Question for Lutherans

[Memaw]

I’m pretty sure GKC agrees. But that means that you cannot use the numbers (30-40000) for ‘Protestants’ either, as they have been produced by the same faulty method.

In Norway, for instance, the two Roman Catholic dioceses are juridically classified as two denominations.

They can classify it however they want, but that still doesn’t make it two different Churches. The Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, with the Pope as its head. It can never be anything else. God Bless, Memaw

 

[JimmyG88]

I suppose heretic wouldn’t go down too well over the eggs and bacon either

 

[ComplineSanFran]

If they don’t refer to it as Schism, then what do they refer to it as, and what other explanation is there for it? God Bless, Memaw

Christianity. The Church.

 

[Memaw]

Christianity. The Church.

Certainly you would call it that. God Bless, Memaw

 

[GKC]

I actually bowdlerized it a little.

 

[JimmyG88]

Anyone called GKC has to do ‘robust jokes’ it’s his duty. I can only imagine how the other GKC would take to this website. He would almost certainly be banned probably immediately ha ha ha

 

[GKC]

Anyone called GKC has to do ‘robust jokes’ it’s his duty. I can only imagine how the other GKC would take to this website. He would almost certainly be banned probably immediately ha ha ha

Belloc even more so.

 

[JimmyG88]

Belloc even more so.

I misread that for a second

 

[JimmyG88]

Carry on… Don’t lose your head. I have to say though that the causes roots of the English ‘reformation’ are endlessly fascinating. Such a mistake to view them through a contemporary prism. From what I can gather Catherine of Aragon seemed to be the only one who genuinely cared about the sacramental nature of her marriage. Wolsey Campeggio and the Pope didn’t seem over bothered. There are lots of people posting on here whose faith and respect for Catholicism far outweighed that of the medieval clergy.

 

[Duane1966]

Christianity. The Church.

So when would Paul’s admonishment of schism ever come into play for you? In your paradigm, schism seems to be an impossibility. So was Paul writing those warnings for no reason?

 

[Memaw]

Carry on… Don’t lose your head. I have to say though that the causes roots of the English ‘reformation’ are endlessly fascinating. Such a mistake to view them through a contemporary prism. From what I can gather Catherine of Aragon seemed to be the only one who genuinely cared about the sacramental nature of her marriage. Wolsey Campeggio and the Pope didn’t seem over bothered. There are lots of people posting on here whose faith and respect for Catholicism far outweighed that of the medieval clergy.

The Pope didn’t give him the annulment he wanted did he? God Bless, Memaw

 

[Duane1966]

Non-Catholics are not bound by our canon law in so far as it concerns ecclesiastical matters…no papal mandate is needed by an Orthodox bishop to ordain an Orthodox priest as a Orthodox bishop…there is no communion of governance between that Particular Church and the Church of Rome.

I know a lot about how we view the Orthodox, how they view us, and the forms of governance.

In one sense you are wrong though. Failure to recognize an institution as having authority in governance over me, does not mean that said institution does not have authority over me. Jesus told Peter to take care of His sheep. Don’t think He said “unless they don’t recognize your authority.” If one believes they are one of Christ’s sheep, then they are under the successor of Peter, whether they recognize it or not.

Furthermore, your answer fails to address the question I posed to people who say that many, or even all the Christian denominations are true branches of the true Church (many of the posters on this forum feel this way). I am simply asking them, under what scenarios would Paul’s admonishment ever apply then? There seems to be no possibility of schism in their ecclesiology.

The Holy Father and the dicasteries of the Holy See do not – and have not for a long time – used the word schism in reference to Churches and ecclesial communities that are not in communion with the Holy See but are long established and presently existing. This practice is followed by the Catholic bishops diffused throughout the world.

Why are we afraid to use a word that Paul uses? Should he not have used it? Should he have ignored the divisions he was writing about, and instead called them true branches of the true tree? This seems to be what you are saying.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I know a lot about how we view the Orthodox, how they view us, and the forms of governance.

In one sense you are wrong though. Failure to recognize an institution as having authority in governance over me, does not mean that said institution does not have authority over me.

From the Code of Canon Law for the West:

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

 

[Duane1966]

From the Code of Canon Law for the West:

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

My mistake, when originally responding, I had missed the part where you said ecclesiastical matters.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

If they don’t refer to it as Schism, then what do they refer to it as, and what other explanation is there for it? God Bless, Memaw

Pope Saint John Paul II answers your question in Ut Unum Sint:
42. It happens for example that, in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, Christians of one confession no longer consider other Christians as enemies or strangers but see them as brothers and sisters. Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and “Christians of other Communities”. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as “Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church”. This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ. I have personally been able many times to observe this during the ecumenical celebrations which are an important part of my Apostolic Visits to various parts of the world, and also in the meetings and ecumenical celebrations which have taken place in Rome. The “universal brotherhood” of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction. Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past, Communities which were once rivals are now in many cases helping one another: places of worship are sometimes lent out; scholarships are offered for the training of ministers in the Communities most lacking in resources; approaches are made to civil authorities on behalf of other Christians who are unjustly persecuted; and the slander to which certain groups are subjected is shown to be unfounded.
Speaking of non-Catholic Christians as “schismatics” and “heretics”? No. Not from Saint John Paul II. And not from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which is the competent dicastery for relations between the Catholic Church and Christians who are not Catholic. Such terms as schismatics and heretics should be “consigned to oblivion” as well; they belong in the past.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

That is the reason why we NEED an authority to guide us and that is why Jesus gave us the Pope, and the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. God Bless, Memaw

And the Pope uses that authority to tell Catholics how we are to conduct ourselves, each of us, in the quest for unity:

From the encyclical Ut Unum Sint

29. For this reason, the Council’s Decree on Ecumenism also emphasizes the importance of “every effort to eliminate words, judgments, and actions which do not respond to the condition of separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations between them more difficult”. The Decree approaches the question from the standpoint of the Catholic Church and refers to the criteria which she must apply in relation to other Christians. In all this, however, reciprocity is required. To follow these criteria is a commitment of each of the parties which desire to enter into dialogue and it is a precondition for starting such dialogue. It is necessary to pass from antagonism and conflict to a situation where each party recognizes the other as a partner. When undertaking dialogue, each side must presuppose in the other a desire for reconciliation, for unity in truth. For this to happen, any display of mutual opposition must disappear. Only thus will dialogue help to overcome division and lead us closer to unity.

 

[commenter]

The fact that the Church does not use terms like “heretic” or “scism” to refer to contemporary followers of past actions does not mean those past actions are harmless. If you found out that your friend is basing his actions on knowledge that is 10% inaccurate, (because that is how he was trained, through no fault of his own) you would point that out to him.

That does not mean you are “better” than your friend, and it does not mean you would stop being friends even if he chooses not to accept your (name removed by moderator)ut. The New Testament teaches that the fullness of truth (humanly speaking) does exist somewhere, that breaking off from it, to something with a lesser portion of the Truth is bad. The dominant lie nowadays is that every Christianity is equally valid if it appeals to you.

They say, of course, cults are wrong, it is just the churches that are reliable. But there is no obvious line between the two. There is only a continuum, and at one end of that continuum, there must be fullness of truth, at least, the fullest available on earth. For me, the only way that fullness is identifiable is the Magisterium.

 

[Memaw]

The fact that the Church does not use terms like “heretic” or “scism” to refer to contemporary followers of past actions does not mean those past actions are harmless. If you found out that your friend is basing his actions on knowledge that is 10% inaccurate, (because that is how he was trained, through no fault of his own) you would point that out to him.

That does not mean you are “better” than your friend, and it does not mean you would stop being friends even if he chooses not to accept your (name removed by moderator)ut. The New Testament teaches that the fullness of truth (humanly speaking) does exist somewhere, that breaking off from it, to something with a lesser portion of the Truth is bad. The dominant lie nowadays is that every Christianity is equally valid if it appeals to you.

They say, of course, cults are wrong, it is just the churches that are reliable. But there is no obvious line between the two. There is only a continuum, and at one end of that continuum, there must be fullness of truth, at least, the fullest available on earth. For me, the only way that fullness is identifiable is the Magisterium.

I agree, you can change the meaning of words but you can’t change the truth. The “I’m OK, your OK.” idea is far from good. You don’t help someone by confirming the errors. Mo. Angelica called that misguided compassion. The Church does still use the terms Heretic and Schism, check the CCC 2089. God Bless, Memaw

 

[JimmyG88]

I agree, you can change the meaning of words but you can’t change the truth. The “I’m OK, your OK.” idea is far from good. You don’t help someone by confirming the errors. Mo. Angelica called that misguided compassion. The Church does still use the terms Heretic and Schism, check the CCC 2089. God Bless, Memaw

How medieval

 

[Memaw]

How medieval

What is that supposed to mean? I wouldn’t call the CCC, medieval. God Bless, Memaw