Pope urges Catholics and Lutherans to recognize past errors

[pnewton]

I would like to think this is a good event.

But I follow some conservative Catholics on social media, and they have a completely different take. For purpose of charity, their sentiments will not be repeated here.

Things are confusing: how to know it is the working of the Holy Spirit or a pope who is misled, or worse, a her–ic?

If following conservative Catholics on social media confuses you to the point you think the pope might be heretical, you should not be following conservative Catholics on social media.

 

[twf]

“A waste of time”…“nothing substantive ever seems to come from it.”

This is written by someone whose profile says they went through RCIA in 2015?

:nope:

As a Catholic priest, I think back to 50 years ago when, in the wake of the Council, I could not imagine, within my lifetime, that the progress would be so great that the Pope and a Lutheran Bishop would do what I saw today: stand side by side in a former Catholic – and now Lutheran – cathedral, in order to co-preside at a joint liturgy of common prayer to commemorate the Reformation…and invite Catholic clergy and Lutheran clergy to repeat this rite in parishes all around the world over the course of the next year, with their own Catholic and Lutheran flocks coming together to make these commemorations occur at the parish level.

I am nothing short of being in amazement at where we are in this journey From Conflict To Communion after a mere 50 years of dialogue, which seeks to heal wounds more than 500 years old.

Father,
I think many converts to Catholicism experience a fresh zeal for finding the fullness of truth that makes it very difficult to appreciate the nuance present in ecumenical dialogue and gestures. I was in the same boat as a young convert of 18 (nearly 12 years ago now). It’s an overcompensation of sorts after we come to reject certain aspects of our former faith (for many converts in North America that would be some form of evangelicalism).
I experienced a lot of backlash from Evangelical family members when I embraced the “Whore of Babylon” (Rome). This can cloud one’s views of ecumenical matters. Thankfully, some have since undergone their own journeys: my parents are now Lutheran and my sister Anglican. And we collectively rejoice in what we have come to share: liturgy, sacramental theology, an appreciation for Christian tradition, etc.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. I think evangelization at the individual and parish level is what we need to focus on. We’ve been focusing on ecumenical efforts over the past fifty years, but it seems that Catholics and Lutherans are even further apart, especially as far as moral theology is concerned (women priests, gay marriage, etc).

I believe that dialogue needs to start at the bottom, not the top. Evangelizing individual people or individual churches (i.e. The Anglican Ordinariate) is more likely to be effective. Have Lutheran churches or the Episcopal church ever changed a single doctrine to align more with Catholic teaching? I guess I’m just cynical.

Sorry if I’m getting this thread further off topic.

How the process proceeds is exclusively Rome’s decision.

As for the involvement at levels below Rome, it takes place under the direction and guidance of the bishops, as is made clear in Unitatis Redintegratio and in The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism which is a dispositive text that is binding upon all the faithful.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I’m not exactly sure this is progress.

The Vicar of Christ disagrees with you.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I wonder which Lutheran Sect sat down with the pope? The ELCA is the prominent Lutheran sect in my area. The next in prominence is the Missouri synod which is VERY separated from the ELCA. The ELCA is the largest Lutheran Body in the U.S. If we were to have Joint ceremonies which sect would we choose? The 3.5 million-member ELCA which supports abortion, birth control and gay marriage? Or the 2.5 million member WLS which is bitterly separated from both the ELCA and the Catholic Church. ? Choosing one or the other would be terribly un-ecumenical and send hostile signals towards the other. If Liturgy drove the decision it would be a no-brainer to ask the Missouri synod Church, their liturgy is quite close to the Catholic Liturgy. I have family members that are MSL and they kneel at a communion rail and recieve on the tongue.

Deacon, I am greatly in astonishment both at what you ask and in the formulation you use to ask it.

“Sect?” Is this the term your diocese uses? Is this the formulation of your Diocese’s ecumenical official? To speak of a sect?

We do not “choose,” as though we were directing…in a spirit of fraternal dialogue, we invite, just as we, in turn, are invited by other Christian confessions.

This year long event – which the Americans are giving an even longer observance across the United States – was intensely planned for many years, since the beginning of Pope Benedict’s pontificate, actually. Those who desired to participate have been cordially welcomed by each other with open arms.

The Missouri Synod Lutherans have made a choice not to be part of the joint commemoration of the Reformation. That is, of course, their prerogative and their decision is absolutely respected, as of course it should be.

I will say that I am sorry for the decision but I gladly show them that same respect that I would expect them to show when an invitation was extended to which Rome might say “no, we are sorry but we cannot.”

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thank you for this information. I am not very knowledgeable about the SSPX save they are in schism with Rome and that they seem to think anything post Vatican ll is invalid.

Whereas, Convert in 99, I have had the sorrow of following this tragic affair since the Archbishop being Superior General of his own Religious Congregation ceased through to the horrible things he did to one Pope now beatified and one Pope now canonised…two extraordinary saints of Almighty God…the Blessed Paul VI and Saint John Paul II.

 

[Convert_in_99]

The Vicar of Christ disagrees with you.

As does a canonized saint I might add!

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I would like to think this is a good event.

But I follow some conservative Catholics on social media, and they have a completely different take. For purpose of charity, their sentiments will not be repeated here.

Things are confusing: how to know it is the working of the Holy Spirit or a pope who is misled, or worse, a her–ic?

I suggest that instead of following “some conservative Catholics on social media” – who may have no theological education whatsoever – you look to the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of Peter. That you look to the College of Bishops as a body, since together they constitute the successors to the apostles.

With that criteria, I would suggest you read Unitatis Redintegatio…the conciliar decree on ecumenism. A document acclaimed by the more than 2100 bishops who were at the ecumenical council before it was solemnly promulgated by the Blessed Paul VI.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

There is nothing confusing about where the Holy Spirit and His working is to be found. His working is found with the Successor of Peter and then with the College of Bishops working in communion with the head of the college and under the head of the college – as is succinctly but well articulated in chapter 3 of Lumen Gentium.

 

[Convert_in_99]

I suggest that instead of following “some conservative Catholics on social media” – who may have no theological education whatsoever – you look to the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of Peter. That you look to the College of Bishops as a body, since together they constitute the successors to the apostles.

With that criteria, I would suggest you read Unitatis Redintegatio…the conciliar decree on ecumenism. A document acclaimed by the more than 2100 bishops who were at the ecumenical council before it was solemnly promulgated by the Blessed Paul VI.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

There is nothing confusing about where the Holy Spirit and His working is to be found. His working is found with the Successor of Peter and then with the College of Bishops working in communion with the head of the college and under the head of the college – as is succinctly but well articulated in chapter 3 of Lumen Gentium.

Excuse me for cutting in Father, but sadly overly-conservative Catholics are questioning our Holy Father and his motives. They are going down a dangerous and slippery slope, but they think they are “saving” the Church from “attack from within.”

 

[ProVobis]

I wonder which Lutheran Sect sat down with the pope? The ELCA is the prominent Lutheran sect in my area. The next in prominence is the Missouri synod which is VERY separated from the ELCA. The ELCA is the largest Lutheran Body in the U.S. If we were to have Joint ceremonies which sect would we choose? The 3.5 million-member ELCA which supports abortion, birth control and gay marriage? Or the 2.5 million member WLS which is bitterly separated from both the ELCA and the Catholic Church. ? Choosing one or the other would be terribly un-ecumenical and send hostile signals towards the other. If Liturgy drove the decision it would be a no-brainer to ask the Missouri synod Church, their liturgy is quite close to the Catholic Liturgy. I have family members that are MSL and they kneel at a communion rail and recieve on the tongue.

Good points. I had occasion to attend a Lutheran memorial for my niece. It was most reverent and felt very warm.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Good points. I had occasion to attend a Lutheran memorial for my niece. It was most reverent and felt very warm.

Yep. Protestants don’t have cooties like some seem to think!

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Excuse me for cutting in Father, but sadly overly-conservative Catholics are questioning our Holy Father and his motives. They are going down a dangerous and slippery slope, but they think they are “saving” the Church from “attack from within.”

Then they would show themselves to be anything but “overly conservative Catholics.”

Pope Saint John Paul II explained this matter quite well in 1988 to those who thought they were more faithful to tradition than the successor of Peter. He wrote:
But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church
Thus a Catholic cannot break with the living successor of Peter…for by that very act they would betray Tradition, they betray the successor of Peter, and they betray Christ Himself.

The only one on earth who can judge the Pope is the Pope. For all the rest of us, we get to obey.

 

[deaconjohnO]

Deacon, I am greatly in astonishment both at what you ask and in the formulation you use to ask it.

“Sect?” Is this the term your diocese uses? Is this the formulation of your Diocese’s ecumenical official? To speak of a sect?

We do not “choose,” as though we were directing…in a spirit of fraternal dialogue, we invite, just as we, in turn, are invited by other Christian confessions.

This year long event – which the Americans are giving an even longer observance across the United States – was intensely planned for many years, since the beginning of Pope Benedict’s pontificate, actually. Those who desired to participate have been cordially welcomed by each other with open arms.

The Missouri Synod Lutherans have made a choice not to be part of the joint commemoration of the Reformation. That is, of course, their prerogative and their decision is absolutely respected, as of course it should be.

I will say that I am sorry for the decision but I gladly show them that same respect that I would expect them to show when an invitation was extended to which Rome might say “no, we are sorry but we cannot.”

Reverand, it was a poor choice of words. Perhaps the term Branch came to mind but that doesn’t seem correct either. I’m not sure what term to use. Denomination?

 

[2PT3]

A Church for everyone, no matter what they believe! Everyone’s included! Unity in diversity!

I just don’t see how this works. Where does it lead? Is it really unity or is it just a cave-in that gives the surface appearance of unity while permitting everyone to bring their own set of beliefs to the table?

 

[2PT3]

Then they would show themselves to be anything but “overly conservative Catholics.”

Pope Saint John Paul II explained this matter quite well in 1988 to those who thought they were more faithful to tradition than the successor of Peter. He wrote:
But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church
Thus a Catholic cannot break with the living successor of Peter…for by that very act they would betray Tradition, they betray the successor of Peter, and they betray Christ Himself.

The only one on earth who can judge the Pope is the Pope. For all the rest of us, we get to obey.

No, a Catholic can never break from St. Peter. But, you ignore St. Paul, who challenged St. Peter at Antioch. You also ignore St. Catherine of Siena, who challenged Pope Gregory XI. And, you ignore the fact that Pope Honorius was posthumously anathematized for tolerating heresy. We have had many bad Popes over 2,000 years.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

No, a Catholic can never break from St. Peter. But, you ignore St. Paul, who challenged St. Peter at Antioch. You also ignore St. Catherine of Siena, who challenged Pope Gregory XI. And, you ignore the fact that Pope Honorius was posthumously anathematized for tolerating heresy. We have had many bad Popes over 2,000 years.

Pick your battles wisely. This is one you’re not going to win. Don Ruggero is right. As a layman of the Roman Catholic Church, your duty is to submit to the living magisterium. You are at odds with your own ecclesiastical institution. Vatican I dealt with the pope honorius charge. You have to respect its decision.

 

[Convert_in_99]

A Church for everyone, no matter what they believe! Everyone’s included! Unity in diversity!

I just don’t see how this works. Where does it lead? Is it really unity or is it just a cave-in that gives the surface appearance of unity while permitting everyone to bring their own set of beliefs to the table?

No, not at all. Not one single Church teaching has been compromised in this. In fact, our Church is more like the one the Apostles founded than ever before. I’m sorry you have trouble with change, but Vatican ll worked out fine and so will this.

 

[2PT3]

Pick your battles wisely. This is one you’re not going to win. Don Ruggero is right. As a layman of the Roman Catholic Church, your duty is to submit to the living magisterium. You are at odds with your own ecclesiastical institution. Vatican I dealt with the pope honorius charge. You have to respect its decision.

This is just basic stuff posted on Wikipedia. It could be wrong. I don’t see anything inconsistent with my position on Pope Honorius and that of Vatican I. I would be interested to know if the anathema was ever retracted.

Wikipedia:

More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, “and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things”.

Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, “And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” The Sixteenth Session adds: “To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!”

This condemnation was subsequently confirmed by Leo II (a fact disputed by such persons as Cesare Baronio and Bellarmine,[4] but which has since become commonly accepted) in the form, “and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”. The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes: “It is in this sense of guilty negligence that the papacy ratified the condemnation of Honorius.” That is, the papacy condemned Honorius not for teaching a heresy ex cathedra, but for negligently permitting heretical positions to stand alongside orthodox ones.

This anathema against Honorius was later one of the main arguments against Papal infallibility in the discussions surrounding the First Vatican Council of 1870, where the episode was not ultimately regarded as contrary to the proposed dogma. This was because Honorius was not considered by the supporters of infallibility to be speaking ex cathedra in the letters in question (although the Catholic historian Hefele and opponents of the definition believed that Honorius had spoken ex cathedra),[1] and he was alleged to have never been condemned as a Monothelite, nor, asserted the proponents of infallibility, was he condemned for teaching heresy, but rather for gross negligence and a lax leadership at a time when his letters and guidance were in a position to quash the heresy at its roots.

 

[Convert_in_99]

This is just basic stuff posted on Wikipedia. It could be wrong. I don’t see anything inconsistent with my position on Pope Honorius and that of Vatican I. I would be interested to know if the anathema was ever retracted.

Wikipedia:

More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, “and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things”.

Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, “And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” The Sixteenth Session adds: “To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!”

This condemnation was subsequently confirmed by Leo II (a fact disputed by such persons as Cesare Baronio and Bellarmine,[4] but which has since become commonly accepted) in the form, “and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”. The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes: “It is in this sense of guilty negligence that the papacy ratified the condemnation of Honorius.” That is, the papacy condemned Honorius not for teaching a heresy ex cathedra, but for negligently permitting heretical positions to stand alongside orthodox ones.

This anathema against Honorius was later one of the main arguments against Papal infallibility in the discussions surrounding the First Vatican Council of 1870, where the episode was not ultimately regarded as contrary to the proposed dogma. This was because Honorius was not considered by the supporters of infallibility to be speaking ex cathedra in the letters in question (although the Catholic historian Hefele and opponents of the definition believed that Honorius had spoken ex cathedra),[1] and he was alleged to have never been condemned as a Monothelite, nor, asserted the proponents of infallibility, was he condemned for teaching heresy, but rather for gross negligence and a lax leadership at a time when his letters and guidance were in a position to quash the heresy at its roots.

Are you alright with Vatican II?

 

[Jon_Mallory]

This is just basic stuff posted on Wikipedia. It could be wrong. I don’t see anything inconsistent with my position on Pope Honorius and that of Vatican I. I would be interested to know if the anathema was ever retracted.

Wikipedia:

More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, “and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things”.

Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, “And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” The Sixteenth Session adds: “To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!”

This condemnation was subsequently confirmed by Leo II (a fact disputed by such persons as Cesare Baronio and Bellarmine,[4] but which has since become commonly accepted) in the form, “and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”. The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes: “It is in this sense of guilty negligence that the papacy ratified the condemnation of Honorius.” That is, the papacy condemned Honorius not for teaching a heresy ex cathedra, but for negligently permitting heretical positions to stand alongside orthodox ones.

This anathema against Honorius was later one of the main arguments against Papal infallibility in the discussions surrounding the First Vatican Council of 1870, where the episode was not ultimately regarded as contrary to the proposed dogma. This was because Honorius was not considered by the supporters of infallibility to be speaking ex cathedra in the letters in question (although the Catholic historian Hefele and opponents of the definition believed that Honorius had spoken ex cathedra),[1] and he was alleged to have never been condemned as a Monothelite, nor, asserted the proponents of infallibility, was he condemned for teaching heresy, but rather for gross negligence and a lax leadership at a time when his letters and guidance were in a position to quash the heresy at its roots.

Off topic. You’re derailing this thread.