Prayer at Reformation Day attended by the Pope

[SyroMalankara]

Yl
In truth, I have NEVER met a Catholic “working their way to Heaven”, just as I have NEVER met a Protestant who says “faith is all I need, I’ll just hang out until the Rapture”.

I have. On the same subject though, I went to a talk by an ultraliberal Catholic priest on pacifism and one guy came out mumbling how he’s not Jesus so the actual teaching on turn the other cheek didn’t apply to him. I’m pretty sure he was Catholic.

Catholics have to move beyond the rigid pronouncements of radical traditionalists, the fundamentalists of Catholicism.

I dont think this is appropriate. Many times its the socalled rigid ones who are later saints, and if one looks toward the East, many of the elders and monastics that are considered holy were often in their day called “rigid” as well.

And into the arena of communication that will resolve differences.
Rigidity without mercy gets us nowhere.

sure Mercy, but is firmness in one’s own faith rigid? Does mercy mean obfuscation?

 

[Kliska]

Have you ever been party to a debate in which the Catholic and the Protestant are heatedly arguing faith and works? And you realize the BOTH of them are saying the same thing, but in different ways? And all they are doing is arguing the definition of words and not getting to the heart of the matter, or the reality?
In truth, I have NEVER met a Catholic “working their way to Heaven”, just as I have NEVER met a Protestant who says “faith is all I need, I’ll just hang out until the Rapture”.
Catholics have to move beyond the rigid pronouncements of radical traditionalists, the fundamentalists of Catholicism. And into the arena of communication that will resolve differences.
Rigidity without mercy gets us nowhere.

Yes. This.

 

[Peter_J]

In a word, yes.

In a word from another source, Anglicans too.

Generally.

Does the transitive property hold? Lutherans recognize Anglicans, who recognize Catholics, who recognize Orthodox, so Lutherans recognize Orthodox.

 

[GKC]

Does the transitive property hold? Lutherans recognize Anglicans, who recognize Catholics, who recognize Orthodox, so Lutherans recognize Orthodox.

I will hope that is accurate.

 

[steido01]

Does the transitive property hold? Lutherans recognize Anglicans, who recognize Catholics, who recognize Orthodox, so Lutherans recognize Orthodox.

I will hope that is accurate.

In a word from the first source, yep.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You don’t see anything “wrong” with that document? Please explain what the document is saying. If I were a Lutheran why be Catholic? It appears they have the Real Presence. That’s news to me.

The document says Catholics and Lutherans agree. It used the word they and them which can only refer to both Catholics and Lutherans. It says “the risen Christ given to them”…They receive his body and blood"…believers have access to the glorified flesh"…it says WE agree that Christ himself is present…

“Lutherans and Catholics agree in esteeming highly the spiritual benefits of union with the risen Christ given to them as they receive his body and blood in Holy Communion. Trinitarian Dimension of Eucharist (28) Catholics and Lutherans agree that in Eucharistic worship the church participates in a unique way in the life of the Trinity: In the power of the Holy Spirit, called down upon the gifts and the worshiping community, believers have access to the glorified flesh and blood of Christ the Son as our food, and are brought in union with him and with each other to the Father.”

“Eucharistic Presence (30) Lutherans and Catholics agree that in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus Christ himself is present: He is present truly, substantially, as a person, and he is present in his entirety, as Son of God and a human being”

If this were about the Orthodox you would expect this kind of wording but it’s about Lutherans

Later it goes on to talk about transubstantiation and what Lutherans believe and it states:

“Both traditional Catholic and traditional Lutheran approaches, then, different as they are in expression, affirm Christ’s real, substantial presence in the sacrament. In the faith of both churches, when one receives the Eucharistic elements or species, one truly receives the body and blood of Christ in a sacramental way, and so comes into communion with Christ, in order to be on pilgrimage with him.”

It says right there “In the faith of BOTH churches, when one receives the Eucharist elements or species, one truly receives the body and blood of Christ.”

On mode of presence it says:

“However, members of the international Joint Commission (1978) have suggested that this difference in understanding the mode of presence need not be church-dividing ………“Catholics, on the other hand, should recognize that a clear and unambiguous affirmation of the real presence of Christ—as is indeed given by the Lutheran side—can no longer form the subject of an anathema sit “let that person be anathema”.

Yes, I think there is a lot wrong with the document…it’s wording.

Don, do they have the Real Presence? Do Lutherans receive the glorified flesh and blood of Christ?

Why do you ask me? So that you can argue? The documents are crystal clear. They very well explain where consensus exists and where dialogue has not yet achieved consensus.

Instead of asking me, ask the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who said, in 1993,

“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.]

This he said almost 23 years ago, and even then it was the expression of what was normative in the theological community engaged in the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue – which Cardinal Ratzinger oversaw as prefect of the Congregation.

The word chosen by Cardinal Ratzinger is most apt. There have been many growths in insight. This has allowed for new understanding, theologically and ecclesiologically, beyond the paradigms used historically.

Pope Saint John Paul II articulated again and again the growth in understanding as a result of Vatican II, most notably in Ut Unum Sint when he said that even the insights of Vatican II have been overtaken in the subsequent years.

As Pope, Benedict XVI brought to Rome Gerhard Müller and Kurt Koch, elevating them as Cardinals and, respectively, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Both, prior to their arrivals in Rome, were leaders of the Joint Lutheran Catholic Theological Dialogue. The most recent product of the dialogue, From Conflict to Communion, has been embraced by Pope Francis.

The 500th anniversary of the Reformation also marks the 50th anniversary of the theological dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans. It will be very special – and also provide very historic moments for the events that it will occasion.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Thanks for the clarification Father. While we were getting all these new insights, what were these Lutherans doing, since at the same time they were moving further and further away from Apostolic Christianity. Don’t they today claim to have women bishops, female priests, gay marriages, gay married priests and bishops, support abortion, support euthanasia, etc? Were we only receiving insight and not providing any? Or were they just not as receptive?
Ultimately what is the goal? Why dialogue with a community that is going further and further apart from us, rather than a group like the LCMS or ACNA?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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?

I have already answered this question. In post #55.

 

[commenter]

Thanks for the clarification Father. While we were getting all these new insights, what were these Lutherans doing, since at the same time they were moving further and further away from Apostolic Christianity. Don’t they today claim to have women bishops, female priests, gay marriages, gay married priests and bishops, support abortion, support euthanasia, etc? Were we only receiving insight and not providing any? Or were they just not as receptive?
Ultimately what is the goal? Why dialogue with a community that is going further and further apart from us, rather than a group like the LCMS or ACNA?

I don’t deny the genuine ecumenical progress. Let’s credit 5 steps forward for better understanding and mutual responsibility for the events of the Reformation. Another 5 steps forward for clarification on sacraments, 5 steps forward for new common insights on justification/salvation, 5 steps forward for breakthroughs on Holy Orders, throw in another 5 steps forward for common Scripture understanding, all since 1965.

OK then count 100 steps backwards just for half the Lutheran leadership promoting legal abortion. Nothing is more basic than the sanctity of life itself. I count that as a net regression since 1965. They have moved 75 steps backwards compared to 1965, and I haven’t yet counted in the other issues mentioned in the post I cited.

The ecumenists are aware of this - it’s hard to miss the 2000 pound elephant in the room - but are saying "Oh your feelings about abortion are important, but we’ll talk about that some other time. But really they won’t. ELCA and its allies know the 2000 pound elephant is a deal breaker. But they keep promoting and publicizing the talks because it gives them cover for their “deeds”. They are not interested in ending the discussions. They are not interested in making any real changes, like getting rid of the 2000 pound elephant. It’s sort of like the fiancee who never wants to break off the engagement, but also never intends to marry.

 

[Third_Day]

=Don Ruggero;13641423]Why do you ask me? So that you can argue?

Why would you assume I want to argue?

The documents are crystal clear.

In my opinion they aren’t clear. They are very confusing.

They very well explain where consensus exists and where dialogue has not yet achieved consensus.

Do the Lutherans have the Body and Blood of Christ in their Eucharist? I know that they think the do. I’m asking does transubstantiation take place or is consubstantiation sufficient for the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity to be substantially present?

Instead of asking me, ask the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who said, in 1993,

Is that quote part of a magisterial document or a personal opinion?

The word chosen by Cardinal Ratzinger is most apt. There have been many growths in insight. This has allowed for new understanding, theologically and ecclesiologically, beyond the paradigms used historically.

So you are saying that, at present, the new understanding is that the Lutherans have a valid priesthood which could only come through bishops with apostolic succession and at present the Lutherans have a valid consecration

I’m not looking to argue. I’m asking a question.

 

[steido01]

Do the Lutherans have the Body and Blood of Christ in their Eucharist? I know that they think the do. I’m asking does transubstantiation take place or is consubstantiation sufficient for the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity to be substantially present?

No Lutheran believes in “Consubstantiation.” In fact, I’m not sure any communion on earth does. Lutherans actually profess “Sacramental Union,” which is just a fancy way of saying, essentially, “it’s a mystery and we don’t understand how it happens, but the bread and wine truly and actually and miraculously become the Body and Blood of Christ.”

 

[steido01]

Thanks for the clarification Father. While we were getting all these new insights, what were these Lutherans doing, since at the same time they were moving further and further away from Apostolic Christianity. Don’t they today claim to have women bishops, female priests, gay marriages, gay married priests and bishops, support abortion, support euthanasia, etc? Were we only receiving insight and not providing any? Or were they just not as receptive?
Ultimately what is the goal? Why dialogue with a community that is going further and further apart from us, rather than a group like the LCMS or ACNA?

Many in the LCMS have been pondering the same questions. Unfortunately, many more in the LCMS are already wary of ecumenical movements, so seeing this sort of thing continue only hardens the hearts of those who want nothing more than to point at Rome and say, “See? We told you so! Papa doesn’t care what you believe so long as you kiss his ring.”

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t deny the genuine ecumenical progress. Let’s credit 5 steps forward for better understanding and mutual responsibility for the events of the Reformation. Another 5 steps forward for clarification on sacraments, 5 steps forward for new common insights on justification/salvation, 5 steps forward for breakthroughs on Holy Orders, throw in another 5 steps forward for common Scripture understanding, all since 1965.

OK then count 100 steps backwards just for half the Lutheran leadership promoting legal abortion. Nothing is more basic than the sanctity of life itself. I count that as a net regression since 1965. They have moved 75 steps backwards compared to 1965, and I haven’t yet counted in the other issues mentioned in the post I cited.

The ecumenists are aware of this - it’s hard to miss the 2000 pound elephant in the room - but are saying "Oh your feelings about abortion are important, but we’ll talk about that some other time.

I’m not sure who “we” is (are) or when “some other time” is, but I didn’t see you on this panel: lutheransatire.org/media/the-all-male-panel/

 

[Peter_J]

Many in the LCMS have been pondering the same questions. Unfortunately, many more in the LCMS are already wary of ecumenical movements, so seeing this sort of thing continue only hardens the hearts of those who want nothing more than to point at Rome and say, “See? We told you so! Papa doesn’t care what you believe so long as you kiss his ring.”

Or as C.S. Lewis put it, they are “so afraid of being taken in that they can not be taken out.”

 

[GKC]

Or as C.S. Lewis put it, they are “so afraid of being taken in that they can not be taken out.”

LAST BATTLE, chap XIII, page 140, 2nd American printing/1962

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thanks for the clarification Father. While we were getting all these new insights, what were these Lutherans doing, since at the same time they were moving further and further away from Apostolic Christianity. Don’t they today claim to have women bishops, female priests, gay marriages, gay married priests and bishops, support abortion, support euthanasia, etc? Were we only receiving insight and not providing any? Or were they just not as receptive?
Ultimately what is the goal? Why dialogue with a community that is going further and further apart from us, rather than a group like the LCMS or ACNA?

I don’t normally follow all that closely the local efforts of the Americans…with certain exceptions. My life and the locus of my work is elsewhere.

Theological dialogue, however, is assuredly a two way enrichment.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

In my opinion they aren’t clear. They are very confusing.

They mean exactly what they say.

So you are saying that, at present, the new understanding is that the Lutherans have a valid priesthood which could only come through bishops with apostolic succession and at present the Lutherans have a valid consecration

No. I have said what I said. And I would thank you, please, not to attempt to put words into my mouth that I have not said. Each issue that you raised is addressed in both From Conflict to Communion and Declaration on the Way: Church, Ministry and Eucharist

What Cardinal Ratzinger said is that an absence of apostolic succession does not preclude the salvation-granting presence of the Lord Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in the Lord’s Supper celebrated by the Lutherans.

 

[commenter]

Many in the LCMS have been pondering the same questions. Unfortunately, many more in the LCMS are already wary of ecumenical movements, so seeing this sort of thing continue only hardens the hearts of those who want nothing more than to point at Rome and say, “See? We told you so! Papa doesn’t care what you believe so long as you kiss his ring.”

This has been my fear, that careless, tunnel-vision, “we will always live in 1965” ecumenism will discourage genuine ecumenism, especially for Anglicans and Lutherans.

The heart of ecumenical activity, for Catholics and Lutherans, is in prolife movement, the movement for sanctity of marriage, and religious liberty. There, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans and evangelicals are joining forces and supporting each other. That is the prophetic witness of Christianity in the West. They also are starting to join forces on other fronts, presenting Christianity in the public square as having a supernatural component, that some truths are absolutely true or right, that Christianity is not a slave to the secular media.

What specialized ecumenists are doing is not bad, but only one percent as important as the above. They just get far more media attention.

 

[Peter_J]

Many in the LCMS have been pondering the same questions. Unfortunately, many more in the LCMS are already wary of ecumenical movements, so seeing this sort of thing continue only hardens the hearts of those who want nothing more than to point at Rome and say, “See? We told you so! Papa doesn’t care what you believe so long as you kiss his ring.”

This has been my fear, that careless, tunnel-vision, “we will always live in 1965” ecumenism will discourage genuine ecumenism, especially for Anglicans and Lutherans.

I was just thinking. There used to be a show on EWTN called “Not By Faith Alone”, and there’s an article on their website that says we are justified by faith alone. I don’t want to make more of this than it is – in particular, I’m confident that it isn’t a problem for perspicacious viewers/readers – but I have to admit that it may cause difficulty for some, vis a vis steido’s post above.

 

[SyroMalankara]

No Lutheran believes in “Consubstantiation.” In fact, I’m not sure any communion on earth does. Lutherans actually profess “Sacramental Union,” which is just a fancy way of saying, essentially, “it’s a mystery and we don’t understand how it happens, but the bread and wine truly and actually and miraculously become the Body and Blood of Christ.”

Well, I can say for certain that the Marthoma Syrians in Union with the Anglicans explicitly mention consubstantiation as a valid option (among many).

In fact, their hodgepodge is so nonsensical that it makes the montley Anglicans seem cohesive.
marthoma.in/faq - Frequently asked questions

Does Marthoma church believe that the “appam”(Bread) and veenju” will become Jesus “Shariram(Body) and Raktham(Blood)” in Holy Qurbano.
(in collaboration with the Professors of Dharmajyoti VidyaPeeth, Faridabad)
No, we dont believe that the Appam and Veenju become Jesus’ real body and blood.

At times they say all of the theories trans, con, etc are valid and at other times they say ‘receptionism’ - that is, whatever the believer believes - is what occurs. That is, when they are not denying it as only a symbol.