliefs or a toleration of them; whichever the case, false teaching is taking place.

I think that’s what House is getting at.

 

[commenter]

The sign in front of my former Roman Catholic parish proudly proclaimed that it was “Roman” Catholic. Also, the entire Catholic Church is headquartered in Rome.

The term “Roman Catholic” was used by Anglicans in the 1800s who were starting to identify themselves much more with the historic, sacramental heritage. So they called themselves as patriotic Anglo Catholics, to differentiate themselves from those others, who suspiciously followed a foreign monarch - those “Roman” Catholics. To this day, it tends to be used mainly in English speaking countries, only in places where the word “Catholic” has been taken by many other groups.

No one is just “Eastern Orthodox”. A person may belong to, for instance, the Serbian Orthodox Church. That Church ministers to people in Serbia, or in other countries where Serbs have migrated to. They don’t refuse persons who are not Serbs, but don’t go out of their way to evangelize them. Their church is closely tied to the heritage of a specific country (but primarily to the gospel, of course). Each of the EO churches has a specific identified cultural identity. Evangelization outside that culture is permitted, but limited.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman” in that sense. It evangelizes in Africa as readily as in Italy. Most Protestant denominations in the US are heavily “Americanized”. Yes they do send missionaries to other countries, but they are very much headquartered in the USA, with all the headquarters staff permanently from the USA, often reflecting one particular region or subculture of America. Protestant denominations in the US were either founded here from scratch, or else people from Europe gathered into their own American version, with, today, only the slightest relationship with their counterparts in other countries. They are American organizations, even if they have the term Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran in their title.

The Catholic Church’s headquarters are in Rome, but most leaders are not from Italy. The bishop of my diocese was appointed by the Pope, not by anyone in Washington. The Catechism I use, the Code of Canon Law my priest uses, had to be translated into English. How many Protestants today use a catechism that had to be translated into their own language? The Catechism also had to be translated into Italian, because it wasn’t written in Italian. Very few official church documents are.

The Catholic Church is not a denomination.

 

[Per_Crucem]

That is like saying that Jesus did not cooperate in his own circumcision. God set it up this way, so that children born to parents within the covenant are brought into the covenanat based upon the faith of their parents.

It seems to me that your parents, godparents, pastor and community were all cooperating in faith when you were baptized.

I mean the spiritual effects of baptism; regeneration, forgiveness of sins, etc. I did nothing to cooperate with that grace.

 

[guanophore]

I mean the spiritual effects of baptism; regeneration, forgiveness of sins, etc. I did nothing to cooperate with that grace.

No, but those who baptized you did. They cooperated with the Church, and the HS. They knew where the waterfall of grace was located, and they all participated in holding your tiny body under the stream.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

No, but those who baptized you did. They cooperated with the Church, and the HS. They knew where the waterfall of grace was located, and they all participated in holding your tiny body under the stream.

Well said

 

[Per_Crucem]

No, but those who baptized you did. They cooperated with the Church, and the HS. They knew where the waterfall of grace was located, and they all participated in holding your tiny body under the stream.

Yes. But we are talking on an individual level. No one denies that God’s grace works through external means (the sacraments, etc,.)

The argument from those who deny monergism is that the will of the individual must cooperate with the grace received in order for it to be efficacious. Baptism shows this to not be the case.

 

[guanophore]

Yes. But we are talking on an individual level. No one denies that God’s grace works through external means (the sacraments, etc,.)

Parents to all sorts of things to keep their children healthy and safe. They get them vaccinated, try to feed and raise them with the best of care, when they grow teeth they take them to the dentist (more if their instruction on toothbrushing is not being followed. They make them go to school and many other things, for their own good. Why would a parent to cared about the eternal soul of their child not give them the start in life possible? Before children reach the age of majority, and being able to take responsibility for their own lives their parents act on their behalf, legally, academically, medically, and spiritually.

The argument from those who deny monergism is that the will of the individual must cooperate with the grace received in order for it to be efficacious. Baptism shows this to not be the case.

It certainly is the case, with adults. Baptism can only be offered by the Church when a a profession of faith can be made. For children, the profession is made for them by their parents.

At confirmation, young people renew their baptismal vows, taking their own responsibility to live them out.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Parents to all sorts of things to keep their children healthy and safe. They get them vaccinated, try to feed and raise them with the best of care, when they grow teeth they take them to the dentist (more if their instruction on toothbrushing is not being followed. They make them go to school and many other things, for their own good. Why would a parent to cared about the eternal soul of their child not give them the start in life possible? Before children reach the age of majority, and being able to take responsibility for their own lives their parents act on their behalf, legally, academically, medically, and spiritually.

No disagreement there.

It certainly is the case, with adults. Baptism can only be offered by the Church when a a profession of faith can be made. For children, the profession is made for them by their parents.

In the case of an adult, they have been converted by the word of God no less than a child in baptism. No more or less. Just through a different external means.

At confirmation, young people renew their baptismal vows, taking their own responsibility to live them out.

In the case of a confirmand, they are already participating in the life of the baptized and are regenerate.

 

[Peter_J]

It seems to me that your parents, godparents, pastor and community were all cooperating in faith when you were baptized.

I don’t think anyone claimed that they weren’t.

I could be wrong of course … those Lutherans can be pretty wild.

 

[KjetilK]

I was referring to “particular churches” in the sense that KjetilK meant. NOT Churches that are in communion with the Pope. That’s why I had put the term in quotes. Please don’t fall into the trap of changing the meaning of a word or phrase to prove a point.

This just shows us that you have absolutely no grasp of what your own Church means by its terminology.

The PNCC, for example, is a particular church, according to your Church. The same goes for every Church, in or out of communion with the Roman Pontiff, possessing bishops with apostolic succession, celebrating a valid – not necessarily licit – Eucharist.

 

[KjetilK]

Being in communion with the Pope is not a requirement to be a “Church”, since the EO have Churches. But it is a requirement to be “Catholic Church”.

Not according to the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

How did you determine the Roman Catholic denomination was the correct one without relying at least in part on your own fallible opinion?

That’s certainly true. But once one comes to the conclusion that the Gospels are the Word of God, it follows that we must obey that Word. Hence, following the Church that Jesus started.

 

[pablope]

H

When the pope decides to exert his supreme, full, immediate, and universal power for the care of your soul, do you have an option to disobey and remain in good standing? If not, then you must submit to such authority.

How about changing some words and asking you the same question:

When the… pastor of House of Harkonnen…decides to exert his supreme, full, immediate, and universal power for the care of your soul, do you have an option to disobey and remain in good standing? If not, then you must submit to such authority.

Do you submit to your pastor’s authority or not?

 

[commenter]

The PNCC, for example, is a particular church, according to your Church. The same goes for every Church, in or out of communion with the Roman Pontiff, possessing bishops with apostolic succession, celebrating a valid – not necessarily licit – Eucharist.

I have read a few documents about “particular churches” from the Catholic view. None of them describe particular churches in any way that would include the PNCC. From the Catechism,

834 Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.”

(end quote from Catechism)

It is significant that individuals in a group may posses valid orders, and apostolic succession, and have valid Eucharist. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the group, right now, is a “particular church” from the Catholic view.

 

[guanophore]

I have read a few documents about “particular churches” from the Catholic view. None of them describe particular churches in any way that would include the PNCC. From the Catechism,

834 Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.”

(end quote from Catechism)

It is significant that individuals in a group may posses valid orders, and apostolic succession, and have valid Eucharist. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the group, right now, is a “particular church” from the Catholic view.

There are particular Churches, such as the PNCC, who are not yet in full unity with the Successor of Peter, yet are recognized as particular churches because they still retain the four marks of the Church (the Eastern Orthodox being the main one).

Each particular Church is “catholic”

832 “The Church of Christ is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of the faithful, which, in so far as they are united to their pastors, are also quite appropriately called Churches in the New Testament.… In them the faithful are gathered together through the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord’s Supper is celebrated.… In these communities, though they may often be small and poor, or existing in the diaspora, Christ is present, through whose power and influence the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is constituted.” (814; 811)

Catechism of the Catholic Church

DIOCESE: A “particular church,” a community of the faithful in communion of faith and sacraments whose bishop has been ordained in apostolic succession. A diocese is usually a determined geographic area; sometimes it may be constituted as a group of people of the same rite or language. In Eastern churches, an eparchy (833).

CAN. 370† A territorial prelature or territorial abbacy is a certain portion of the people of God which is defined territorially and whose care, due to special circumstances, is entrusted to some prelate or abbot who governs it as its proper pastor just like a diocesan bishop.

Code of Canon Law: New English Translation. (1998). (p. 120). Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America.

There is an interesting treatment of this from our Pope Emeritus on page 59 of this googlebook.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

There are particular Churches, such as the PNCC, who are not yet in full unity with the Successor of Peter, yet are recognized as particular churches because they still retain the four marks of the Church (the Eastern Orthodox being the main one).

No, they are deprived of at least one of the marks.

Each particular Church is “catholic”

832 “The Church of Christ is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of the faithful, which, in so far as they are united to their pastors, are also quite appropriately called Churches in the New Testament.… In them the faithful are gathered together through the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord’s Supper is celebrated.… In these communities, though they may often be small and poor, or existing in the diaspora, Christ is present, through whose power and influence the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is constituted.” (814; 811)

These are not what the Catholic Church refers to as “particular churches”

Catechism of the Catholic Church

DIOCESE: A “particular church,” a community of the faithful in communion of faith and sacraments whose bishop has been ordained in apostolic succession. A diocese is usually a determined geographic area; sometimes it may be constituted as a group of people of the same rite or language. In Eastern churches, an eparchy (833).

You should have gone on to paragraph 834:

834 Particular Churches are** fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.”**315 "For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord."316 Indeed, "from the incarnate Word’s descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior’s promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her."317

835 "Let us be very careful not to conceive of the universal Church as the simple sum, or . . . the more or less anomalous federation of essentially different particular churches. In the mind of the Lord the Church is universal by vocation and mission, but when she put down her roots in a variety of cultural, social, and human terrains, she takes on different external expressions and appearances in each part of the world."318 The rich variety of ecclesiastical disciplines, liturgical rites, and theological and spiritual heritages proper to the local churches "unified in a common effort, shows all the more resplendently the catholicity of the undivided Church."319

 

[guanophore]

 No, they are deprived of at least one of the marks.

All I can do is point you to your catechism.

ORTHODOX CHURCHES: Eastern Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church. Christians of the Orthodox Churches are separated from the Catholic Church (schism), yet are in an imperfect but deep communion with the Catholic Church by reason of our common Baptism, the profession of the Creed, and the possession of true sacraments by reason of the apostolic succession of their priesthood (838, 1399).

DIOCESE: A “particular church,” a community of the faithful in communion of faith and sacraments whose bishop has been ordained in apostolic succession. A diocese is usually a determined geographic area; sometimes it may be constituted as a group of people of the same rite or language. In Eastern churches, an eparchy (833).

You should have gone on to paragraph 834:

I am not denying that there are imperfections and wounds to unity that need to be healed. I am saying that there is more recognition of validity in these particular churches than you are giving credit.

There are some that still retain the four marks of the Church.

835 "Let us be very careful not to conceive of the universal Church as the simple sum, or . . . the more or less anomalous federation of essentially different particular churches. In the mind of the Lord the Church is universal by vocation and mission, but when she put down her roots in a variety of cultural, social, and human terrains, she takes on different external expressions and appearances in each part of the world."318 The rich variety of ecclesiastical disciplines, liturgical rites, and theological and spiritual heritages proper to the local churches "unified in a common effort, shows all the more resplendently the catholicity of the undivided Church."319

Well, there you go FKB. Here is an article that mentions several particular churches that retain the four marks of the Church.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

All I can do is point you to your catechism.

You can, but it would be better if you found a relevant portion of the catechism.

ORTHODOX CHURCHES: Eastern Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church. Christians of the Orthodox Churches are separated from the Catholic Church (schism), yet are in an imperfect but deep communion with the Catholic Church by reason of our common Baptism, the profession of the Creed, and the possession of true sacraments by reason of the apostolic succession of their priesthood (838, 1399).
This doesn’t say that they possess all four marks.

DIOCESE: A “particular church,” a community of the faithful in communion of faith and sacraments whose bishop has been ordained in apostolic succession. A diocese is usually a determined geographic area; sometimes it may be constituted as a group of people of the same rite or language. In Eastern churches, an eparchy (833).
Note that the examples given are all dioceses in various rites of the Catholic Church.

I am not denying that there are imperfections and wounds to unity that need to be healed. I am saying that there is more recognition of validity in these particular churches than you are giving credit.

Where am I not giving proper credit?

OTOH, while I respect your charitable devotion to ecumenism, some of your posts could be easily misconstrued to advocate indifferentism. We don’t want to go in that direction, either. You can fall off the ship on both the port & starboard side.

There are some that still retain the four marks of the Church.

None that are not in full communion with the Pope.

Well, there you go FKB. Here is an article that mentions several particular churches that retain the four marks of the Church.

Please point out which part of the article mentions the four marks.

Here is one that does:
Marks of the True Church

The only quibble I have with this article is that it calls the Church the “Roman” Catholic Church.