Pope to travel to Sweden to commemoration Reformation's anniversary [CC]

[steido01]

I hope this “celebration” and the recent Finnish Lutheran communion debacle aren’t related.

Of course they are. Finland was, at various times through its history, controlled by Sweden. Scandinavia never fully embraced the Lutheran Reformation (Heck, one Danish King literally burned a beautiful copy of the Confessions when a German ambassador gifted it!). So it’s no surprise (at least, to us Confessional Lutherans anyway) that a quasi-Lutheran state and its subjugated territories aren’t acting Lutheran. Useless, void, vapid ecumenism is not what Christendom needs.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I believe that it is 2016 that most activities are taking place.

This event is in 2016 and this is something of an inaugural event for a protracted observance. The main join commemorations will be in 2017, which is the 500th anniversary.

A ceremony of Common Prayer has been co-published by the Holy See, through the appropriate dicastery: The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. The Holy Father will use this ceremony on the occasion of his visit to Sweden and he will use it subsequently. It will also be used in Catholic dioceses throughout the world during the joint commemoration.

The joint commemoration will become more prominent as 2016 advances, as the Year of Mercy winds down, and as attention shifts to next year’s 500th anniversary.

 

[Reuben_J]

Why? I don’t get it…

I have resigned myself to it. Now I am working on it .

 

[ComplineSanFran]

This event is in 2016 and this is something of an inaugural event for a protracted observance. The main join commemorations will be in 2017, which is the 500th anniversary.

A ceremony of Common Prayer has been co-published by the Holy See, through the appropriate dicastery: The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. The Holy Father will use this ceremony on the occasion of his visit to Sweden and he will use it subsequently. It will also be used in Catholic dioceses throughout the world during the joint commemoration.

The joint commemoration will become more prominent as 2016 advances, as the Year of Mercy winds down, and as attention shifts to next year’s 500th anniversary.

Thank you Don Ruggero. Do you have access to the liturgy? I would very much like to see it.

 

[Peter_J]

Maybe so the Church can heal a 500 year split? I see nothing wrong with that.

What are you, some kind of ecumenist?

 

[MaryT777]

Of course they are. Finland was, at various times through its history, controlled by Sweden. Scandinavia never fully embraced the Lutheran Reformation (Heck, one Danish King literally burned a beautiful copy of the Confessions when a German ambassador gifted it!). So it’s no surprise (at least, to us Confessional Lutherans anyway) that a quasi-Lutheran state and its subjugated territories aren’t acting Lutheran. Useless, void, vapid ecumenism is not what Christendom needs.

I couldn’t agree more with your last sentence. “useless, void, vapid ecumenism is not what Christendom needs.” Amen.

Mary.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I couldn’t agree more with your last sentence. “useless, void, vapid ecumenism is not what Christendom needs.” Amen.

Mary.

Neither Pope Francis nor Cardinal Koch have judged this joint commemoration to be “useless, void, vapid”. Quite the opposite. They have used terms such as “historic”.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thank you Don Ruggero. Do you have access to the liturgy? I would very much like to see it.

The online version has not been mounted on to the Pontifical Council’s website yet. I will send you, however, an electronic version the document from the co-publisher.

 

[Reuben_J]

I couldn’t agree more with your last sentence. “useless, void, vapid ecumenism is not what Christendom needs.” Amen.

Mary.

I can understand how you feel. I Think along that line too.

I am going to study more about the Jubilee Year of Mercy and try to understand the Pope’s thought.

My consolation would be, if I am not ruled by my head, that I think this Pope, who is the known leader of Christendom, is brave enough to show the world what it means to be Christian and he does that by his action. Turning the other cheek? Forgive the unforgivable? I don’t know. But this Pope is strong enough / Christian enough, where nobody else dares, to do all this. If by this action that he can project this virtue, then it worth the gloom and all the anxiety. Let’s pray and seek the mind of the Lord that we all be invigorated and comforted.

 

[Aslan10]

As an outsider to the inward apparatus of the CC, I don’t understand why some posters see this as so unfavorable. It’s quite known that Sweden’s Church, along with most state churches in Europe, are decaying. By going to this event, Francis is in no way giving credence to some rival faith, setting aside his own faith convictions, or going to make peace with a militant one (not that this final example is bad); all this can do is give him a greater platform in a country starving for spiritual nourishment.

Quite frankly, if I am part of the Swedish Lutheran Church, I’d be worried that this is a sneaky subversive maneuver. I am in no way calling Francis dishonest, but I do not believe his ecumenical tasks are “vapid,” they most definitely have a purpose, that in his mind benefit the CC.

 

[GKC]

As an outsider to the inward apparatus of the CC, I don’t understand why some posters see this as so unfavorable. It’s quite known that Sweden’s Church, along with most state churches in Europe, are decaying. By going to this event, Francis is in no way giving credence to some rival faith, setting aside his own faith convictions, or going to make peace with a militant one (not that this final example is bad); all this can do is give him a greater platform in a country starving for spiritual nourishment.

Quite frankly, if I am part of the Swedish Lutheran Church, I’d be worried that this is a sneaky subversive maneuver. I am in no way calling Francis dishonest, but I do not believe his ecumenical tasks are “vapid,” they most definitely have a purpose, that in his mind benefit the CC.

And, perhaps, by extension, the folk inside and outside of it.

 

[Aslan10]

And, perhaps, by extension, the folk inside and outside of it.

Yes, most definitely.

 

[jschwartz]

The Reformation was a significant intellectual and social revolution that marked a transition away from mercantilism and towards capitalism, from absolutism towards representative government, and that paved the way for the Enlightenment. I’d rather live in 2016 than 1480, personally. God obviously allowed the Reformation to happen, and while I am speaking as a non-Roman Catholic, nonetheless, this shows the greatness of the Bishop of Rome, the Holy Father.

Luther didn’t radically uproot the faith, a view which modern scholarship bears out. He was upset with the fact that the church was selling indulgences and was displeased with the corruption he saw. Thesis 86 poses the question, “Why does the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of Saint Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own money?” For someone to deny that the Church was corrupt is idiocy.

Lutheran-Catholic (and Lutheran-Orthodox) dialogue has shown that in most cases Luther’s views on the Theotokos, the Eucharist, and other areas aren’t as radical as subsequent Reformers made them out to be. In Sweden and other areas formerly of the Swedish Empire, they preserved more markedly Catholic traditions and introduced far less Reformed theology.

 

[GKC]

The Reformation was a significant intellectual and social revolution that marked a transition away from mercantilism and towards capitalism, from absolutism towards representative government, and that paved the way for the Enlightenment. I’d rather live in 2016 than 1480, personally. God obviously allowed the Reformation to happen, and while I am speaking as a non-Roman Catholic, nonetheless, this shows the greatness of the Bishop of Rome, the Holy Father.

Luther didn’t radically uproot the faith, a view which modern scholarship bears out. He was upset with the fact that the church was selling indulgences and was displeased with the corruption he saw. Thesis 86 poses the question, “Why does the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of Saint Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own money?” For someone to deny that the Church was corrupt is idiocy.

Lutheran-Catholic (and Lutheran-Orthodox) dialogue has shown that in most cases Luther’s views on the Theotokos, the Eucharist, and other areas aren’t as radical as subsequent Reformers made them out to be. In Sweden and other areas formerly of the Swedish Empire, they preserved more markedly Catholic traditions and introduced far less Reformed theology.

And the Reformation also was birthed in nascent nationalism, which included a change in the relations between the emerging national power structures, and the power of any agency outside that, to control internal matters. England had a long history of struggles between the Throne and Rome, over sovereignty within English borders, before Henry became the Perfect Storm, to settle the matter.

 

[jschwartz]

Christianity’s schisms are largely the result of political rivalries. The Western Church had a bifurcation of church and state that didn’t exist in Byzantium (this continues to this day; Stalin had a ministry of religion, the supposedly atheist USSR didn’t eschew the Church, and today, look at Putin’s closeness with the Church). 1054 was largely the result of differences in church-state models of interaction. The Church of England split away from Rome over matters of politics, money, and influence. Luther was upset over graft, corruption, and money, and as GKC noted, there were political underpinnings that led up to the Reformation, anyways. In the 1300s, you had the Avignon Papacy and the antipope schism. After Pope Gregory XI died (in 1378), the Romans rioted to ensure the election of a Roman for pope. On April 8, 1378 the cardinals elected a Neapolitan when no viable Roman candidates presented themselves. Urban VI, born Bartolomeo Prignano, the Archbishop of Bari, was elected. Urban had been a respected administrator in the papal chancery at Avignon, but as pope he proved suspicious, reformist, and prone to violent outbursts of temper. Many of the cardinals who had elected him soon regretted their decision: the majority removed themselves from Rome to Anagni, where, even though Urban was still reigning, they elected Robert of Geneva as a rival pope on September 20 of the same year. Robert took the name Clement VII and reestablished a papal court in Avignon. The second election threw the Church into turmoil. There had been antipopes—rival claimants to the papacy—before, but most of them had been appointed by various rival factions; in this case, a single group of leaders of the Church had created both the pope and the antipope.

Therefore, you must understand why many Christians are skeptical of the papacy as an institution. What began as a truly biblical office (Peter’s primacy should be undisputed) over time became a sideshow marred by corruption and geopolitical strife.

 

[steido01]

The Reformation was a significant intellectual and social revolution that marked a transition away from mercantilism and towards capitalism, from absolutism towards representative government, and that paved the way for the Enlightenment. I’d rather live in 2016 than 1480, personally. God obviously allowed the Reformation to happen, and while I am speaking as a non-Roman Catholic, nonetheless, this shows the greatness of the Bishop of Rome, the Holy Father.

Luther didn’t radically uproot the faith, a view which modern scholarship bears out. He was upset with the fact that the church was selling indulgences and was displeased with the corruption he saw. Thesis 86 poses the question, “Why does the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of Saint Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own money?” For someone to deny that the Church was corrupt is idiocy.

Lutheran-Catholic (and Lutheran-Orthodox) dialogue has shown that in most cases Luther’s views on the Theotokos, the Eucharist, and other areas aren’t as radical as subsequent Reformers made them out to be.

Yes.

In Sweden and other areas formerly of the Swedish Empire, they preserved more markedly Catholic traditions and introduced far less Reformed theology.

Outwardly it might occasionally appear that way. But the Swedish Churches nearly always pandered the non-committed “middle ground” with all parties, be they Reformed, Catholic or Lutheran. That’s what the Porvoo bodies share in common: an outward appearance of being cool-catholic, and an aversion to many catholic and sometimes Catholic beliefs unpopular to the Zeitgeist.

 

[GKC]

Yes.

Outwardly it might occasionally appear that way. But the Swedish Churches nearly always pandered the non-committed “middle ground” with all parties, be they Reformed, Catholic or Lutheran. That’s what the Porvoo bodies share in common: an outward appearance of being cool-catholic, and an aversion to many catholic and sometimes Catholic beliefs unpopular to the Zeitgeist.

Yep. Lot of that around.

 

[Aslan10]

Christianity’s schisms are largely the result of political rivalries. The Western Church had a bifurcation of church and state that didn’t exist in Byzantium (this continues to this day; Stalin had a ministry of religion, the supposedly atheist USSR didn’t eschew the Church, and today, look at Putin’s closeness with the Church). 1054 was largely the result of differences in church-state models of interaction. The Church of England split away from Rome over matters of politics, money, and influence. Luther was upset over graft, corruption, and money, and as GKC noted, there were political underpinnings that led up to the Reformation, anyways. In the 1300s, you had the Avignon Papacy and the antipope schism. After Pope Gregory XI died (in 1378), the Romans rioted to ensure the election of a Roman for pope. On April 8, 1378 the cardinals elected a Neapolitan when no viable Roman candidates presented themselves. Urban VI, born Bartolomeo Prignano, the Archbishop of Bari, was elected. Urban had been a respected administrator in the papal chancery at Avignon, but as pope he proved suspicious, reformist, and prone to violent outbursts of temper. Many of the cardinals who had elected him soon regretted their decision: the majority removed themselves from Rome to Anagni, where, even though Urban was still reigning, they elected Robert of Geneva as a rival pope on September 20 of the same year. Robert took the name Clement VII and reestablished a papal court in Avignon. The second election threw the Church into turmoil. There had been antipopes—rival claimants to the papacy—before, but most of them had been appointed by various rival factions; in this case, a single group of leaders of the Church had created both the pope and the antipope.

Therefore, you must understand why many Christians are skeptical of the papacy as an institution. What began as a truly biblical office (Peter’s primacy should be undisputed) over time became a sideshow marred by corruption and geopolitical strife.

Very well said.

 

[MaryT777]

GKC, I really appreciate your scholarship and diplomacy on this thread.

Mary.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Christianity’s schisms are largely the result of political rivalries. The Western Church had a bifurcation of church and state that didn’t exist in Byzantium (this continues to this day; Stalin had a ministry of religion, the supposedly atheist USSR didn’t eschew the Church, and today, look at Putin’s closeness with the Church). 1054 was largely the result of differences in church-state models of interaction. The Church of England split away from Rome over matters of politics, money, and influence. Luther was upset over graft, corruption, and money, and as GKC noted, there were political underpinnings that led up to the Reformation, anyways. In the 1300s, you had the Avignon Papacy and the antipope schism. After Pope Gregory XI died (in 1378), the Romans rioted to ensure the election of a Roman for pope. On April 8, 1378 the cardinals elected a Neapolitan when no viable Roman candidates presented themselves. Urban VI, born Bartolomeo Prignano, the Archbishop of Bari, was elected. Urban had been a respected administrator in the papal chancery at Avignon, but as pope he proved suspicious, reformist, and prone to violent outbursts of temper. Many of the cardinals who had elected him soon regretted their decision: the majority removed themselves from Rome to Anagni, where, even though Urban was still reigning, they elected Robert of Geneva as a rival pope on September 20 of the same year. Robert took the name Clement VII and reestablished a papal court in Avignon. The second election threw the Church into turmoil. There had been antipopes—rival claimants to the papacy—before, but most of them had been appointed by various rival factions; in this case, a single group of leaders of the Church had created both the pope and the antipope.

Therefore, you must understand why many Christians are skeptical of the papacy as an institution. What began as a truly biblical office (Peter’s primacy should be undisputed) over time became a sideshow marred by corruption and geopolitical strife.

You are right, however, have your found anything better on earth? Corruption and strife may be with us until the Parousia, so is the solution avoiding the People of God and all leadership?