"one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church"

[benjohnson]

However, I believe that the requirement to believe those dogmas is seen and presented differently be recent popes than you might be understanding it. The quote EC gave is actually a striking illustration of this:

It does present a conundrum though - as the Papal Bulls are quite clear about the consequences.

It is rather amusing (for me) to point out the recent diminishment of the consequences of not believing in Papal Infallibility is perhaps evidence that Papal Infallibility isn’t quite as much a dogma of the church.

 

[benjohnson]

What about the Tome of Leo? (Of course, the Oriental Orthodox have a *very *different take on it than Catholics and Eastern Orthodox; but you can see my point anyhow.)

I would say - a bit too late.

If the Bishop of Rome was infallible, it sure would be have been useful from the start. That it takes 400 years isn’t really good evidence that it’s isn’t “new” dogma.

 

[benjohnson]

The Dialogue is suggesting the same for Lutherans.

I went to the Pro-Life rally here in Washington State with the local Catholic parish - we went to mass beforehand. I had several really great Catholics invite me to commune - it was very difficult to decline.

I will say we do need reunification - simply to bring our Lutheran hymnal (and our singing) to the broader church.

 

[benjohnson]

Ben, did you watch the video? It provides lots of Early Church support for papal infallibility.

I’ll do so later.

You do see a development of Dogma in the early church (The Athanasian creed is a good example) , so we Lutherans can’t quite say that development is prohibited.

However, all the important things having to do with salvation were settled or at least being debated early on - and I don’t see evidence that “Papal Infalibility” was even mentioned early on. There weren’t even ‘Popes’ then - and even then the Bishop of Rome wasn’t the first to be called ‘Pope’ - I believe that honor goes to another see.

 

[JamesTheJust]

I’ll do so later.

You do see a development of Dogma in the early church (The Athanasian creed is a good example) , so we Lutherans can’t quite say that development is prohibited.

However, all the important things having to do with salvation were settled or at least being debated early on - and I don’t see evidence that “Papal Infalibility” was even mentioned early on. There weren’t even ‘Popes’ then - and even then the Bishop of Rome wasn’t the first to be called ‘Pope’ - I believe that honor goes to another see.

Well, the word “Pope” means father, as does “Patriarch”, which is what all the Bishops of the Pentarchy were called. It is only with later lingual development that these words became separate.

 

[JamesTheJust]

As with all the different subjects of the Dialogue, the issue of papal primacy and infallibility is somewhat lengthy. Here is one quote among several that suggests “re-thinking” of the dogma among both Catholics and Lutherans:

I see no place where the Dialogue says that papal infallibility will or can be redefined. the statement that “Catholics are rethinking their position” is ambiguous.

 

[Peter_J]

It does present a conundrum though - as the Papal Bulls are quite clear about the consequences.

It is rather amusing (for me) to point out the recent diminishment of the consequences of not believing in Papal Infallibility is perhaps evidence that Papal Infallibility isn’t quite as much a dogma of the church.

I think Ad Tuendam Fidem (1998) made it clear that believing all the dogmas is still mandatory for Catholics. (Of course, that cuts both ways: the flip side is that we are not trying to “romance” Lutherans away from Lutheranism, or Anglicans away from Anglicanism, or Orthodox away from Orthodoxy by saying “Hey why don’t you come into the Roman Communion (aka become Catholic) even if you don’t agree with our dogmas.”) But if you mean “consequences” in the sense of claiming that you and other Christians who disagree with us are going to Hell, then obviously we don’t say that.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I see no place where the Dialogue says that papal infallibility will or can be redefined. the statement that “Catholics are rethinking their position” is ambiguous.

You know I think it’s like anything. The pendulum swings. We’ve come out of an era where Papal Supremacy was a big thing and the infallible guidelines were sort of widely spread by the laity.

The other swing would be papal fallibility.

We won’t land there not should we,

But I imagine the truth is in the middle. The idea that the Pope is infallible but subject to Divine revelation. That view if the pope as a conductor of a symphony or a judge.

As opposed to an authoritarian ruler.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I see no place where the Dialogue says that papal infallibility will or can be redefined. the statement that “Catholics are rethinking their position” is ambiguous.

I never stated that infallibility would be “redefined”; my words 'reframed" “re-thinking”] were taken from the Dialogue. The document on Papal Infallibility urges Lutherans to accept the papacy without adhering to the dogma of infallibility and thus share the Eucharist with Catholics. It is very telling, that the Catholics are willing to “rethink” this issue since all Christians, other than Catholics, do not accept infallibility.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I never stated that infallibility would be “redefined”; my words 'reframed" “re-thinking”] were taken from the Dialogue. The document on Papal Infallibility urges Lutherans to accept the papacy without adhering to the dogma of infallibility and thus share the Eucharist with Catholics. It is very telling, that the Catholics are willing to “rethink” this issue since all Christians, other than Catholics, do not accept infallibility.

You have to remember there is always some infallible person in every church.

It might be your synod

The interpretation of the Bible your taught.

Maybe even you.

But all infallibility is, is a way to ensure the buck stops somewhere in debates of dogma.

It’s natural Protestants reject this. That is why they create a new denomination when they disagree over dogma.

 

[JamesTheJust]

I never stated that infallibility would be “redefined”; my words 'reframed" “re-thinking”] were taken from the Dialogue.

In post #189, you said that you “agree that infallibility must be redefined by Rome.”

It is very telling, that the Catholics are willing to “rethink” this issue since all Christians, other than Catholics, do not accept infallibility.

All non-Catholics, except Protestants, accept the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils. What no one other than Catholics accept is papal infallibility.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

While it’s certainly true we Lutherans have been rather wayward over the last 500 years, and I will say that only a few of our churches could rightly be called ‘catholic’.

But, It’s here where I get to poke our Catholic friends and remind them of their novel dogma that have been promulgated over the last few years. That if the Catholic church were to also remain unchanged, our ecumenical dialog would be much more fruitful. I daresay the Orthodox probably also object to the new Catholic dogma as well.

Sorry you have been misinformed. The Popes nor the Communion of bishops ever changed a Church dogma nor invented any new ones. Infallibility has always protected Peter from doing so even at the cost of many Popes martyrdom for the Catholic faith. Yes it’s true our first Pope Peter walked on water with Jesus, but that is not the dogma of infallibility that those who have falsely object to Jesus infallible teaching to be with Peter until the end. But that is a defined doctrine from which all doctrines have been infallibly declared by the Popes and the Bishops in communion from Church Councils.

Those Orthodox church’s who refused to attend or were prevented from attending these councils by their Emperors, have objected from schism and afar. Many have returned to full communion, once the ecumenical efforts were put forth.

Which confirms and defines the Church’s definition of Ecumenism that produces fruit in fullest sense.

We cannot have an ecumenical dialogue in the official capacity until Lutherans Learn their roots of Catholicism as believed since the apostles themselves.

Applying your new man made doctrines of Sola fide, sola scriptura to the 2000 year old Catholic apostolic Traditions and defined doctrines, will never reach ecumenical dialogue between our communions.

There are no new doctrines in Catholicism, but defined, clarified apostolic teachings that fend off heretics, heresies that have attacked them.

That is why Jesus gave Peter singularly the keys of binding and loosing on earth, not only to protect Jesus flock from error, but to fend off false shepherds (man made teachings) and wolves (false prophets). Infallibility is guarantee from heaven that the gates of hell will never prevail against Jesus Church His Mystical body.

And before you reach for help from an Orthodox position, learn first that every apostolic see including any Orthodox Church have fallen in and out of some form of heresy. Except Peter and his apostolic successors in the Popes. The popes alone could never have done this alone without Infallibility before it was ever needed to be defined or clarified in order to prevent the infection of heresies such as mans false idea of freedom in Protestantism, communism and the list goes on. Infallibility has always been in the Church and Jesus has never left her orphaned

If we can have an ecumenical dialogue. You would allow the freedom of defined Catholic doctrines to be shared with you , without you contesting them with your new found freedoms in the sola theology invented by men. These will never accept the apostolic doctrines because your man made theologies are subject to change, that is why you cannot accept Jesus giving the keys to Peter with the commission to feed and tend Jesus flock, not Peter’s flock.

Every time you force your changeable theological position to any of the defined unchangeable Catholic doctrine (no matter in what age it was defined not invented), the dialogue is never ecumenical.

Your Lutheran commentaries is a dialogue of a faith that reveals some similarities, that has the content to reach an ecumenical dialogue with Catholicism.

So Long as Lutheranism holds to its Concords and doctrine definitions, as a whole the Lutheran position will always find a reason to protest an Apostolic teaching or Catholic doctrine, due in part from the Lutherans freedom of men.

Whereby the Catholic Church does not have the freedom of men to Change a divine infallible revelation or teaching in the Church. Catholicism is never a democracy of men to decide on faith and morals. Catholicism is under a Monarchy our King Jesus in heaven with His vicar Peter, He commissioned on earth.

Lutheranism refuses the authority of Jesus Vicar (Peter) on faith and morals. Lutheranism holds to it’s own authority that can change, it was not divinely instituted by Jesus Christ. The only divine office Jesus consecrated to himself was the office of Peter (Pope) and the apostles (Bishops).

 

[EvangelCatholic]

In post #189, you said that you “agree that infallibility must be redefined by Rome.”

All non-Catholics, except Protestants, accept the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils. What no one other than Catholics accept is papal infallibility.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the Dialogue. “Redefined” was my own personal statement separate from the Catholic Commission on Unity. Per the Dialogue, “rethinking” suggests that papal infallibility be fined tuned [my words] so that other Christians can appreciate the importance of the infallibility of the Gospel.

More from the document: TEACHING AUTHORITY AND INFALLIBILITY IN THE CHURCH:

1. This, to be sure, is not yet full agreement. Catholics, as well as many Lutherans, regret the absence in Lutheranism of a universal magisterium (i.e., of effective means of speaking to and for the whole Church), while Lutherans, as well as many Catholics, believe that the doctrine and practice of papal teaching authority and infallibility are not yet sufficiently protected against abuses. Catholics look upon the papacy, in view of its high responsibilities and the promises given to Peter, as especially assisted by the Holy Spirit. Lutherans think that Catholics have overconfidently identified the locus of the work of the Spirit with a particular person or office. Nevertheless, in the new context each side finds itself compelled to recognize that the other seeks to be faithful to the gospel. Further, given the convergence on the wider questions of authority and certainty in the Church, it becomes possible to hope that the two communions will be able to enter into further degrees of fellowship, while continuing to develop together their respective positions on infallibility.

1. For Catholics, papal infallibility is now commonly discussed in the context of the infallibility of the Church and in relation to confidence in the faithful transmission of the gospel. As a consequence, the infallibility of the Church takes on greater importance than papal infallibility. Catholics, for whom the understanding of papal infallibility, though secondary, is important, should not therefore regard the Lutheran rejection of papal infallibility as equivalent to a denial of the central Christian message. What is more, the unresolved differences between Lutherans and Catholics on this matter need not, of themselves, preclude a closer union than now exists between the two churches.

1. Should not creative efforts be made to discover a form of institutional relationship between the Catholic and the Lutheran churches which would express magisterial mutuality and would correspond to the converging state of their traditions? The present Catholic authorization of some sacramental sharing with the Orthodox, who do not acknowledge papal infallibility, shows more flexibility in Catholic thought and practice than was anticipated a few decades ago. Should the current developments in our two churches lead to analogous authorizations regarding sacramental sharing between Catholics and Lutherans?
   ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/40/40.1/40.1.5.pdf

 

[EvangelCatholic]

More food for thought:

1. Lutherans and Catholics, of course, differ in their appraisal of the development they both recognize. However Lutherans evaluate this development, at very least they do not regard it as binding on all Christians. For Catholics, it represents an implication of the gospel or the Word of God as seen in the perspective of a long historical reflection, and as having developed in accordance with principles already present in the gospel from the beginning.** Nevertheless, the doctrine has at times been too naively or rigidly understood by Catholics themselves and consequently stands in need of further nuancing.** The concerns of Lutherans, as expressed in this dialogue, can help Catholics to understand papal infàllibility in ways that better safeguard the primacy of the gospel and the freedom of the Christian believer.

1. With regard to the Bull Exsurge Domine (1520), condemning certain views attributed to Luther, the Catholic members of this dialogue are convinced that there are no solid grounds for regarding it as an exercise of papal infallibility. It embodies propositions of unequal theological weight. If some of the teachings in this Bull are infallible, this is because other more authoritative documents, such as conciliar canons, affirm the same points.110

1. However this discussion may be resolved, we wish to stress here two important points. **First, whether the anathemas are lifted or not, the differences between Catholics and Lutherans regarding these dogmas do not of themselves exclude all Eucharistic sharing between the churches.**124 Second, the truth-implications of these dogmas must not be overlooked. We aim at mutual communion one day with Lutherans without requiring either side to give up the fundamental evangelical convictions and values of its tradition. **Even if there were a mutual recognition of Ministries and limited Eucharistic sharing, we would feel that we owed it to evangelical truth, as we are given by the Spirit to understand it, to continue to pray and study with Lutherans about these questions. **It would still be important to preserve a mutuality of discussion regarding the meaning of these three dogmas, their place in the hierarchy of truths, and their role in the effective transmission of the Word of God. If our discussions were to lead one day to such recognition and such limited sharing, there would still be a task incumbent on both traditions: to search for a more shared understanding of the Word of God as it applies to Mary and to the one who continues in a unique way the Petrine office among the disciples of Jesus today.
   ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/40/40.1/40.1.5.pdf

 

[EvangelCatholic]

One theme I have discovered in the reading of the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue & ‘From Conflict to Communion’ is the regular referring to Eucharistic sharing between the two Communions.

This is very encouraging and may lead to a mutual celebration of the Mass at the 500th anniversary of the Reformation.

 

[GaryTaylor]

All good, the ecumenical journey through the past few decades has allowed us to deepen our understanding and appreciation of the Petrine primacy.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Point of clarity on the issue of infallibility. The Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue identify 3 dogmas related to papal infallibility including the Immaculate Conception (1854) and that of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin (1950) and, of-course Papal Infallibility (1869) in light of Lumen Gentium of Vatican II.

Lutherans view the papal pronouncements on the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary as non-dogmat****ic and leave it up to each Christian if they believe these or not.

Holding to a new Freedom Lutheran view against any apostolic defined dogma, and relable them as non-dogma is to buffet the goad, it’s an ever changing Lutheran position that began with Luther relabeling 7 already canonized bible books from the 4th century. Luther gave himself the infallible authority to over rule an early church council and Luther has never stood up to that early Church council and Catholic saints who canonized the bible books, to prove Luther’s over ruling position, never mind Infallibility, Immaculate conception.

Knowing this fact of Lutheranism, paints a picture that Lutheranism rejects the dogma of infallibility, yet takes the position of infallibility to grant the freedom to anyone christian to accept an apostolic dogma or not. This can never reach ecumenical standards.

But your theological Lutheran views can never prevent no one from reason and truth. That is what your Concords reveal about our shared views of faith that sets a path to reconciliation, not ecumenism.

There is no doubt Catholics want a shared communion with Lutherans. This can happen with dialogue of shared belief’s that bring about reconciliation, not through ecumenism.

The documents you provide are shared prayers and efforts towards communion. But they have not reached the stage of ecumenical standards. Because you and other Lutherans like to mention the Orthodox as if they side for your Lutheran positions of dialogue, they do not and their dialogue with you is not ecumenical. They may agree with you of not accepting the Immaculate Conception and other defined dogmas, Never the less these shared objections are not ecumenical that allows a shared communion with the Orthodox.

Listen to the dogmas you reject without a Lutheran position that rejects them, then we are on the road of ecumenism, not separation.

Peace be with you.

 

[Peter_J]

The documents you provide are shared prayers and efforts towards communion. But they have not reached the stage of ecumenical standards. Because you and other Lutherans like to mention the Orthodox as if they side for your Lutheran positions of dialogue, they do not and **their dialogue with you is not ecumenical. **

Can you elaborate on that or provide a link?

 

[PRmerger]

I went to the Pro-Life rally here in Washington State with the local Catholic parish - we went to mass beforehand. I had several really great Catholics invite me to commune - it was very difficult to decline.

You are a man of great principle, ben.

:bowdown:

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Working my way backward, I’ve taken a brief look at the Dialogue concerning papal primacy and Lutherans. The amazing Catholic effort to find unity is humbly/ gratefully received. Anyone following other Dialogue between Rome and Anglicans, Orthodox, Reformed?

As with all Christians, Lutherans fell in love with Pope John23 and a holy day is devoted to him in our Calendar. Since that time, the papacy has engaged in significant talks with Lutherans. The results are quite encouraging.

Papal Primacy and the Universal Church (1973)

In view of their own particular spiritual patrimony and, not least, their own firm convictions concerning the papacy itself, Lutherans will presumably not be in a position to adopt the same relationship to the see of Rome that is currently held by Roman Catholics. But we suggest in our Common Statement (par. 33), that a distinct canonical status may be worked out by which Lutherans could be in official communion with the church of Rome. Such a restoration of communion, we believe, would be of great benefit to Roman Catholics, and to Lutherans, enabling them both to share in a broader Christian heritage. In such a wider communion of churches the papacy would be able to serve as a sign and instrument of unity, not simply for Roman Catholics, but for others who have never ceased to pray and labor for the manifest unity of the whole church of Christ.

In terms of the Petrine function we believe that both Lutherans and Roman Catholics may no longer avoid the question: Could not the pope in our time become in some real way pastor and teacher of all the faithful, even those who cannot accept all the claims connected with his office? In the light of our experience in this dialogue we believe that the Roman Catholic church should take definite steps to face this question.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/attitudes-papal-primacy.cfm