Question for Lutherans

[Reuben_J]

There is a Catholic priest who posts here now buy the name of Don Ruggero, out of respect, I call him “Father Don”. Why? Because it is the common title for clergy in the Catholic Church, as well as in many western traditions, such as Anglicanism and in many places, Lutheranism.

In the correspondence between Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Dr. Johannes Hanselmann, Provincial Bishop of the Lutheran-Evangelical Church in Bravaria, Bishop Hanselmann addresses Cardinal Ratzinger thus: Dear and Most Reverend Cardinal,

In his return letter, Cardinal Ratzinger refers to Dr. Hanselmann:
Dear Provincial Bishop,

Now, the good Cardinal did not have to call Hanselmann, “Bishop”. He could have called him , “Dear Dr. Hanselmann”. but he didn’t. He showed the Bishop mutual respect, and from what I know of their relationship, admiration.

If I referred to the priest I meet as Mr. _____, when I know his title is Father ______, it seems to me to be at best, disrespectful. It could also be considered rude and boorish.

I would suspect that Father K probably couldn’t care less what you call him. As for me, I will continue to refer to Father Don in that way for two reasons; 1) it is the respectful and mannerly thing to do, and 2) I would not want to embarrass the Anglican and Lutheran posters here, since I am identified by both names in my profile.

Jon

BTW, the correspondence referenced can be found in Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith

Appreciated the respect that you accord to Catholic priests, Jon, but you being non-Catholic, just a Mr. Ruggero, I can assure you, will not do any damage at all.

God bless you.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

---

That would be good diplomacy and politically correct.

---

Good to hear that. There is nothing good coming out of a Catholic priest who speculates about a very reverenced figure of another religion. Let that be handled by the Vatican.

---

That is interesting. It is not common knowledge among Catholics though. What is commonly known is that the other church before the Reformation was the schism with the Orthodox and before that, of course the Oriental Orthodox.

---

If they are going to achieve something in ecumenism, that would be a good starting point. There is nothing to lose to say that Rome was to blame too.

---

History and commentaries however are often written with personalized leaning and may not agree with what the Popes have to say.

---

Ordinary Catholics are not obligated to agree too, not at pain of mortal sin. That is why you hear lay Catholics are more outspoken than you, especially if they are not involved in any personal capacity in a dialogue with the Protestant organizations or churches.

The question should never be reduced to “is it a mortal sin?” A Catholic should ask “Is this position faithful to what the Holy See has mandated? Is it faithful to the words and the example of the Successor of Peter?”

Actually, the last paragraph is not conformed to what the Holy See has declared. As The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism states:
*4. The Directory is addressed to the Pastors of the Catholic Church, but it also concerns all the faithful, who are called to pray and work for the unity of Christians, under the direction of their Bishops. The Bishops, individually for their own dioceses, and collegially for the whole Church, are, under the authority of the Holy See, responsible for ecumenical policy and practice.

1. At the same time it is hoped that the Directory will also be useful to members of Churches and ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. They share with Catholics a concern for the quality of ecumenical activity. It will be an advantage for them to know the direction those guiding the ecumenical movement in the Catholic Church wish to give to ecumenical action, and the criteria that are officially approved in the Church. It will help them to evaluate the initiatives that come from Catholics, so as to respond to them adequately, and will also help them better to understand the Catholic responses to their initiatives. /…/*
   So, no. Catholic laity do have a responsibility that their statements, especially when published on a website that the bishops have allowed to use the appellation “Catholic” in its name, are truly conformed to both policy and the practice of the bishops who, individually as well as collectively, have responsibility for these matters…with and under the Holy See. It is always a matter that, in issues that are reserved to the College of Bishops, their directives are to be faithfully and diligently implemented.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Appreciated the respect that you accord to Catholic priests, Jon, but you being non-Catholic, just a Mr. Ruggero, I can assure you, will not do any damage at all.

God bless you.

I have to say that I am not in agreement with this sentiment. I certainly recognise that it is a courtesy that my title has been used. The failure to extend that courtesy is going to have a varying degree of problem, however…just as the extension of the courtesy has a positive impact.

Whether it is an ecclesiastical personage or a member of royalty or a member of the nobility or one who holds a title of distinction, or a democratically elected head of state or other official of government, the observance of proper protocol and the failure to observe that protocol has consequences and communicates something very real.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

First, this is not a correct presentation of Lutheran theology. Article XIV of the Augsburg Confession :
**Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called. **

Why not ask him when the last time was he concelebrated Mass with an Orthodox priest?

Or if he has ever concelebrated with an Orthodox priest?

Jon

No, I have not concelebrated with an Orthodox priest. Nor a priest of the Polish National Catholic Church…nor they with me. The same applies for the Anglicans, before someone asks.

In the first case, though, I have been present when the delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarch was present as the Pope offered Mass. It is, of course, not yet possible to concelebrate or communicate but the Mass was interrupted so that Pope and the Patriarch and his entourage could receive in a more elaborate manner the kiss of peace from the Pope at the sign of peace as an emphasis of the bonds that are there.

The maxim in Rome is that the emphasis is always to be on all points that unite us and any point that still divides us is not to be emphasised, as circumstances make possible. Thus, during Pope Saint John Paul’s apostolic visit to Scandinavia, although non-Catholics could not receive Communion, they were to receive a blessing at the time of the distribution of the Eucharist.

As we read in From Conflict to Communion:
*238. Catholics and Lutherans realize that they and the communities in which they live out their faith belong to the one body of Christ. The awareness is dawning on Lutherans and Catholics that the struggle of the sixteenth century is over. The reasons for mutually condemning each other’s faith have fallen by the wayside. *

 

[Reuben_J]

The question should never be reduced to “is it a mortal sin?” A Catholic should ask “Is this position faithful to what the Holy See has mandated? Is it faithful to the words and the example of the Successor of Peter?”

So, no. Catholic laity do have a responsibility that their statements, especially when published on a website that the bishops have allowed to use the appellation “Catholic” in its name, are truly conformed to both policy and the practice of the bishops who, individually as well as collectively, have responsibility for these matters…with and under the Holy See. It is always a matter that, in issues that are reserved to the College of Bishops, their directives are to be faithfully and diligently implemented.

That would be very Catholics and who can argue with it?

Realistically, fortunately or unfortunately, they also have a mind of their own. And contrary to what some, not all but some, uninformed non-Catholics have to say, Catholics do not have to agree to everything that the Popes say.

Ideally, in an ideal world, yes, and you are perfectly right. But it is important to know that, are the laities given leeway to disagree? The answer is yes in certain issues and no, in others. Basically that’s what I was saying rather than to make false pretension.

 

[Reuben_J]

I have to say that I am not in agreement with this sentiment. I certainly recognise that it is a courtesy that my title has been used. The failure to extend that courtesy is going to have a varying degree of problem, however…just as the extension of the courtesy has a positive impact.

Whether it is an ecclesiastical personage or a member of royalty or a member of the nobility or one who holds a title of distinction, or a democratically elected head of state or other official of government, the observance of proper protocol and the failure to observe that protocol has consequences and communicates something very real.

Granted. So it would affect you. Well, even though you are a priest, you are human too. I understand that.

Bottom line however, non-Catholics do not have to call you Father, and you should accept that. But if they do, as most of us would do the same to their clergies, that certainly would be nice. Courtesy, respect and kindness would never do any harm and moreover, it would reflect on the person.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

That would be very Catholics and who can argue with it?

Realistically, fortunately or unfortunately, they also have a mind of their own. And contrary to what some, not all but some, uninformed non-Catholics have to say, Catholics do not have to agree to everything that the Popes say.

Ideally, in an ideal world, yes, and you are perfectly right. But it is important to know that, are the laities given leeway to disagree? The answer is yes in certain issues and no, in others. Basically that’s what I was saying rather than to make false pretension.

Indeed, whether a priest or a lay person, one does not have to agree with everything the Pope says or with everything the Bishop says. However, in matters of which they hold jurisdiction, that is another matter.

If the bishop assigns me to a parish, that is where I have to go. If the bishop attaches for one of the laity of his diocese a codicil to granting a declaration of nullity a decree that they must undergo counseling before further attempting marriage, they must comply.

In this case, in a dispositive document, the Holy See has said that both policy and practice on the issue of ecumenism is reserved to the bishops, which applies also for the laity. The prerogative is therefore the bishops.

 

[Reuben_J]

Just want to add in my response to Fr. Rugerro’s earlier post.

What was not said, but I just want to say here, was that calling a person, in this case a clergy, Catholic priest or whatever priests, by their religious titles, very often would depend on the relationship between the two persons concerned. Is it cordial, friendly or business-like? That is why a Catholic priest or priests of any other religions often fail, when they demand that people should be addressing them by their religious titles. Yet, even if people don’t, it does not necessarily an insult. We are still a mister, madam or a miss, regardless of what position we hold in our respective religion.

 

[Reuben_J]

Indeed, whether a priest or a lay person, one does not have to agree with everything the Pope says or with everything the Bishop says. However, in matters of which they hold jurisdiction, that is another matter.

If the bishop assigns me to a parish, that is where I have to go. If the bishop attaches for one of the laity of his diocese a codicil to granting a declaration of nullity a decree that they must undergo counseling before further attempting marriage, they must comply.

In this case, in a dispositive document, the Holy See has said that both policy and practice on the issue of ecumenism is reserved to the bishops, which applies also for the laity. The prerogative is therefore the bishops.

True. What can I say?

Unlike you and the laity mentioned, some of us do not get to have that instruction from our bishops.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Granted. So it would affect you. Well, even though you are a priest, you are human too. I understand that.

Bottom line however, non-Catholics do not have to call you Father, and you should accept that. But if they do, as most of us would do the same to their clergies, that certainly would be nice. Courtesy, respect and kindness would never do any harm and moreover, it would reflect on the person.

As I indicated in an earlier post, I have in fact been called by one of my other titles in the course of my work in dialogue – it does not bother me at all. I am quite happy with my other titles. Usually, I immediately understand the issue.

That is for non-Catholics addressing me. For us, who are Catholic, the protocol is established by the Pope. I use the same form of address that he does. That applies whether it is a Lutheran Archbishop, an Anglican Bishop or the Dalai Lama.

The Holy See, through its organs of publication, convey the Vatican’s usage.

 

[GKC]

Appreciated the respect that you accord to Catholic priests, Jon, but you being non-Catholic, just a Mr. Ruggero, I can assure you, will not do any damage at all.

God bless you.

But why should Jon do that? The good Father is a priest and Jon recognizes it.

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;13974704]:tiphat:howdy Jon

He probably did think as you describe

Yet think of this in the supernatural realm as well, not just the natural realm. Isn’t it both/and, not just either/or ? Especially considering Luther’s case against the Catholic Church?

Hi Steve,
I think 500 years out from the events of the Lutheran reformation, it might be easier for all of us to see the Spirit’s calling and urging us to unity.

For example

Who is the pillar and foundation of truth? It sure isn’t Luther. It’s the only Church Jesus established and built on Peter and the apostles. It’s the Catholic Church that Luther was excommunicated from. It’s been there from the beginning. #34

See Luther’s admission in link #19 in the next section.

That status the Catholic Church possesses as pillar and foundation of truth, will never be lost. It will be that forever.

Certainly the central primacy of the Church Militant is found in the Bishop of Rome, and no full unity of the Church can take place without him. As you know, however, I don’t believe that Christ’s Church is found exclusively in communion with the Pope.

Yet

• There were 18 translations of the bible into German before Luther was even excommunicated.

Correct. Luther’s complaint about them seems to be that they seem more like a transliteration of the Latin or Greek instead of German grammar, etc.

• Let’s not forget, or diminish the fact, that at this time in history, a huge portion of the population was illiterate.

Indeed! This is why the iconoclasm of the Reformed movement was so utterly wrong.

• Does Luther really think he’s smarter, and a better communicator than the Church who taught HIM? I’m gonna say no on that… for the following reasons

I think he thought he was better at translating into German, and I think the popularity of his translation, and the credit given it for impact on the German language, provides some evidence.

Pulling from an old conversation we had, #[19 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12347438&postcount=19) ,

exactly. It was Luther’s complaint that the language usage was not German. If one has lived near Pennsylvania Dutch country, one might hear phrases such as, “Throw me down the stairs my jacket.” One gets the meaning, but the grammar isn’t the way English is normally spoken. That was Luther’s complaint about earlier translations into German.

True. And justification like faith, needs to be ever increasing. It’s not once and done, unless of course one dies immediately after baptism

I agree. Lutherans tend to refer to that as sanctification, growth in grace. My Lutheran confirmation:
"The Father in heaven, for Jesus’ sake, renew and increase in thee
the gift of The Holy Ghost, to thy strengthening in Faith, to thy growth in grace, to
thy patience in suffering, and to the blessed hope of everlasting life.”

True, and also the famous passage that is often quoted …yet short of landing the plane

Eph 2: 8-9 In Context … yet sans Ephesians 2:10 . THAT passage, Eph 2:10, Protestants usually leave out of their argument. “Good works” being essential to the message, messes things up for them.

Yet, when someone doesn’t do the good works they were created by God to do, guess what happens? Eph 2:8-9 collapses. Because one has no demonstration of faith without good works. At best it is a said faith. A said faith is not a faith that saves. It’s a dead faith. For THEM, there is no “through faith” , because they have no good works. Grace, faith, good works, are all tied together

Luther himself:
Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.
“Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.”

The Formula of Concord:
6. Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins.

Jon

 

[GKC]

I have to say that I am not in agreement with this sentiment. I certainly recognise that it is a courtesy that my title has been used. The failure to extend that courtesy is going to have a varying degree of problem, however…just as the extension of the courtesy has a positive impact.

Whether it is an ecclesiastical personage or a member of royalty or a member of the nobility or one who holds a title of distinction, or a democratically elected head of state or other official of government, the observance of proper protocol and the failure to observe that protocol has consequences and communicates something very real.

Father, I’m an Anglican. I call my rector and his curate Father for the same reason I call you by that title

That extends beyond courtesy or custom, as you will understand.

 

[Picky_Picky]

It is true, of course, that I need not address my Queen as Your Majesty, and of course this is even more true when the title implies a relationship that does not exist, for instance Fr K does not have the same relationship with me as he does with one of his parishioners. For me to add Fr K’s title to his name is simply normal courtesy. If, however, someone calls him Mr K as a deliberate act to diminish his standing, as was done here, that is in my opinion behaviour inappropriate to civilised discourse.

 

[KjetilK]

Jon, you do realize that for every Church Father you quoted, reception of the Sacraments was considered essential to claiming you had faith? Would that view of faith, coincide with Luther’s?

Yes, Luther was adamant that you could not find salvation outside the means of grace; the word and the sacraments, as we see in VConfessio Augustana (emphasis added):

That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ’s sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ’s sake.

They condemn the Anabaptists and others who think that the Holy Ghost comes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works.

 

[KjetilK]

I should say something needs to be made clear. As a Catholic priest who has worked on the issues of the theological dialogue for decades, I find your statements to a priest of the Lutheran Church of Norway abhorrent. Rome assuredly does not look upon the priests and bishops of the Church of Norway as “laymen in clerical garb.” What you have said is rude and disrespectful in the extreme.

Thank you.

 

[KjetilK]

Father K,

Would I be correct to assume the Church of Norway is part of the LWF that will be joining in the commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation October 31, 2016?

Yes, as will the Roman Catholic Church in (AFAIK, at least) Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany.

 

[JonNC]

Appreciated the respect that you accord to Catholic priests, Jon, but you being non-Catholic, just a Mr. Ruggero, I can assure you, will not do any damage at all.

God bless you.

It may or may not do damage, but I think the message could be that I don’t recognize your vocation, or worse, I don’t respect it.

I am sure that some protestants who have a problem with the term, Father" might not be comfortable calling him Father, and I’m sure Father Don would understand that.

There have been Lutheran pastors I’ve known who were called Father, and our Anglican priest we call Father.

So I guess it depends on the intention. If it is from an honest discomfort with using the term, understood. If it is because one wants to emphasize that one disapproves of or doesn’t recognize the vocation, it is clearly disrespectful and boorish.

Jon

 

[Reuben_J]

But why should Jon do that? The good Father is a priest and Jon recognizes it.

Thank you for the understanding and the love.

 

[Reuben_J]

It may or may not do damage, but I think the message could be that I don’t recognize your vocation, or worse, I don’t respect it.

I am sure that some protestants who have a problem with the term, Father" might not be comfortable calling him Father, and I’m sure Father Don would understand that.

There have been Lutheran pastors I’ve known who were called Father, and our Anglican priest we call Father.

So I guess it depends on the intention. If it is from an honest discomfort with using the term, understood. If it is because one wants to emphasize that one disapproves of or doesn’t recognize the vocation, it is clearly disrespectful and boorish.

Jon

Thanks Jon. Agreed.