Prayer at Reformation Day attended by the Pope

[commenter]

For those who wish to understand where the dialogue is and where it is going, the Holy See makes the information readily available and there is no reason that anyone should be taken by surprise by the initiatives as we prepare for next year’s anniversary.

From the Holy See:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/lutheran-fed-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html

From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops:

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/upload/Declaration_on_the_Way-for-Website.pdf

Keep in mind the Holy See and the USCCB makes other information readily available that is even more relevant.

• The urgency for Catholic individuals, parishes, and dioceses to defend life, and to overcome the Culture of Death in Western countries;
• The urgency to defend Christian Family and morality consistent with the Natural Law;
• The urgency to affirm Christian Truth and morality, and Religious Liberty, when these are opposed by secular, and even some religious authorities;
• The need to cooperate with other Christians who are also committed to the above.
• The need to pray and work to change the hearts of those who oppose the Church on these principles.

All of this has strong implications for ecumenism: who we should be cooperating with, and who we should be trying to convert.

 

[Peter_J]

Well sure. The importance of one duty doesn’t render another duty unimportant.

W.r.t. selectiveness of whom to cooperate with, that’s something I think about a lot (even if I don’t talk about it a lot). Particularly on the internet, because I’m always hearing well-meaning (presumably) people say things like “Well, I had to respond to what was posted, since other people can see it” to which I say, No you don’t *have *to respond to something just because it is posted on the internet.

 

[commenter]

Well sure. The importance of one duty doesn’t render another duty unimportant.

But the duties overlap. Suppose a Protestant tradition was formerly united on racial equality, but in recent decades a majority of that tradition was pushing harder towards White supremacy, while a minority still affirmed equality. It would not be friendly, or “ecumenical”, for Catholics to ignore our brothers’ current problem, to pretend that they are still united in racial unity, as if recent history didn’t happen.

Similarly, we are not being helpful if Catholics ignore the push against Prolife and Sanctity of Marriage condoned by large sections of the Lutheran establishment. It does no one any good to be “impartial” regarding the struggle between prolifers and pro legal abortion supporters within Lutheranism. Pretending recent history didn’t happen is no kindness, and undermines our credibility.

It does no one any benefit to call for repenting the sins of Lutherans and Catholics of the 16th century. Could we call an end to that? Repenting the sins of other people - our ancestors - is a sneaky way to make us feel “repentant” without repenting our own personal sins.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Of course, there will always be people finding excuses for not being ecumenical. A good excuse for some will be that the Pope is “too ecumenical”.

You mean like abandoning orthodoxy and applauding error?

 

[RodH]

A number of the responses here I find utterly stunning.

What we have here is nothing short of a celebration of divorce.

Does NOTHING the Church did and said for 450 years after the Protestant revolt matter one iota?

Folks, the people Pope Francis is going to join in jocular celebration of this heinous event are led by a lesbian fake bishopette who lives with a lesbian fake priestess with whom she is raising a child! What on earth can form a graver scandal than THIS? Is it even possible? This isn’t just a Lutheran sect, it is a sect with whom even the Arch-heretic Luther would disassociate himself and for whose leaders he would demand gibbetting!

Honestly, what has happened to the members of the Catholic Church…

 

[Don_Ruggero]

There is so much wrong with the bishops document. It implies, if not even states, that the Lutherans have a valid priesthood through the laying on of hands, they have the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It implies that the Lutherans have apostolic succession… I could go on and on.

I beg your pardon? “There is so much wrong with the bishops document”? I would be very glad for you to explain to me the basis for your analysis, since you find it wrong, and the theological methodology you use to arrive at that conclusion – on an issue I have worked upon, as a theologian, for many many years.

I will point out that you have not properly categorised the locus of the document. Nor have you accurately articulated what is in the document with the distinctions that are critical for a proper theological analysis.

It does not imply a resolution of the issue of apostolic succession…it says, in fact, directly the opposite.

The theological dialogue however does affirm that there is an efficacious ministry occurring among the Lutherans and that there are many elements in which we have consensus about the theological nature of ministry. This conforms to (and is built upon) what the Council Fathers said at Vatican II:
This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.[Emphasis added]
Thus where these elements of sanctification are found, the Church of Rome is obliged to confess that they are the work of God. This maxim, articulated 50 years ago, is the cornerstone for the analysis of the theological community that is at the heart of the Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue which has led to a completely different articulation than what would have been said 80 or 100 years ago.

As Cardinal Ratzinger said before his election:
“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.” [Briefwechsel von Landesbischof Johannes Hanselmann und Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger über das Communio-Schreiben der Römischen Glaubenskongregation, Una Sancta, 48 (1993): 348.]
Rome acknowledges a salvation granting presence of the Lord in the Lutheran Eucharist.

Catholics who wish to criticise the Holy Father…be it Francis with his gestures or Benedict with his ecclesiology or John Paul II with his teachings as well as the bishops and theologians who are moving forward the ecumenical imperative mandated by the entire College of Bishops, gathered at Vatican II…such Catholics need to understand that the positions they are putting forward are more than fifty years behind where the ecumenical movement has actually brought us – and is actually taking us.

Rather than saying “the bishops are wrong” because what they teach is not in conformity to a mindset of the past, one that no longer is endorsed by Rome, such persons need to study what the Church is teaching and articulating today…or they will be very surprised by the events that will take place in the future.

I am delighted beyond words that I have lived to see the beginning of the joint commemoration of the Reformation by Lutherans and Catholics together as it is a unique historical moment in our journey* together* towards ever greater koinonia. I am delighted to see the advances across these decades.

The anniversary is an excellent occasion for Catholics to read the various documents, starting with *Unitatis Redintegratio *and the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism and moving forward with the various subsequent documents through the intervening decades, in order to know where Rome stands on these issues today.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

A number of the responses here I find utterly stunning.

What we have here is nothing short of a celebration of divorce.

Does NOTHING the Church did and said for 450 years after the Protestant revolt matter one iota?

Folks, the people Pope Francis is going to join in jocular celebration of this heinous event are led by a lesbian fake bishopette who lives with a lesbian fake priestess with whom she is raising a child! What on earth can form a graver scandal than THIS? Is it even possible? This isn’t just a Lutheran sect, it is a sect with whom even the Arch-heretic Luther would disassociate himself and for whose leaders he would demand gibbetting!

Honestly, what has happened to the members of the Catholic Church…

Your post is offensive in the extreme. The Lutheran archbishop of Uppsala is not a lesbian. What you are saying is defamatory and I would hope that the moderators of the forum will address this forthwith.

The rest of your characterisations, I won’t even dignify with a remark.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
Of course, there will always be people finding excuses for not being ecumenical. A good excuse for some will be that the Pope is “too ecumenical”.

Sorry, I don’t get your post. That’s neither an example of someone not being ecumenical, nor of someone being “too ecumenical”.

 

[RodH]

“Rome acknowledges a salvation granting presence of the Lord in the Lutheran Eucharist.”

What you say here is not the same thing at all as what Cardinal Ratzinger said, and regardless it does not define Church teaching on the efficacy of the Lutheran Lord’s Supper and the existence of the Real Presence therein.

One must also understand that the Lutherans have in no way accepted the authority of the Pope nor any of the specifically Catholic doctrines that they rejected from 1517 on. ALL of the “compromise” has been done by Catholic leadership…since Vatican 2. Good grief the Scandinavian brand of the elusive “Lutheranism” is hardly Lutheran at all!

So just what does all of this say about what the Church taught from 1517 until 1965? That is a good question. Has Church teaching CHANGED on the doctrines of the Reformation?

That question demands an answer and it also demands reflection on just what exactly has changed within Lutheranism to make it acceptable in any way since the FACT is, Church teaching has NOT changed on the Lutheran Lord’s Supper, a celebration that is wholly unlike the Mass in that there simply is no presentation of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Period. The Lutherans have no priesthood and they thereby cannot confect the Body and Blood of our Lord. There is no Mass and the Church specifically forbids the confecting of the Body and Blood of our Lord outside the Mass. It is ridiculous to hint or suggest or pretend otherwise.

I chuckle at all this, as when I was a Lutheran we took great glee in the ecumenical process because from our perspective we gave up nothing…ZERO…while the Catholic leadership fawned all over us and fell all over itself trying to reword and redefine its own doctrine so it sounded “Lutheran” and would thus be palatable enough to claim some sort of “progress” on ecumenism. We see the same shuck and jive from Pope Francis.

I don’t spend much time on this site as I don’t have the time to spend. But this thread here is just mind-boggling.

I suppose we are left to suggest that it is just possible that if we give a monkey the CCC and enough time even he could reorganize the words enough to sound just like the Book of Concord.

 

[Peter_J]

A number of the responses here I find utterly stunning.

Don’t think I would say “stunning”. Maybe just “applaudable”.

 

[RodH]

Your post is offensive in the extreme. The Lutheran archbishop of Uppsala is not a lesbian. What you are saying is defamatory and I would hope that the moderators of the forum will address this forthwith.

The rest of your characterisations, I won’t even dignify with a remark.

Defamatory?

Will Brunne not be in attendance? How can what I said be defamatory when she is proud of her immoral accomplishments?

So you DENY that Luther would condemn the antics of what goes for “morality” in the Swedish Lutheran “church”?

You can’t dignify my statements with a remark because you can’t deny the obvious truth in them.

 

[HB11]

A number of the responses here I find utterly stunning.

What we have here is nothing short of a celebration of divorce.

Does NOTHING the Church did and said for 450 years after the Protestant revolt matter one iota?

Folks, the people Pope Francis is going to join in jocular celebration of this heinous event are led by a lesbian fake bishopette who lives with a lesbian fake priestess with whom she is raising a child! What on earth can form a graver scandal than THIS? Is it even possible? This isn’t just a Lutheran sect, it is a sect with whom even the Arch-heretic Luther would disassociate himself and for whose leaders he would demand gibbetting!

Honestly, what has happened to the members of the Catholic Church…

 

[Reuben_J]

“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.” [Briefwechsel von Landesbischof Johannes Hanselmann und Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger über das Communio-Schreiben der Römischen Glaubenskongregation, Una Sancta, 48 (1993): 348.]

Rome acknowledges a salvation granting presence of the Lord in the Lutheran Eucharist.

Catholics who wish to criticise the Holy Father…

First I wish to qualify that I am not one of those criticizing the Holy Father, rather I would reserve any comment on this until I get a clearer picture …

But you certainly have to expound on your statement (bolded) before I would be thinking that you are maybe over the edge with that one. Remember as a clergy majoring in theology, your word would have an official sounding about it compared to an opinion of a lay Catholic. So I think you are making a statement though any theologians may have a different take on it.

I noticed that Pope Emeritus Benedict who was an outspoken theologian himself when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, often quite blunt, was quite careful in his choice of word that he employed double negatives ‘need not in any way deny’ to describe Lutherans Eucharist.

Technically that does not mean ‘acknowledge’ which was your conclusion. As a lay person who has a bit of experience in drafting Church documents like statutes, we found out much to our surprise but we knew better, that every word used is nuanced and has its implication. Very often a short document would be sent back and forth sometimes up to many years, either to your local Bishop or the Head of the Pontifical Council for the Laity in the Vatican, over usage of words and phrases before they were agreed to.

I would not say that Cardinal Ratzinger dared saying categorically that Lutherans Eucharist has salvation power. He certainly gave us room to look at his statement and to think about it.

 

[commenter]

…Thus where these elements of sanctification are found, the Church of Rome is obliged to confess that they are the work of God. This maxim, articulated 50 years ago, is the cornerstone for the analysis of the theological community that is at the heart of the Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue which has led to a completely different articulation than what would have been said 80 or 100 years ago.
…
Rather than saying “the bishops are wrong” because what they teach is not in conformity to a mindset of the past, one that no longer is endorsed by Rome, such persons need to study what the Church is teaching and articulating today…or they will be very surprised by the events that will take place in the future.

Actually there are 3 time frames involved here.

1. Pre-Vatican II - Catholic Church had limited engagement with ecumenism
2. Mid 1960s - Catholic Church now engaged with ecumenism; Lutherans overwealmingly in agreement with Catholics on Prolife, Marriage (mostly) and Religious Liberty.
3. 2016 - Church bodies representing majority of Lutherans diametrically opposed to Catholic Church on Prolife, Marriage, and Religious Liberty. In effect, dominant Lutheran Church in US is saying the Catholic bishops are wrong.

Pretending like it is still in 1960s is wrong. Vatican 2 reminded Christians we need to look at the signs of the times in our own decade, not some nostalgic decade 50 tears ago. Vatican 2 is still in effect. The environment Catholics are responding to has changed, so our response must change as well. Vatican 2 never intended we should keep responding to the particular challenges and issues of the 1960s, or that ecumenism should be hermetically sealed apart from things like denominational collapse on things like abortion.

 

[Peter_J]

Actually there are 3 time frames involved here.

1. Pre-Vatican II - Catholic Church had limited engagement with ecumenism

…

Traditionalist Catholics would, I’m quite sure, agree with lumping “Pre-Vatican II” into one part of your time frame. I, to be honest, find it hard to even take it seriously … so maybe I’m not a traditionalist Catholic after all.

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. Btw, commenter, though I didn’t comment on it, I do agree with your earlier point that we cannot repent for the sins of others.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**Respect toward Pope Francis, other clergy, and other religions WILL be maintained.
Post accordingly. **

 

[Don_Ruggero]

First I wish to qualify that I am not one of those criticizing the Holy Father, rather I would reserve any comment on this until I get a clearer picture …

But you certainly have to expound on your statement (bolded) before I would be thinking that you are maybe over the edge with that one. Remember as a clergy majoring in theology, your word would have an official sounding about it compared to an opinion of a lay Catholic. So I think you are making a statement though any theologians may have a different take on it.

No, I do not have to expound on my statement because it is not a personal conclusion drawn by me. I have chosen, in this forum, simply to relate the decisions of the Council, the Pontiffs, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and the Joint Theological Commission on Catholic-Lutheran Relations without the addition of my own commentary. Further exposition should be had by reading the document co-published by the Holy See and which is more expressive than what I have to say.

I noticed that Pope Emeritus Benedict who was an outspoken theologian himself when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, often quite blunt, was quite careful in his choice of word that he employed double negatives ‘need not in any way deny’ to describe Lutherans Eucharist.

No. I am sorry but this is not true. Joseph Ratzinger is among the most articulate theologians the Church has ever known. Blunt is not a term I would ever use for him because he is extremely precise in his formulation, with almost surgical precision, whether he is speaking to you in German, in Italian, in English or in Latin.

*“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.” [Briefwechsel von Landesbischof Johannes Hanselmann und Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger über das Communio-Schreiben der Römischen Glaubenskongregation, Una Sancta, 48 (1993): 348.]
*
I will, in this one instance, reformulate this to render this phrase into a less complex English. Theologically, the phrase itself is clear. Cardinal Ratzinger is saying that even for both the Catholics and for the Orthodox, for whom apostolic succession is of paramount importance, the fact that we do not have regarding Lutheran ministry what we clearly have relative to both Catholic and Orthodox ministry (because of apostolic succession) does not mean that we can therefore simply deny the presence of the Lord regarding their Eucharist. In other words, the question today cannot be resolved by saying it is invalid, looking simply to the question of apostolic succession after the manner of previous generations.

This profound theological insight alters how we, as theologians, are to analyze the Lutheran synaxis. THAT is the great insight to which he prefers. It is not a personal insight to him. It is the collective insight of the theological community after Vatican II.

Technically that does not mean ‘acknowledge’ which was your conclusion. As a lay person who has a bit of experience in drafting Church documents like statutes, we found out much to our surprise but we knew better, that every word used is nuanced and has its implication. Very often a short document would be sent back and forth sometimes up to many years, either to your local Bishop or the Head of the Pontifical Council for the Laity in the Vatican, over usage of words and phrases before they were agreed to.

I would not say that Cardinal Ratzinger dared saying categorically that Lutherans Eucharist has salvation power. He certainly gave us room to look at his statement and to think about it.

I do not wish to seem unkind but in these comments, it seems to me there is a detachment from reality. “Look at his statement and think about it”. People on the internet are welcome to do this…but is it understood that this has all moved forward and is incorporated into documents that, at this present point in history, are re-shaping Catholic Lutheran dialogue? That is their significance. The theological community, who are the ones to act, are not simply looking and thinking at a statement that goes back more than two decades. The Holy See does not ask for opinion – unless you are a theologian invited to make a contribution – nor does the Magisterium solicit how people “feel” about the issue of Church unity. The Magisterium has expressly articulated that the Holy Spirit impels it.

It is also not “my” conclusion. This is also not a conclusion simply of Cardinal Ratzinger. He is articulating what is the thought of the theological community – which finds expression in “From Conflict to Communion,” which I have posted on this forum 25 times if I posted it once.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/lutheran-fed-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html#Eucharist_

 

[CompSciGuy]

Of course, there will always be people finding excuses for not being ecumenical. A good excuse for some will be that the Pope is “too ecumenical”.

With respect…
I think it is an oversimplification to say that concern surrounding such events as this is simply being “too ecumenical.” Many people are concerned because such an event gives the appearance that the Pope is endorsing the reformation, and in particular Martin Luther, when the specific doctrines that have been borne from the reformation are gravely contrary to authentic Catholic teaching. The concern is that it would be a cause for scandal. It should be the desire of all Catholics that all should experience conversion and come to know the Catholic faith fully. This should be the end goal of ecumenism. When ecumenism is reduced to “tolerance and diversity” then it falls tremendously short of that goal.

A good example of ecumenism is when people of different denominational backgrounds come together to support the pro-life cause. Many non-Catholics involved in pro-life activities are baptized Christians who share in the common goal of protecting and respecting life. We are united in this effort, even if our doctrinal differences divide us. I have known many people who became acquainted with Catholicism through pro-life groups and have since converted because of the witness of Catholics in these groups. At the pro-life social events we were able to discuss matters of faith with charity and without compromising our own beliefs.

For the Roman Pontiff to celebrate the reformation of 1517 sends many a very confusing message. I have heard others in this thread speak of reunification. What does reunification mean to you? Does it simply mean a respect for people of different walks of faith? Or does it mean an actual reunification of one Church with valid sacraments? I respect the desire to affirm Lutherans in their faith in Christ, but I cannot affirm them in particular beliefs that are erroneous and keep them separate from the Catholic Church. And participation in such a ceremony as the 500th anniversary of the reformation appears to do just that. I do not know what the Pope’s real intentions are… but that is the appearance that is given.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Catholics who wish to criticise the Holy Father…be it Francis with his gestures or Benedict with his ecclesiology or John Paul II with his teachings as well as the bishops and theologians who are moving forward the ecumenical imperative mandated by the entire College of Bishops, gathered at Vatican II…such Catholics need to understand that the positions they are putting forward are more than fifty years behind where the ecumenical movement has actually brought us – and is actually taking us.

Rather than saying “the bishops are wrong” because what they teach is not in conformity to a mindset of the past, one that no longer is endorsed by Rome, such persons need to study what the Church is teaching and articulating today…or they will be very surprised by the events that will take place in the future.

Am I to understand, then, that the truth is subject to change? Is that how I am to interpret your words? Is this the teaching of the Church?