Ecumenism ... can we make changes happen?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EvangelCatholic said:
Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Augsburg Confession [the guiding document of Martin Luther] is a “Catholic” creed.
Click to expand...
The guiding document of the Lutheran Church, you mean. While he had (name removed by moderator)ut, Luther did not write the Augsburg Confession. And yes, Cardinal Ratzinger did speculate on this, though it was before he became Pope Benedict.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
The guiding document of the Lutheran Church, you mean. While he had (name removed by moderator)ut, Luther did not write the Augsburg Confession. And yes, Cardinal Ratzinger did speculate on this, though it was before he became Pope Benedict.

Jon
Click to expand...
I meant that figuratively. Wasn’t Confessio Augustana mainly the work of Philipp Melanchthon?
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Augsburg Confession [the guiding document of Martin Luther] is a “Catholic” creed.
Click to expand...
JonNC on another thread, showed me the source of that suggestion. Then Cardinal Ratzinger, in 1976, 30 years before he would become pope, made that suggestion. It was a point to discuss.

I’m just thinking out loud here, if that evolved from discussion to reality, that would be a big deal, understating the matter ;). Do you by chance have a source that says it became a reality?

Thanks in advance
 
clem456 said:
Please do not put words in my mouth. I can speak for myself without interpretation. I have offered you the same courtesy by posting both your comments and the post from Origen you objected to. I never said what you claiim I say in your last paragraph above.

Back to the topic at hand…

It is not proper to refer to Protestants as heretics. Protestants are not Catholics, they cannot be heretics by definition, although there may be one here and there who was baptized Catholic and leaves as you say above. That’s not what we are talking about in this thread. We are talking about ecumenism. Protestants are not Catholic heretics or schismatics.

Since we are looking for explanations I will defer to these posts as I don’t pretend to be an expert in this area:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10252408&postcount=254
Notice the tone of this section:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10292812&postcount=95
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10252195&postcount=248
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9167521&postcount=165

Lableing non-Catholics as heretics, schismatics, divisive, etc… is not only out of line with Church teaching, but is uncharitable and unproductive.
Click to expand...
May I ask you,

Re: heretics, schismatics, and what the Church says on these sins,

Q: who in your estimation qualifies for such a charge, given the following definitions from the CCC

**2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

BTW, none of the old heresies are completely eliminated. Like viruses they only mutate and reinvent and reinvigorate themselves.

Therefore, here’s another question. It’s just an example to help me understand your point.

Q: if persons for example in the 16th - 21st centuries, adopt for themself a 1st or 2nd or 3rd … century heresy, (pick your era) when can they be charged with heresy or schism?

I have a reason for asking these questions this way. I’m not trying to set any trap. I’m just trying to understand your points.
 
steve_b said:
May I ask you,

Re: heretics, schismatics, and what the Church says on these sins,

Q: who in your estimation qualifies for such a charge, given the following definitions from the CCC

**2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

BTW, none of the old heresies are completely eliminated. Like viruses they only mutate and reinvent and reinvigorate themselves.

Therefore, here’s another question. It’s just an example to help me understand your point.

Q: if persons for example in the 16th - 21st centuries, adopt for themself a 1st or 2nd or 3rd … century heresy, (pick your era) when can they be charged with heresy or schism?

I have a reason for asking these questions this way. I’m not trying to set any trap. I’m just trying to understand your points.
Click to expand...
If Protestants are “heretics” why do Roman Catholic bishops/ priest worship with Lutherans/ Anglicans? Why would the church hierarchy pray with these other Christians in both Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches?
 
steve_b said:
nonsense

1.there’s alot of ex Catholics who populate Protestant organizations. They are now Protestant, not Catholics. And Yes they are heretics and schismatics…

…Please show me just one credible Church source that says it’s okay to be a Protestant, with no necessity what so ever, to be Catholic, or that their is absolutely no problem for a Catholic to leave the Catholic Church and become Protestant…
Click to expand...
That’s not a fair argument. To begin with, the person was responding that it’s not appropriate to call all non-Catholics heretics and schismatics (and it’s not). But then you changed the argument to ‘Catholics who left the Church’, and then changed it again to a point on whether all Christians are called to be part of the Catholic Church. Yet the point of the person responding to you was, and still us, that we can’t brand all Protestants with the guilt of heresy or schism (which is a correct statement).
clem456 said:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is such a wonderful gift. Following are two passages that are relevant to this discussion, and there is so much more here. It is a good starting point for basic Catholic knowledge. Heresy is discussed briefly in this section also, but no sense in beating a dead horse.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm#817
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
Click to expand...
SteveVH said:
Martin Luther as well as the rest of the early “Reformers” were all heretics because they rejected the Apostolic faith. One cannot say the same about Protestants today. Most of them have grown up with their particular faith tradition and have never known the truth present in the Catholic Church, therefore it is impossible for them to fall into heresy.

This is not to say that they may believe in heretical doctrines. But they cannot be properly called heretics. So referring to Protestants as heretics is not only divisive but erroneous.
Click to expand...
YES!
JonNC said:
And those that do should be admonished similarly. A good Catholic believes and practices the faith taught to him/her. They see no reason to consider other communions/denominations, and in fact might consider doing so in violation of God’s will. Their hearts are in the right place.

True ecumenism must start from a premise of mutual respect, a willingness to see the Holy spirit in the eyes and hearts of the dialogue partner. Dialogue goes no where if the opening comments include, “you guys are heretics”, and "your papal office is antiChrist".

Jon
Click to expand...
YES!!
Click to expand...
 
ahs said:
That’s not a fair argument. To begin with, the person was responding that it’s not appropriate to call all non-Catholics heretics and schismatics (and it’s not). But then you changed the argument to ‘Catholics who left the Church’,
Click to expand...
you forgot to add, and became Protestants. They ARE Protestants. That’s not changing the argument. You’re wanting to narrowly define who’s a Protestant. There are 10’s of millions of ex Catholics (i.e. they left the CC) who became Protestant.

While people born into heresy can’t be formally charged with heresy 818…however WHEN they see ( i.e. know) that what they believe is heresy, or that they are schismatic… and don’t do anything to change that…**THEN **they are now guilty of the charge because now they KNOW.846

Knowledge is key.
a:
and then changed it again to a point on whether all Christians are called to be part of the Catholic Church. Yet the point of the person responding to you was, and still us, that we can’t brand all Protestants with the guilt of heresy or schism (which is a correct statement).
Click to expand...
The passages of the CCC that I quoted pointed to the correct understanding. I didn’t go outside of that.
 
steve_b said:
you forgot to add, and became Protestants. They ARE Protestants. That’s not changing the argument. You’re wanting to narrowly define who’s a Protestant. There are 10’s of millions of ex Catholics (i.e. they left the CC) who became Protestant.

While people born into heresy can’t be formally charged with heresy 818…however WHEN they see ( i.e. know) that what they believe is heresy, or that they are schismatic… and don’t do anything to change that…**THEN **they are now guilty of the charge because now they KNOW.846

Knowledge is key.

The passages of the CCC that I quoted pointed to the correct understanding. I didn’t go outside of that.
Click to expand...
Misinformation.
I’m just wondering to see how that mis-info fits into your own definitions above .:eek:
(sorry I couldn’t resist)

Please read the links from the catechism and from the extremely knowlegable poster I gave you earlier.
Otherwise:
 
news.va/en/news/general-audience-how-can-we-have-unity-among-chris
Vatican City, 19 June 2013 (VIS) - Pope Francis dedicated his catechesis of the Wednesday general audience to the expression “of the body” that the Second Vatican Council used to indicate the nature of the Church: the Church is the body of Christ. The Pope recalled the text of the conversion of Saul, who became Paul, in order to explain how the Apostle, with that experience, tells us how profound the union between Christians and Christ is.

“The image of the body helps us to understand this deep bond between Church and Christ, which St. Paul particularly developed,” the Pope said. “The Church … is a living body … and this body has a head, Jesus, who guides, nourishes, and sustains it. … [But], the same way that in a body it is important that the lifeblood courses for it to live, so must we allow Jesus to work in us, so that his Word might guide us, his Eucharistic presence might nourish and inspire us, and so that his love might give strength to our love for our neighbour.”

“In the Church, therefore,” the pontiff continued, “there is a variety, a diversity of tasks and functions. There is no dull uniformity but the richness of the gifts that the Holy Spirit distributes. There is communion and unity: all are in relation to one another and all combine to form a single vital body, profoundly connected to Christ. Let us remember this well: being part of the Church means being united to Christ and receiving from him the divine life that makes us to live as Christians. It means remaining united to the Pope and bishops who are instruments of unity and communion and it also means learning to overcome selfishness and divisions, to understand one another better, and to harmonize the variety and richness of each one. In a word, loving God and the persons around us, in our families, parishes, and associations, better. Body and limbs must be united in order to live!”

Speaking extemporaneously, the Holy Father added: “Unity is always greater than conflict. Conflicts, if they aren’t resolved well, separate us from one another, separate us from God. Conflict can help us grow but it can also divide us. Let’s not take the path of division and struggle between one another. All united, all united with our differences but always united: this is Jesus’ path.”

“How much damage is caused to the Church by divisions among Christians, by being apart, by narrow interests! The divisions among us,” he continued, “but also the divisions between the communities: evangelical Christians, Orthodox Christians, Catholic Christians, why are we divided? We must try to bring unity. … We must pray together as Catholics and also with other Christians, must pray that the Lord grant us unity, unity between us. But how will we have unity among Christians if we aren’t capable of having it among us Catholics? Of having it in our family? How many families fight and are divided! Seek unity, the unity that makes the Church. Unity comes from Jesus Christ. He sends us the Holy Spirit to create unity.”
Click to expand...
 
clem456 said:
news.va/en/news/general-audience-how-can-we-have-unity-among-chris
Click to expand...
And as he also said,

Let us remember this well: being part of the Church means being united to Christ and receiving from him the divine life that makes us to live as Christians. It means remaining united to the Pope and bishops who are instruments of unity and communion and it also means learning to overcome selfishness and divisions, to understand one another better, and to harmonize the variety and richness of each one. In a word, loving God and the persons around us, in our families, parishes, and associations, better. Body and limbs must be united in order to live!”

So, in that spirit of understanding, why avoid answering the following?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10890500&postcount=46

It addresses cause.
 
steve_b said:
you forgot to add, and became Protestants. They ARE Protestants. That’s not changing the argument. You’re wanting to narrowly define who’s a Protestant. There are 10’s of millions of ex Catholics (i.e. they left the CC) who became Protestant.
Click to expand...
No argument there. But you realize, I assume, that no side is completely innocent with regard to proselytizing (“sheep stealing”); not just protestants, but also Orthodox and even Catholics.
 
clem456 said:
Yes, an explanation is in order.
Just starting with this one point:
**it is not proper to speak of Protestants as heretics. They are not heretics. Or schismatics. **Martin Luther may have been a heretic, I’m not sure exactly how the Church sees him, because he was a Catholic. But a living person who is part of a protestant denomination is not called a heretic. That’s not how the Church sees it. (The Church is a sure guide to the charity you reference!)

So, It serves no purpose to throw those terms around improperly, out of context.
There are a bazillion threads on this issue if you search a little.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this point in print.
 
steve_b said:
And as he also said,

Let us remember this well: being part of the Church means being united to Christ and receiving from him the divine life that makes us to live as Christians. It means remaining united to the Pope and bishops who are instruments of unity and communion and it also means learning to overcome selfishness and divisions, to understand one another better, and to harmonize the variety and richness of each one. In a word, loving God and the persons around us, in our families, parishes, and associations, better. Body and limbs must be united in order to live!”

So, in that spirit of understanding, why avoid answering the following?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10890500&postcount=46

It addresses cause.
Click to expand...
There is no avoidance. The question is answered more than adequately. That’s not the problem we have here.

The problem we have here on this thread is
  1. I am not the authority you need to be listening to. Read the references you’ve been given by a couple different posters here, like the catechism (which you cherry picked), code of canon law which definitively refutes your point of view right in canon numero uno (1).
  2. I already have a dancing partner at home. We won’t be going round and round on this. My apologies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top