Declaration of Pope Francis and Archbishop Justin Welby

[GKC]

Perhaps instead of women priests or women “priests” we should follow your lead and call them FISVs.

The wind and weather sounds awful (it’s a lovely day over here, so yaboo)

I’ll contribute FISV, to join motley as descriptor, available to all who desire it.

The W&W is a mixed bag, locally. Some serious, but I’ve only got a nuisance to deal with, so far. I have more property to examine, though. I’ll know this afternoon.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I’ll contribute FISV, to join motley as descriptor, available to all who desire it.

The W&W is a mixed bag, locally. Some serious, but I’ve only got a nuisance to deal with, so far. I have more property to examine, though. I’ll know this afternoon.

Good luck!

 

[commenter]

It’s misleading to quote popes out of context. People on this thread have been quoting papal statements on ecumenism. I agree, those quotes call us to be respectful of other religious traditions, and to explore cooperation wherever realistically possible.

Those same popes have also spoken directly and explicitly on trends in the world over the last few decades, some good, some very harmful - even some claimed to be Christian. Some harmful trends are intellectual, some are moral. These same popes have encouraged Catholics (and non-Catholics) - not to judge persons, but to judge what is right or wrong, and to fight for what is right; in charity.

A denomination drastically changes their worship services. I may not like it, but that is an internal decision. But suppose a denomination supports acceptance of things that the popes (and their own former leaders) say we have a responsibility to actively resist? Obviously it right to oppose Richard Dawkins if he supports legal abortion (as an atheist), but then is it wrong to oppose him if he joins the C of E next week, and uses the Bible to support legal abortion as Christian justice?

I can’t judge the man who lives next door, who drinks excessively. Only God can. I keep open communication with him. But I use prudent judgement. If I need a driver for our youth ministry activities, I might choose someone else. If he serves alcohol to minors, I would address that with him that it is wrong, and encourage my own, and other youth, to go somewhere else for parties. If I find out he is in another denomination, that would not justify my passivity. It would not mean I should then be indifferent to the plight of his own wife and kids, since they are Methodist, and I am not.

The popes do encourage seeking out positives in all people. But do not quote the popes in such a way as endorsing passivity as citizens.

 

[Peter_J]

Might I ask a question for further clarification? Are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church, bottom line, should not and does not hold other branches of the Christian Church to Catholic standards?

If you’ll excuse me for butting in, I would respond: First, this question is ambiguous. Second, if someone asked e.g., Was Anglicanorum coetibus an attempt to convert Anglo-Catholics to RCism, as some kind of punishment against the Anglican Communion for not following Catholic standards? the answer would be No absolutely not. It was a way of making accommodation to Anglo-Catholics who *wanted *to become RC of their own volition.

 

[Peter_J]

Your point on females in sacerdotal vestments is one I had thought of making myself. But I’ve been distracted by wind and weather.

Notwithstanding PP’s response, I’m glad you didn’t use the phrase “laying hands on hairspray”.

 

[GKC]

Notwithstanding PP’s response, I’m glad you didn’t use the phrase “laying hands on hairspray”.

I whispered it to myself.

 

[GKC]

If you’ll excuse me for butting in, I would respond: First, this question is ambiguous. Second, if someone asked e.g., Was Anglicanorum coetibus an attempt to convert Anglo-Catholics to RCism, as some kind of punishment against the Anglican Communion for not following Catholic standards? the answer would be No absolutely not. It was a way of making accommodation to Anglo-Catholics who *wanted *to become RC of their own volition.

Indeed.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

How can we say that your belief on certain issue is not heresy if we really think they are from our point of view?

Because heresy is not a matter of a point of view of an individual…it is a specific delict, which is both treated and adjudicated by Canon Law.

The matter is moreover further elucidated by Unitatis Redintegratio when the Council Fathers said
This Sacred Council is gratified to note that the participation by the Catholic faithful in ecumenical work is growing daily. It commends this work to the bishops everywhere in the world to be vigorously stimulated by them and guided with prudence.
Thus laity’s pronouncement on what is and what is not conformed to the Church’s mind on ecumenical matters must do so by referencing the mind of the Pope and of PCPCU first and foremost and then the Bishops.

For Americans, this can be done through the ecumenical office of one’s own diocese or through the Secretariat of Ecumenical and Inter-religious Affairs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/

And, as far as the laity are concerned, this is made all the more explicit in the dispositve document *The Directory for the Application for Principles and Norms on Ecumenism:
*
Catholics need to act together and in agreement with their Bishops. /…/ They should also have accurate knowledge of the other Churches and ecclesial Communities with whom they are in contact. Careful note must be taken of the various prerequisites for ecumenical engagement that are set out in the Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council.
So, no, in fact one may not say that someone is speaking heresy for articulating a position that the Holy Father, the Holy See and the bishops have said is not applicable to the canonical delict.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

If you’ll excuse me for butting in, I would respond: First, this question is ambiguous. Second, if someone asked e.g., Was Anglicanorum coetibus an attempt to convert Anglo-Catholics to RCism, as some kind of punishment against the Anglican Communion for not following Catholic standards? the answer would be No absolutely not. It was a way of making accommodation to Anglo-Catholics who *wanted *to become RC of their own volition.

I’m afraid I have lost the sense of how we went from the question that was posed to me to Anglicanorum coetibus.

Anglicanorum coetibus was, ultimately, the fruition in 2009 of something began almost three decades before, in the days of Cardinal Šeper of blessed memory…that is just prior to the arrival at the CDF of Cardinal Ratzinger. The matter then resulted in a pastoral provision in favour of the petitioners, which was first entrusted by the dicastery to the then Bishop of the Diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau. Out of that initiative ultimately came Anglicanorum coetibus.

The evocation of this well remembered event here, frankly, I do not understand

 

[Peter_J]

Anglicanorum coetibus was, ultimately, the fruition in 2009 of something began almost three decades before, in the days of Cardinal Šeper of blessed memory…that is just prior to the arrival at the CDF of Cardinal Ratzinger. The matter then resulted in a pastoral provision in favour of the petitioners, which was first entrusted by the dicastery to the then Bishop of the Diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau. Out of that initiative ultimately came Anglicanorum coetibus.

 

[commenter]

Because heresy is not a matter of a point of view of an individual…it is a specific delict, which is both treated and adjudicated by Canon Law.

The matter is moreover further elucidated by Unitatis Redintegratio when the Council Fathers said
This Sacred Council is gratified to note that the participation by the Catholic faithful in ecumenical work is growing daily. It commends this work to the bishops everywhere in the world to be vigorously stimulated by them and guided with prudence.
Thus laity’s pronouncement on what is and what is not conformed to the Church’s mind on ecumenical matters must do so by referencing the mind of the Pope and of PCPCU first and foremost and then the Bishops.

For Americans, this can be done through the ecumenical office of one’s own diocese or through the Secretariat of Ecumenical and Inter-religious Affairs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/

And, as far as the laity are concerned, this is made all the more explicit in the dispositve document *The Directory for the Application for Principles and Norms on Ecumenism:
*
Catholics need to act together and in agreement with their Bishops. /…/ They should also have accurate knowledge of the other Churches and ecclesial Communities with whom they are in contact. Careful note must be taken of the various prerequisites for ecumenical engagement that are set out in the Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council.
So, no, in fact one may not say that someone is speaking heresy for articulating a position that the Holy Father, the Holy See and the bishops have said is not applicable to the canonical delict.

Every bit of this post is important. I bolded one sentence because I believe there is a tendency for people to zero in on one thing - ecumenism - and ignore other things, like the statements of recent popes and American, and other nations’ bishops regarding citizenship. Thus it is relevant to fairly assess institutional positions on abortion, marriage, and other areas, even if they happen to be religious denominations. It is “in union with the bishops” for laity to take those positions into account, as they decide on which denominations to be ecumenical with.

 

[Shirtless]

Every bit of this post is important. I bolded one sentence because I believe there is a tendency for people to zero in on one thing - ecumenism - and ignore other things, like the statements of recent popes and American, and other nations’ bishops regarding citizenship. Thus it is relevant to fairly assess institutional positions on abortion, marriage, and other areas, even if they happen to be religious denominations. It is “in union with the bishops” for laity to take those positions into account, as they decide on which denominations to be ecumenical with.

So, with all due respect, do you propose to lecture the Pope on the requirements of canon law? And assuming for the sake of argument he is wrong, who is to tell him so? A more colloquial expression is “being more Catholic than the Pope.”

 

[commenter]

So, with all due respect, do you propose to lecture the Pope on the requirements of canon law? And assuming for the sake of argument he is wrong, who is to tell him so? A more colloquial expression is “being more Catholic than the Pope.”

I don’t disagree with Pope Francis, nor with other recent popes, all of whom supported ecumenism. I support ecumenism myself.
If you read the pro-ecumenism, pro pope-and-bishops post I was responding to, I even said all of it is not only true, but important.
But I highlighted one sentence, about being in union with our bishops (and popes). Those same bishops and popes who support the principle of ecumenism, have also called laity to respond on other things, as citizens. If trends identified by popes as evil are encouraged by certain denominations, and opposed by other denominations, it is prudent to take that data into account. Many Catholics, guided by statements of the popes and bishops, are calling for greater efforts to collaborate with LCMS, ACNA, and the Continuum.

 

[Peter_J]

Those same bishops and popes who support the principle of ecumenism, have also called laity to respond on other things, as citizens.

I have been thinking about making that same point … although I also feel like it shouldn’t even need to be said.