Catholics and Lutherans to worship together at Reformation anniversary

  • Thread starter Thread starter CopyBoy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
I think it safe to say that you and I are closer to Catholicism than either of our more liberal counterparts.

Jon
Click to expand...
I can second that having some experience with the APA and LCMS. WAY more faithful to the Scriptures.
 
Vico said:
Alright, that was in this item:
  1. Because they believe that they belong to the one body of Christ, Lutherans emphasize that their church did not originate with the Reformation or come into existence only 500 years ago. Rather, they are convinced that the Lutheran churches have their origin in the Pentecost event and the proclamation of the apostles. Their churches obtained their particular form, however, through the teaching and efforts of the reformers. The reformers had no desire to found a new church, and according to their own understanding, they did not do so. They wanted to reform the church, and they managed to do so within their field of influence, albeit with errors and missteps.
Click to expand...
Reuben_J said:
I think 222 will find huge problem among Catholics.
Click to expand...
Not to analyze this point to death, but I wonder if we would have an easier time convincing Lutheran brethren if we focus on the message “Your denomination(s) originated with the Reformation” rather than “Your church originated with the Reformation”.

(Not to exclude you Anglicans from the discussion, GKC. ;))
 
Peter_J said:
Not to analyze this point to death, but I wonder if we would have an easier time convincing Lutheran brethren if we focus on the message “Your denomination(s) originated with the Reformation” rather than “Your church originated with the Reformation”.

(Not to exclude you Anglicans from the discussion, GKC. ;))
Click to expand...
Again, thanks.
 
Other than forcing the Catholic church to examine it’s behavior and change, I don’t see what good came out of the Reformation. Unless there’s a way to do so without compromising on doctrine I don’t think this would be a good idea - for either community. At least being separate means each church is being honest with the other.
 
Starwarsfan2 said:
When have I ever said that ? No he’s not the anti christ , I’ve stated that I respect the veiw though . And that’s beside the point , what your doing is taking a small belief and making it the belief of the whole .
Click to expand...
You respect the view that the pope is the anti-christ? Really? I don’t see any union any time soon.
 
JonNC said:
You’re in schism from them, and us. Schism is two way. Not one way

Jon

PS. Triumphalism, OTOH, is one way, but can come from any direction
Click to expand...
Two way schism implies no center to break away from, and hence no ultimate judge of orthodoxy. People can become self righteous toward the other party, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not reflect this in its teachings, admitting fault on both sides. This doesn’t affect the reality of there being a visible Church that others have broken away from throughout history. To posit otherwise leads to relativism in doctrine and ecclesiology.
 
Peter_J said:
Not to analyze this point to death, but I wonder if we would have an easier time convincing Lutheran brethren if we focus on the message “Your denomination(s) originated with the Reformation” rather than “Your church originated with the Reformation”.

(Not to exclude you Anglicans from the discussion, GKC. ;))
Click to expand...
To use Catholic wording and understand it would be “your ecclessial community”.
 
Michael68 said:
You respect the view that the pope is the anti-christ? Really? I don’t see any union any time soon.
Click to expand...
What , I disagree with those who hold that view , but I recognize its a legitimate view , I’m not going to call them heretics .
 
Starwarsfan2 said:
What , I disagree with those who hold that view , but I recognize its a legitimate view , I’m not going to call them heretics .
Click to expand...
How is it a legitimate view? I’m not understanding. This view that the pope is the anti-christ is lunacy imo
 
Michael68 said:
All I’m sayin, and just speaking for me, I cannot be in “communion” with folks who hold this view
Click to expand...
The only option an individual Catholic, as a Catholic, has to determine who they are not in communion with is by himself/herself leaving or separating from communion. The Church tells me who I am in communion with or not in communion with – be it the Holy Father or the local bishop.
 
LordHaveMercy said:
Father it is not a matter of living in the past. The Church has 2000 years of history, it’s one of the greatest things about being Catholic.

Pope Paul VI was clear when he said “Now truly it is helpful to observe, that (although) through her Magisterium, the Church willed to define no primary extraordinary doctrine or dogmatic belief” (Paul VI, Homilia 'Promulgazione Alcuni Documenti Conciliari (December 7, 1965). The Fathers at Vatican II chose not to define any doctrine or moral matter, which is why “the binding force of what is taught under such conditions is subject to two considerations, viz. the authority by which it is taught and its congruity with the remote rule of faith vis. the tradition” (Fr. Chad Ripperger, Magisterial Authority). The binding force of the statements in *Unitatis Redintegratio *is subject to their congruity with the Church’s previous teachings on the same matters.

Above you say "To read what Pope John Paul II wrote as a continuation of Pope Leo XIII or Pope Pius XI would be a fundamental error."

“Popes are also bound by prior non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium which are taught in the tradition, unless they speak with a higher magisterial voice” (Fr. Chad Ripperger, Magisterial Authority). If Pope Saint John Paul II’s words are to be interpreted as breaking continuity with either *Satis Cognitum *or Mortalium Animo, both encyclicals, in a superseding manner, they would be made from a higher magisterial voice. Non-infallible Papal statements do not “supersede” previous non-infallible statements when made from the same magisterial voice.

Further “Greater weight is given when more than one pope speaks on an issue than when one pope speaks on an issue, unless the subsequent pope promulgates the teaching infallibly or in a manner which is of higher authority” (Fr. Chad Ripperger, Magisterial Authority) so if you are certain that Pope John Paul II’s words cannot be a continuation of Popes Leo XIII or Piux XI, then we cannot automatically presume the teachings of one Pope will supersede the teachings of more than one Pope.

Neither* Ut Unum Sint* nor Unitatis Redintegratio seek to define matters of faith and are not infallible teachings. We are required to give assent to them, but we must do so under the guidance of tradition and in continuity with previous teachings on the same issues with the same authority. Neither document presents new statements that are de fide, proximate to faith, theologically certain, doctrine, certain or safe (safe as in the theological term, I am not implying danger). As I have said, I find Pope St. John Paul II’s word edifying read them in continuity with his predecessors. However, if what you say is true and these statements cannot be read in continuity with tradition, then a faithful Catholic could give or refuse assent and not be guilty of being in heresy, error, proximate to error or temerarious either way.
Click to expand...
You are not correct, neither in what you propose nor in the conclusions that you draw.

However, I think you have ably demonstrated that responding to you serves no purpose for me and is valueless to you. It would, frankly, be a waste of my time and effort.

I will simply say in response: what you have written in this thread is not the thought of the Holy See or of the theological community…and that is what matters. It is the Magisterium that both safeguards the deposit of the faith and that interprets the teaching of the past in the light of the present day.

As a layman and a convert to Catholicism, you may read Ut Unum Sint and choose to see it in the light of anything you wish – but that does not mean that is how theologians, ecumenists and those who are actually engaged in these issues view the matter. For what it is worth to you, I can assure you that they don’t.

To close out this discussion: the writings you cite are not the framework for those about the present endeavors in Church unity, certainly not on the part of Rome nor on the part of the conferences of bishops throughout the world…which determine, in turn, the initiatives and work of the ecumenical office in your own diocese.

The thoughts expressed in Ut Unum Sint provide a beautiful and authoritative orientation that is distinctly different from those that preceded Vatican II. Previous dispositions have been overtaken by the mandates of the Council Fathers and the initiatives of the subsequent popes.

You may lament, as you did earlier in the thread, the truly wonderful outcome of the joint commemorations between Catholics and Lutherans next year, which will providentially follow in the wake of the Year of Mercy. That does not affect the fact that all this that is happening is the will of the Pope, that it is the will of the Holy See, that it is the course and the action that the Catholic Church is taking…in her relations with the Lutherans, with the Orthodox, with the Anglicans, and with others.

I hope you will choose to be part of it. I hope you are blessed to be in a diocese where, with and under your bishop, there will be many wonderful opportunities to jointly commemorate next year’s anniversary with our Lutheran brothers and sisters. I hope this will be so for all the dioceses in North America as it will be for those in Europe where the issues of division first arose and where, please God, the division will ultimately first be healed…in those very places scared by tragic history…in Rome, in Germany, and beyond.
 
Bless, Father.

I in no way claim to know or represent LordHaveMercy’s mind; but I think I can safely say that many of us on this thread have benefited from your knowledge and insights. Thank you. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top