S
steve_b
Guest
And God doesn’t go against free will He has given us. John 6:61-67
- Status
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Exclusion of koinonia is from both parties…it is bilateral and not unilateral. Healing of koinonia would also have to be from both parties. Neither party can force the other to enter into koinonia. This is dealt with quite well, relative to the sacraments and the Roman Catholic perspective in canon 844, which I presume readers of this forum would of course know backwards and forwards with complete and total familiarity.
This is a fundamental point of ecclesiology…so fundamental that I do not understand how it is not self-evident.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
You are, of course, correct. For the sake of discussion and illustration, it seemed easier to use the bilateral image since even that – for reasons I cannot understand – appear not to be understood.
M
Michael19682
Guest
I wonder if it is merely because of Rome’s historical significance, and the bias against its legacy, that we have all the concern. Peter was declared Peter by Christ. If it had been the British Empire, or the Austrians, Hapsburgs, etc. or other dynasty would anyone really raise such opposition to the authority of Peter as the Father? Would we have a Lutheran Church, an Anglican Church, a Protestant theology?Disingenuous.I’ll overlook this.
Here is the flaw implied by some in this thread, that those not in communion with the Bishop of Rome are the prodigal son, and Rome is represented by the father. I don’t believe that was Christ’s intention at all.
Jon
Lutherans and Anglicans recognize the validity of Catholic orders. The bidirectional nature of our division is evident in the fact that Rome does not recognize ours yet. It seems free choice is secure
Jon
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
It assuredly is not the image – at all.Disingenuous.
Here is the flaw implied by some in this thread, that those not in communion with the Bishop of Rome are the prodigal son, and Rome is represented by the father. I don’t believe that was Christ’s intention at all.
Jon
The papacy has been at pains to express that Roman Catholics were GREATLY at fault. One can in no way say that the results of the Reformation were one-sided.
The Council Fathers at Vatican II expressed that, in fact, the guilt for the rent in the Body of Christ is to be attributed to all parties.
Rome rejects today the concept that fault is unilateral.
Well, there’s no such thing as Protestant theology, but I think the real question is, at least from my perspective, had the papacy not secured to itself jurisdiction and authority beyond that recognized in scripture and the early Church, would there have been a great schism to begin with? My personal view is that without the schism there is no Reformation.
Jon
M
Michael19682
Guest
I am embarrassed at my misunderstanding.
I did not intend to be an anomaly with regard to your presumption.
I have seen in the Lutheran tradition attempts to blame only Rome. This is as false as those who wish to blame only the reformers. I believe Pope Francis has rightly warned us all against triumphalism
Jon
S
steve_b
Guest
Just sharing thoughts from Fr Ray Ryland, of blessed memory
excerpt from “Frank Dialogue”
(all emphasis mine)
The second message of* Ut Unum Sint* is this: The Catholic Church alone has preserved the fullness of the truth and the means of grace with which God endowed his Church. “Full unity will come about when all [Churches and communities] share in the fullness of the means of salvation entrusted by Christ to his Church.” The Catholic Church, in other words, is the one true Church. The unity which Christ wills for his Church requires that all Christians be reconciled in full communion with the Catholic Church.
Perhaps more fully than anyone else, Pope John Paul realizes that the papacy is the fundamental issue on which all other Christians are separated from the Church. His passion for the unity of all Christians is matched by the clarity of his teaching about the papacy.
Nine sections of the encyclical enlarge upon the essential central role of the Bishop of Rome in ecumenism. He declares that fostering Christian unity is itself a specific duty of the successors of Peter. The service of unity has been entrusted by Christ to one (the Bishop of Rome) among the College of all the Pastors.
The ministry of the Successor of Peter has been established by God as the Church’s “perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity,” in the words of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Church. The Spirit sustains that ministry “to enable all the others to share in this essential good.” The ministry of the Bishop of Rome is “*the visible sign and guarantor of unity” of all Christians **(Ut Unum Sint, *section 88; italics his). One might paraphrase the Pope’s teaching by calling the papacy “the sacrament of unity.”
Having delivered these two messages, the Holy Father opens several windows to give needed ventilation to ecumenical dialogue. He calls for “frank dialogue” that will enable the differing traditions to look at themselves “in the light of the apostolic Tradition.” Thus each participant in dialogue will be led to ask himself whether the corporate life of his tradition adequately expresses “all that the Holy Spirit has transmitted through the apostles.”
Again, ecumenical dialogue leads (or should lead) the participants to question one another, as well as understand and inform one another. Dialogue helps participants to see their actual disagreements clearly. These disagreements must be approached charitably, respecting the demands of the consciences of all the participants. Catholic ecumenists are required “to avoid both false irenicism [pretending that unity exists where it does not] and indifference to the Church’s ordinances.”
Thus we see that the reconciliation of the Eastern Churches is top item on the Holy Father’s ecumenical agenda. We Catholics must carry on conversations with members of the Eastern Churches, in person or in print or both. To be fruitful, those conversations must involve what the Holy Father calls “frank dialogue.”
As we said earlier, the tone and content of *Orientale Lumen, *and of all magisterial documents and practically all Catholic writing about Easterners, is very respectful. In the opinion of some, it is even deferential. Yet Easterners as a whole are famous (dare one say “notorious”?) for their candor in telling us what is wrong with the Catholic Church. The time has come for equally candid (though always charitable) talk by Catholics.
There can be no productive dialogue if Catholics continue to avoid plain talk in conversations with Easterners. Any mature relationship, whether ecumenical or personal, must be based on honesty. In speaking of Catholicism, the Easterners seldom miss an opportunity to call a spade a dirty old shovel. In dialogue, Catholics must begin at least to call a spade a spade. In other words,
it’s time for Catholic ecumenists to soft-pedal their “what-riches-you-can-give-us-and-how-much-we-need-you!” talk. We need some “listen-friends- apart-from-us-you-have-always-had-some-real-problems-which-won’t-go-away-until-you-come-back-home!” talk.
The point is simple. If Catholics continually emphasize only the virtues of the separated Eastern Churches, and ignore their serious weaknesses, we will only confirm them in their isolation from the rest of the Christian world, and especially from Rome. We will encourage in them a “who-needs-Rome?-look-at-what-the-Catholics-say-about-us!” attitude. We do the members of Eastern Churches a disservice by not heeding the Holy Father’s call for frank dialogue.
M
Michael19682
Guest
I’m still confused. If Rome reverses as you say its recognition then all is well and good? Yet you have stated that this future recognition is moot insofar as Anglican and Lutheran positions are concerned, as they presume the validity of their Orders without regard to Rome’s recognition. If your Orders are presumed valid and thus recognize the Catholic Orders, then why not recognize the invalidity that Rome you say assigns to the Lutheran, Anglican, etc. through her valid Orders?
My thinking is that if your orders presume their own validity without regard for the concerns of what must be scriptural disagreements on the requirements of unity in the Catholic faith, then at heart you promote fraction and disunity, beginning with yourselves and then seeking to engender the same attitude amongst those who enjoy unity?
S
steve_b
Guest
Ultimately the purpose of ecumenism is for everyone who is NOT Catholic to become Catholic.
%between%
Silly me. I thought the goal was reconciliation, not continuing the same failed approach to each other.
Jon
M
Michael19682
Guest
Shouldn’t the first occurrence of Catholic be spelled lowercase 'c’atholic?
Catholic as you used it appears to be like a trademark symbol?
That is a source of weakness I think. We can’t stop people from saying what they want.
History has shown they will trample on every trademark until they are satisfied they have plundered everything.
This issue is approached as one of logical psychology. Unity has an emotional part that will not always follow logic.
Treatment of the topic in the traditional sense does almost nothing to allay fear and stubbornness.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
The comment was not to you specifically but to the Catholics on this thread…as opposed to the non-Catholics whose comments are on a much higher level.
After years of teaching theology and after years of actually working on international theological dialogue in the field of ecumenism and ecclesiology, I don’t really understand Catholics here making – or trying to make – the sweeping comments they attempt when it is evident to me that they are not theologians, they are not ecumenists, they are not ecclesiologists…nor are they sufficiently versed in canon law to assert conclusions they wish to educe. It is actually rather breath taking. They are also evoking expressions that have not come out of Rome since long before I worked in this field.
Catholics here are also not conforming their remarks to what is mandated in The Directory for the Application of Norms and Principles on Ecumenism, which is the relevant Vatican dicastery’s document that is the fundamental text for those who discuss these issues in a contemporary setting and is dispositive.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Precisely. Both sides were very guilty. In both instances, since we are speaking here of Lutherans and Catholics, there was good will. What went wrong is to be roundly condemned – and, if I may say so, quite eloquently – it is in From Conflict to Communion.
Triumphalism has no place in dialogue today…but rather the humble acknowledgement on all sides that terrible errors were made with tragic consequences. The consequences were tragic for both sides.
There is sufficient blame to go all the way around.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I suggest you re-read Ut Unum Sint.
The purpose of ecumenism is for unity in diversity to again be found. The purpose of ecumenism is the restoration among all the disciples of the Lord of koinonia. The purpose is that we are actually ALL converted. That we ALL confess the sins and failures of the past.
The Pope in paragraph 2:
*I thank the Lord that he has led us to make progress along the path of unity and communion between Christians, a path difficult but so full of joy. Interconfessional dialogues at the theological level have produced positive and tangible results: this encourages us to move forward.
Nevertheless, besides the doctrinal differences needing to be resolved, Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse. Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories. With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord’s disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today. All together, they are invited by the ever fresh power of the Gospel to acknowledge with sincere and total objectivity the mistakes made and the contingent factors at work at the origins of their deplorable divisions. What is needed is a calm, clear-sighted and truthful vision of things, a vision enlivened by divine mercy and capable of freeing people’s minds and of inspiring in everyone a renewed willingness, precisely with a view to proclaiming the Gospel to the men and women of every people and nation.*
The last bolded statement is actually one of the most important that has marked my time in this field. Catholics will be required to abandon the conclusions of historians and commentators of the past and to see the events of the past through the lenses provided by new methodologies. This is what Rome is doing and has been doing now over the past 30 years. It is also how we can end up with what is happening today…thanks be to God!..with ceremonies co-presided by Catholic clergy and Lutheran clergy.
The Church of the future will look radically different from what we see today, as the Body of Christ comes to be healed of the divisions which have rent it. We will see a Church much more like the ancient Church of the first millennium.
The goal of ecumenism is that there is a coming together of the disciples of the Lord in koinonia.
We rejoice, for example, that writings and compositions of Thomas Cranmer are now part of a liturgy of the Roman Rite. This was unimaginable when I began my work in this field but I have seen it realised as Rome has re-assessed the past. altered its thoughts on how to proceed, and come to very different conclusions than generations that are past and dead.
Today, the Anglicans bring with them into full communion the incredible patrimony that is theirs – including the gifts they have to give from the era of the Reformation and beyond – in terms of theology, in terms of liturgy, and so forth.
The commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation will be the occasion for some quite remarkable texts and events from the Holy Father regarding Martin Luther, regarding Catholic-Lutheran relations and regarding other aspects of the Reformation beyond Luther.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
How very far removed your attitude is from that of Pope Saint John Paul II.
From the encyclical Ut Unum Sint
- For this reason, the Council’s Decree on Ecumenism also emphasizes the importance of “every effort to eliminate words, judgments, and actions which do not respond to the condition of separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations between them more difficult”. The Decree approaches the question from the standpoint of the Catholic Church and refers to the criteria which she must apply in relation to other Christians. In all this, however, reciprocity is required. To follow these criteria is a commitment of each of the parties which desire to enter into dialogue and it is a precondition for starting such dialogue. It is necessary to pass from antagonism and conflict to a situation where each party recognizes the other as a partner. When undertaking dialogue, each side must presuppose in the other a desire for reconciliation, for unity in truth. For this to happen, any display of mutual opposition must disappear. Only thus will dialogue help to overcome division and lead us closer to unity.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Even as he (and all of us) lament that it is not possible for Orthodox and Catholics to celebrate the Eucharist in common, Pope Saint John Paul recalled the words of Vatican II when he wrote in Ut Unum Sint:
The Council’s Decree on Ecumenism, referring to the Orthodox Churches, went so far as to declare that “through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”. Truth demands that all this be recognized.
The separateness of the Orthodox from Rome and the particular churches in communion with Rome nevertheless yields celebrations of the Eucharist by the Orthodox which cause the Church of God to built up and grow in stature.
How prophetic the Council Fathers were…and the Popes of the era of the Council who implement and extend the Council.
- Status