Is everyone who is baptized technically catholic?

[Don_Ruggero]

Who says arguments have to be complicated? Augustine’s argument is simple, and as good today as it was when he argued it in his day.

No, actually it is not simple. What Augustine wrote was written in a particular moment in history.

Pope Benedict cautioned in a very similar circumstance that the remarks of Saint Cyprian on salvation and the Church must be understood in the context they were spoken and cannot be forced to say things concerning historical realities to which he had neither knowledge nor the intent to speak to.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

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.

What you say is true. Unfortunately, the other poster seemed to equate Orthodox separation with Protestant separation, which is not true.

There is a fine line that needs to observed between joyous ecumenism and servile syncretism.

 

[Michael19682]

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.

Breath taking – that is a good way to describe your vocabulary. I am very awed and impressed by it, considerations of the other’s need to remain humble notwithstanding.
Nevertheless, I was also struck, albeit in an awkward way by your comment on the much higher level of the non-Catholic comments on this subject. From my uninformed perspective, the highest of all levels would be that which approaches with trust, and which imitates, the love of Christ for God’s people and the desire for them of what is best.
For me, unity of the separated brethren with each other would actually be very much in my personal interests – both as these are found in my prayer life, in which when I pray for the world I simply do not think of Church affiliation in the slightest, but simply of people in the very generic sense and in all their varieties of race, color, and beliefs – as well in the practical benefit it might bring to my life, viz., I have been in love with women, and am currently in love with a woman with whom marriage is not possible at the moment due to such divisions (in fact, it goes deeper than that).
I have also been offered in an informal way to be a minister in other faiths. But, I have remained loyal to the true Church of Christ, and , stay in communion with the Holy See because that is what I believe in. I don’t really concern myself with the fact that some of the other Churches would have paid me to be a pastor of their parish flocks, to learn their doctrine.
So really, I was unaware that my attitude was in opposition to the mandatory norms of dialogues of this sort, as I have not intentionally learned to be an embarrassment to Rome.
My flow of thought leads me to say, the camel here seems nothing other than a enormous measure of gnats, and the gnat itself unaware that it is not and cannot be a camel. A broad stroke of the brush, and one possibly not aesthetically pleasing, but for some reason I’m not sure what a canvass filled-in with the ideal Unity of the separated brethren would actually look like?

 

[JonNC]

What you say is true. Unfortunately, the other poster seemed to equate Orthodox separation with Protestant separation, which is not true.

There is a fine line that needs to observed between joyous ecumenism and servile syncretism.

Who on this thread has even remotely suggested syncretism at all? Who on this thread has expressed an excessive willingness (servile) to compromise doctrine? I certainly haven’t, and neither has Father Don.
Perhaps the fine line between ecumenism and syncretism or unionism ought to be defined by Church leaders, and not by online apologists.

As for an equating of Catholic separation from Lutheranism (and vv) to Catholic separation from Orthodoxy (and vv), the circumstances are certainly different, and the level of division may vary from communion to communion, but the effect is the same: a wounding of the unity of His One Holy Church, for which all of us share the blame.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I am perplexed by your confusion, Michael.

=Michael19682;13938274]I’m still confused. If Rome reverses as you say its recognition then all is well and good?

Where did I imply that Rome’s recognition of Lutheran and Anglican orders would make everything all well and good? Where did I even imply it?
I responded to your post…

Intetesting. Bidirectional? Meaning if one side recognizes the other this enjoins the recognition bidirectionally? Does not sound like a free choice to me.

…which was not what Father Don was speaking of in the first place. He was speaking of the fact that the divisions within the Church are bidirectional, and that reconciliation must be bidirectional.
My remark to you was an example of the bidirectional division between Lutherans and Catholics results in the asymmetrical positions regarding each other’s orders.

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.

What I have often stated on these forums is that, while we would joyfully welcome Rome’s recognition of our orders, their validity is not dependent on Rome’s recognition, anymore than the validity of Catholic orders is not dependent on the recognition of those Orthodox churches that do not recognize them. I have also said that I don’t believe this is an issue that, in and of itself, would prevent unity were all other issues resolved. Apostolic Succession is not opposed in Lutheranism, and in fact is practiced by many Lutheran synods and national churches.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Nevertheless, I was also struck, albeit in an awkward way by your comment on the much higher level of the non-Catholic comments on this subject. From my uninformed perspective, the highest of all levels would be that which approaches with trust, and which imitates, the love of Christ for God’s people and the desire for them of what is best.

Has there been something I expressed that, to you, appears to not approach “with trust, and which imitates, the love of Christ for God’s people and the desire for them of what is best”, At least within the limits of my sinful condition?

If there is, I sincerely apologize for it. My regular prayer is for reconciliation of Christ’s whole Church, that we may all be one. What I oppose is unity for unity’s sake, that it is up to church leaders on all sides to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead us to a unity of doctrine, that reconciliation be a real unity and not a faux unity.

Jon

 

[Michael19682]

I am perplexed by your confusion, Michael.

Where did I imply that Rome’s recognition of Lutheran and Anglican orders would make everything all well and good? Where did I even imply it?
I responded to your post…

…which was not what Father Don was speaking of in the first place. He was speaking of the fact that the divisions within the Church are bidirectional, and that reconciliation must be bidirectional.
My remark to you was an example of the bidirectional division between Lutherans and Catholics results in the asymmetrical positions regarding each other’s orders.

What I have often stated on these forums is that, while we would joyfully welcome Rome’s recognition of our orders, their validity is not dependent on Rome’s recognition, anymore than the validity of Catholic orders is not dependent on the recognition of those Orthodox churches that do not recognize them. I have also said that I don’t believe this is an issue that, in and of itself, would prevent unity were all other issues resolved. Apostolic Succession is not opposed in Lutheranism, and in fact is practiced by many Lutheran synods and national churches.

Jon

So I need more information. Does non affirmation equal denial?

 

[JonNC]

So I need more information. Does non affirmation equal denial?

Regarding Anglican orders, there is a specific denial - Apostolicae Curae.
Regarding Lutheran orders, AFAIK, there is not, so it appears a non-affirmation.

My sense is that, at least in practice, it is a distinction without a difference.

Back to the topic, however, Baptism is not dependent on orders.

Jon

 

[Bookcat]

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

The Catholic Church may not freely choose to accept the validity of the Lutheran or Anglican ordination or Eucharist etc. It is simply recognizing the realities involved. Reality is a very solid thing that cannot be wished away. We cannot simply say that something has not been lost when it has. Nor can we say that the Orthodox have lost Orders etc when they have not (nor do we wish to).

Catholics are working together with the Orthodox Churches and the Protestant ecclesial communities to over come that which still keeps us from full communion. May this work continue in friendship and joy and with prayer and as always - the grace of God.

 

[Bookcat]

but the effect is the same: a wounding of the unity … for which all of us share the blame.

Jon

Hum…speak for yourself. I was born in 1971 not 1501.

And I went from Protestant – to full Communion with the Catholic Church - so if anything I have helped heal things…not wound them

(ok ok I am sure I have sinned at some time against my Protestant friends in my youth etc …and yes I know what you meant…but just saying )

 

[JonNC]

=Bookcat;13939297]The Catholic Church may not freely choose to accept the validity of the Lutheran or Anglican ordination or Eucharist etc. It is simply recognizing the realities involved. Reality is a very solid thing that cannot be wished away. We cannot simply say that something has not been lost when it has. Nor can we say that the Orthodox have lost Orders etc when they have not (nor do we wish to).

Thanks for this. I did not mean to imply that the Catholic position regarding Lutheran orders was out of malice or prejudice. Not at all. I believe that Rome sincerely believes, based on its teachings, that our orders are not valid. I do not question the sincerity at all. In fact, it takes a recognition of the honesty of an ecumenical partner’s position to participate in truly productive dialogue.

Catholics are working together with the Orthodox Churches and the Protestant ecclesial communities to over come that which still keeps us from full communion. May this work continue in friendship and joy and with prayer and as always - the grace of God.

Amen.

Jon

 

[Bookcat]

I believe that Rome sincerely believes, based on its teachings, that our orders are not valid. I do not question the sincerity at all. In fact, it takes a recognition of the honesty of an ecumenical partner’s position to participate in truly productive dialogue.

Sincerely believes? Yes. We also sincerely believe that Jesus is risen from the dead and is the Lord. Both beliefs - though different are more than beliefs. And the later in paricular is not only based on its teachings but the office given by Christ.

Yes true ecumenicism involves honestly etc. Your quite right.

 

[JonNC]

Hum…speak for yourself. I was born in 1971 not 1501.

And I went from Protestant – to full Communion with the Catholic Church - so if anything I have helped heal things…not wound them

(ok ok I am sure I have sinned at some time against my Protestant friends in my youth etc …and yes I know what you meant…but just saying )

I guess I am speaking for myself. I was born in 1954 and I still feel that, while the divisions precede my life by nearly 400 years, and I am not now and never have been a Church leader, I share a portion of the blame for the continuation of our sad division. It isn’t a matter of overt sinning in words against our siblings in Christ, but I do look back and recognize that there have been times when I could have, 1) contacted my church leaders to express my views, and didn’t do so, 2) failed to share prayers for unity in a more open way, and in other ways.
Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Who on this thread has even remotely suggested syncretism at all? Who on this thread has expressed an excessive willingness (servile) to compromise doctrine? I certainly haven’t, and neither has Father Don.
Perhaps the fine line between ecumenism and syncretism or unionism ought to be defined by Church leaders, and not by online apologists.

As for an equating of Catholic separation from Lutheranism (and vv) to Catholic separation from Orthodoxy (and vv), the circumstances are certainly different, and the level of division may vary from communion to communion, but the effect is the same: a wounding of the unity of His One Holy Church, for which all of us share the blame.

Jon

As for paragraph a.) I feel that it is perfectly valid (on this forum in particular) for me to point out that there is indeed a fine line. Your obvious irritation is telling.
As for paragraph b. you have dismissed your own previous failure to grasp the distinction with a wave of the “we’re all guilty” banner.

However you feel about ecumenical relations between ecclesial entities, personal responsibility will ultimately be the deciding factor. One’s conscience, and not ecumenical slogans, constitutions and confessions will command or be ignored.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#811

I know many have read this - but there may be those (not commenting here) who have not. Take the time to read. 811 through 822

 

[steve_b]

Silly me. I thought the goal was reconciliation, not continuing the same failed approach to each other.

Jon

Ya mean like you just remain a good Lutheran and I’ll remain a good Catholic and let’s sing kumbaya ?

 

[Michael19682]

Has there been something I expressed that, to you, appears to not approach “with trust, and which imitates, the love of Christ for God’s people and the desire for them of what is best”, At least within the limits of my sinful condition?

If there is, I sincerely apologize for it. My regular prayer is for reconciliation of Christ’s whole Church, that we may all be one. What I oppose is unity for unity’s sake, that it is up to church leaders on all sides to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead us to a unity of doctrine, that reconciliation be a real unity and not a faux unity.

Jon

Not at all. I worry often about my own grievous fault.
I was however interested in knowing from a Catholic petspective, Father Don, if good intentions as fuel is enough to help move along the effort. If I was detracting from progress, I would rather commit myself to more time in the desert and let the others who have dealt with the Tempter more successfully take up the cross of disunity in the Christian church.
Your responses as well as Don’'s have helped my begin to see the plank in my eye. If you have a bit of sawdust in yours, by my standard you are lucky.

 

[JonNC]

As for paragraph a.) I feel that it is perfectly valid (on this forum in particular) for me to point out that there is indeed a fine line. Your obvious irritation is telling.

I didn’t ask you to justify whether you can point out this fine line on this forum. I asked who on this thread has promoted syncretism. Your failure to answer that is telling.

As for paragraph b. you have dismissed your own previous failure to grasp the distinction with a wave of the “we’re all guilty” banner.

Well, then apparently the Catholic Catechism fails to grasp the distinction, as it too is clear about we all share the blame.

However you feel about ecumenical relations between ecclesial entities, personal responsibility will ultimately be the deciding factor. One’s conscience, and not ecumenical slogans, constitutions and confessions will command or be ignored.

I couldn’t agree more, and would add to your list institutional membership.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Not at all. I worry often about my own grievous fault.
I was however interested in knowing from a Catholic petspective, Father Don, if good intentions as fuel is enough to help move along the effort. If I was detracting from progress, I would rather commit myself to more time in the desert and let the others who have dealt with the Tempter more successfully take up the cross of disunity in the Christian church.
Your responses as well as Don’'s have helped my begin to see the plank in my eye. If you have a bit of sawdust in yours, by my standard you are lucky.

The plank in mine is Muir Woods in proportion.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Ya mean like you just remain a good Lutheran and I’ll remain a good Catholic and let’s sing kumbaya ?

That’s not reconciliation. That’s simply treating each other with Christian love, which is not a bad thing at all. Reconciliation brings us to the same altar, sharing the chalice together, as Pope Benedict said. It brings us together in declaring the same doctrine. That’s true reconciliation.

Jon