Divorced Catholics, LGBT ‘Embraced’ at First-in-Nation Synod in San Diego

[billy15]

There’s no back tracking going on here. I don’t regret saying anything. This issue of the one true Church of Christ has several facets. I’m an actual person at the other end of your computer screen, and we’ve only interacted with each other in a few posts. I’m being completely honest and not “backtracking”. I’m invoking the statements and teachings of the Church, because… “I’m a son of the Church”! Just like Pope Francis is! I can love my separated brothers and sisters in Christ, and still hope for them to return to, or be received for the first time, into the Catholic Church.

I’m not using condemning language, and neither did the Popes and bishops that have used the term “heretic” throughout the centuries. I gave the definition. Luther fits the bill. Lutherans born and raised in their faith do not. Division comes from the devil. The Catholic Church and the Lutherans are divided today. The “condemning language” you say I’ve used comes from the Gospels and Paul’s letters, so you’d have to accuse them of the same as well. Read Mark 8, specifically verse 44 to see what our Lord says about falsehood. Either Christ’s Church was built on Peter or it wasn’t. We are saved by grace through faith and good works or we are not. One is true, the other is false.

You say: “My point is that we should join the Pope in doing the second, and let the first go.” Really? We should gloss over our differences when souls hang in the balance? Why does it have to be one of the other? Why can’t we do both; focus on the commonalities AND the differences? I’d like to know what you think the ultimate, end goal of ecumenism is. The answer should be complete reunion with one of the two sides. See the Anglican Ordinate within the Catholic Church for ecumenism fully realized. Again, focusing solely on the commanalities, as you would like, or focusing solely on the differences (as you have inaccurately characterized me) are wrong headed in ecumenism. It leads to a sort of quasi-universalism. We need to remember both when having dialogue, and work to make action that results in a full reunion and communion of both sides.

I’m done here in this thread. If you want to continue the conversation, TMC, feel free to message me so we can learn more about each other and our faith traditions, as I don’t know what yours even is, and it’s hard to tell where you’re coming from. I’m always open to dialogue, and just like Pope Francis, I will not have forgotten the hard truths. There are sad divisions in the Body of Christ that keep us all from full communion, but they shouldn’t stop the proclamation of the Truth and a resolve to heal those wounds.

 

[Convert_in_99]

How can you call someone a heretic and suggest they are working with Satan and not call that hostile? is that not condemning language? I can tell you a charge of heresy is not generally received positively. You now say you did not try to connect Luther with Satan, but that is exactly what you did. You said that Lutheranism was based on lies, and said we should remember who is the father of lies. What else does that mean? Perhaps you now regret doing so, but those were your words, not mine.

Now you seem to be retreating to a more ecumenical position, in part by invoking the teachings and statements of the Church, but it is the Church that is seeking closer relations with Lutherans (which has been criticized in this thread and elsewhere). It is also the Church that has named Luther “Witness of Jesus Christ.” Do you think the Pope has forgotten the “hard truths,” as you put it?

At the end of the day, we can focus on negativity, differences, and 500 year old grievances. Or we can do what the Pope is doing and focus on commonalities and working together. My point is that we should join the Pope in doing the second, and let the first go.

Yep.

 

[TCEL]

You say: “My point is that we should join the Pope in doing the second, and let the first go.” Really? We should gloss over our differences when souls hang in the balance? Why does it have to be one of the other? Why can’t we do both; focus on the commonalities AND the differences? I’d like to know what you think the ultimate, end goal of ecumenism is. The answer should be complete reunion with one of the two sides. See the Anglican Ordinate within the Catholic Church for ecumenism fully realized. Again, focusing solely on the commanalities, as you would like, or focusing solely on the differences (as you have inaccurately characterized me) are wrong headed in ecumenism. It leads to a sort of quasi-universalism. We need to remember both when having dialogue, and work to make action that results in a full reunion and communion of both sides.

Precisely. It’s much more realistic and charitable. I mean, this is communication 101 in marriage; one can’t just cover stuff over or sweep it under the rug and expect it to go away. That’s not real communication. And it certainly doesn’t mean one has to swing to the opposite extreme and be a jerk. This really is common sense.

 

[Thorolfr]

If Luther were in heaven right now he would admit he was a staunch heretic and that his actions lead to countless division. He would want all his followers to become Catholics as soon as possible. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. To play Luther and the heretics(Arius, Jansen, ex.) as heroes is scandal and to “celebrate” their heretical actions is even worse.

Thank goodness for Luther or I’d probably be Catholic right now and I really do prefer being a Lutheran.

 

[dans0622]

Dan:

I confess that I am having trouble understanding.

In your position, you would, of course, receive the communiques from PCTL. When PCTL communicates, I presume and trust that your immediate response is to instantly comply. We would surely agree that no other response would be appropriate.

The issues you query me about have been run through PCPCU since 1983…and before. The response is that we are to have the orientation and the mind of PCPCU and, actually, that of ITC for these matters.

Would you not agree?

It depends on what the response is. Some are obviously more authoritative than others. Some are public and some are private. Etc. I’ve seen a response or two from the Cardinal at Legislative Texts that make little to no sense to me. … Anyway, in general, I think it is worthwhile to maintain distinctions between what a Pope says and what a dicastery says, what a commission says, what a prefect says, etc…

I’d always want to maintain a distinction between, for example, a Pope declaring doctors of the Church and the title or subtitle of a document of a Lutheran/Catholic commission, and commentary therein. In so doing, I think I can still have an appropriate orientation.

Dan

 

[2PT3]

Precisely. It’s much more realistic and charitable. I mean, this is communication 101 in marriage; one can’t just cover stuff over or sweep it under the rug and expect it to go away. That’s not real communication. And it certainly doesn’t mean one has to swing to the opposite extreme and be a jerk. This really is common sense.

I sometimes wonder if we are moving into a phase in which Christian “unity” is considered the highest value. That is, where insisting on “truth” is considered to be a stumbling block to “unity” and where so-called truths that stand in the way of unity may be re-evaluated because they do not serve the greater value.

Of course, no one would openly admit this - and probably no one they even believes that this is what they are doing - but I do wonder if this is the practical reality we are dealing with - i.e., the view that God wants Christian unity more than anything else, and that those things which stand in the way of unity must be considered expendable. Or at least, where the desire for unity is so great that things formerly considered essential will be set aside.

Where does that lead?

 

[JimG]

I sometimes wonder if we are moving into a phase in which Christian “unity” is considered the highest value. That is, where insisting on “truth” is considered to be a stumbling block to “unity” and where so-called truths that stand in the way of unity may be re-evaluated because they do not serve the greater value.

Of course, no one would openly admit this - and probably no one they even believes that this is what they are doing - but I do wonder if this is the practical reality we are dealing with - i.e., the view that God wants Christian unity more than anything else, and that those things which stand in the way of unity must be considered expendable. Or at least, where the desire for unity is so great that things formerly considered essential will be set aside.

Where does that lead?

I’m not sure if it is so much an emphasis on “unity” as it is on good feelings. Truth, after all is one. Truth does not contradict itself. But it does seem to me that we have entered into an age of sentimentality, in which good feelings take precedence over truth, even precedence over reality. As to where it leads, utlimately, it leads to the tyranny of subjectivism.

 

[2PT3]

Yep.

You should listen to this week’s Word on Fire show. Bishop Barron discusses this issue and does a great job with it in my opinion. Basically, focus on commonalities but don’t paper over the chasm that separates us.

Personally, I don’t think unity with Lutherans is possible unless they concede at least half a dozen major issues that it is clear they will never give up. The papacy. Transubstantiation. Sola Scriptura. Women priests.

Hope springs eternal, I guess. But I think we’d be much better served by seeking conversion of as many Lutherans as possible to Catholicism.

 

[CaptFun]

Phonetically speaking that would be - sin nod.

Hopefully no one’s conscience tells them to go yell rude things in the Bishop’s face.

Although him embracing that person at that moment would be impressive.