Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther???

[Don_Ruggero]

A commemoration? Sure. A celbration is something entirely different.

But the question on the table is whether we should praise Martin Luther - a person. I suppose there is something to be praised in everyone, but the objective evidence tells me that there is very little to celebrate in Luther, whether in his personal life, his teachings, or in his public actions.

As for the “Reformation” yes, the Counter-Reformation, including Trent, was fruit of the Protestant split. But it is something to weep over and lament - not to celebrate - that the Church was so corrupt that Luther’s schism could gain any steam, and that a Trent was ever necessary. The split of Chistendom was a calamity of millennial proportions. The Body of Christ was rent asunder and has not yet been reunified. Are we supposed to celebrate that? It makes no sense to me.

There are no shortages of statements from the Holy See – and from the Bishops, too – regarding this anniversary. The Americans are even observing it as a two year long commemoration, according to the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston.

 

[2PT3]

There are no shortages of statements from the Holy See – and from the Bishops, too – regarding this anniversary. The Americans are even observing it as a two year long commemoration, according to the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston.

Again, there is a huge difference in my mind between a commemoration and a celebration. I hope no one “celebrates” the Protestant split from the Church. It would be better if it had never happened. It would be like “celebrating” a natural disaster. Or perhaps like celebrating the Muslim conquest of Constantinople. You don’t “celebrate” one of history’s great calamities.

It did happen (sadly) so we commemorate it, but we should not celebrate it. “Oh yay let’s celebrate the fact that Christ’s Church had become so corrupt that certain men felt compelled to reject Her and go into schism, creating a tear in the Body of Christ that has not been healed 500 years later.” Why don’t we have fireworks and a parade!" I think any form of “celebration” of what was probably one of the top two or three calamities in all of Christian history would be seriously misguided.

On the other hand, I have no problem with a solemn commemoration in which we lament this catastrophe while recognizing that we are no longer “enemies” but brothers in Christ hoping that one day there can be union.

Now back to the question posed: Should Catholics praise Luther (the man)? I say no, for the reasons stated above.

 

[Peter_J]

Wannano and Father (Don Ruggero): thank you for those good posts.

I have to ask: is it accurate to say that Ecumenism of Return has been set aside? Or should we rather say that it is now just one ecumenism among others (but no longer “the ecumenism”, as one might say)?

 

[Peter_J]

Would you consider the Council of Trent a positive outcome of the reformation? It would be the Catholic relative reform for its day. Can Protestants celebrate/praise that Council?

Good question.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

To Wannano, part 1:

We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world

Question

Could you for my benefit explain just what is really being said in this paragraph? I read it over and over and still wonder what is being said. Simple clarity might be helpful to some of us here whether we be Catholic or non-Catholic.

*The ecumenical dialogue, as an international phenomenon at the highest of official levels, has been occurring for over 50 years.

The concept prior the Second Vatican Council, essentially, was a rejection of the ecumenical movement by Rome. The concept of Rome was, rather simply, those who had left communion with Rome must abandon that position; if they come back, they will be let back in

That model today is simply – and starkly – rejected by the Holy See. The goal of the ecumenical movement is to find the way to restore full communion among the body of Christians – who all belong to Christ and who are baptised into his One Body – who are in various states of impaired communion with each other in spite of all belonging to Christ and living in His Body

The Pope is saying that there are many models for what an eventual restoration to full communion could be based upon and look like…these are properly the province of theologians, ecumenists, and ecclesiologists on both sides of the dialogue; these rest upon the table of dialogue and constitute what they are looking toward

There are, frankly, varying degrees of challenge and varying levels of issues to be resolved depending upon which Christian Confession is being discussed. And, I hasten to add, the challenges are on both sides. Several Popes have expressed the challenge the papacy confronts both in terms of what has happened in history as well as regarding a future in which the exercise of the Petrine (papal) ministry would be markedly different

What the final result will be, God only knows. Catholics certainly experience within Catholicism both unity and diversity in the Church…between the West and the non-Western Churches or even within the West as we look at the inculturated liturgies of Africa, for example

The dialogue of those Anglicans who sought to return to full communion with Rome advanced relatively quickly with much of what they sought quickly granted. I expect the concessions will continue to evolve over the coming decades

Vatican II ushered in a new concept completely: that the ecumenical movement was born of the Holy Spirit and that there was a divine imperative for the Holy See and all the Bishops of the world to be part of it – or to be against the Spirit and His action

It has also given birth to different concepts of ecclesiology which now frame many of the ideas, concepts and discussions in the dialogue

The Council Fathers were quite clear*:
4. Today, in many parts of the world, under the inspiring grace of the Holy Spirit, many efforts are being made in prayer, word and action to attain that fullness of unity which Jesus Christ desires. The Sacred Council exhorts all the Catholic faithful to recognize the signs of the times and to take an active and intelligent part in the work of ecumenism
As years have passed, there have been ever more developments. This is attested to by Pope Saint John Paul II in his encyclical on this issue, Ut Unum Sint, wherein he says that even the expressions of Vatican II are becoming outdated by the advances; the very term “separated brethren” (which was, from the perspective of ecumenists, a great advance is now a dated expression):
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. /…/ The “universal brotherhood” of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction. Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past /…/

It needs be reaffirmed in this regard that acknowledging our brotherhood is not the consequence of a large-hearted philanthropy or a vague family spirit. It is rooted in recognition of the oneness of Baptism and the subsequent duty to glorify God in his work. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism expresses the hope that Baptisms will be mutually and officially recognized. This is something much more than an act of ecumenical courtesy; it constitutes a basic ecclesiological statement

 

[Don_Ruggero]

To Wannano, part 2

On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!

Question

This is so different than what I hear from Catholics on CAF. I came to this forum hoping to gain insight into the Catholic faith. In my non-catholic world I have heard vibes of how the Catholic Church is/has changed from what my ancestors experienced it to be. So many posters here have attitudes that do not confirm this change. I devour all the presentations you have brought forward and am thrilled at what I understand the Church to be saying. Why does there seem to be such a huge disconnect between the Churches presentations and dialogue and the Catholic posters here? Has the Church adequately informed the laity of the changes it implements?

*I am aware of this. I think it sad

I find posters here quote documents that are not only outdated, they’ve been superannuated. They quote works of history that the Holy See has said are, today, worthless in terms of historical assessment. Such is beyond egregious when the position is diametrically opposed to that articulated today by the Successor of Peter, the dicasteries of the Holy See, and the world’s Bishops due to developments at the Council and afterward

The Catholic position is what the Holy See says it is. That’s critical to know. The measure is: “Does this statement/position accord with what the Holy See says TODAY? Not what was said in a past that has been revised”

The things I quote are from the Holy See. These aren’t hidden or esoteric texts; they’re available to anyone reading this website. IF they bother to inform themselves

The Holy See…and above all Benedict and then Francis personally…have been actively preparing for the 500th anniversary of the Reformation for over a decade. That’s the Catholic position. That any individual has a different position communicates one thing: they do not share the thought of the Successor of Peter. All opinions are not equal when it comes to what is the Catholic position

Unitatis Redintegratio is a document over 50 years old. There are Catholics, sadly of a certain type, who rush to condemn the documents of Vatican II, for example, under all sorts of epithets. They not only lack any background or rudimentary knowledge in theology, they’ve not even bothered to read* the documents

There is no excuse for any Catholic who has read The Catechism of the Catholic Church to have failed to read Ut Unum Sint and to have failed to read the documents of the ecumenical council – which govern our daily lives as Catholics today and which every Catholic ought to be familiar

To speak positions that have not been dispositive for 100 years is not only to show the gravest of ignorance, it is to fail in fidelity to the Church. To act in this way is also to directly disobey the directive of the Council Fathers to all Catholics. They decreed, in Unitatis Redintegratio, that when any Catholic speaks, they apply

first, every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult

It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity: in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature

Question

I think this paragraph explains the Protestant view of the diverse expressions of the one common faith within the Church of God

*Among non-Catholic Christians I have worked with over the years, I have certainly seen a great capacity to recognise and concede a diversity of expression of discipleship

Some of my most fascinating contacts over the years were with non-sacramental Christians…particularly of the United States. I was enriched by interactions with them very much. Our paradigm of liturgical worship and our theology surrounding the sacraments were completely foreign to their entire mode. I appreciated the experience of spending time in actual encounter with them as it gave much insight into them and their theological positions. These present particularly unique challenges to bridge for both sides. I wish the generation after me every success and the help of the Holy Spirit. His presence and action among these Christians was clearly evident

We see in the non Western Churches in communion with Rome a remarkable diversity in terms of liturgy, of the expression of their theology and of the preservation of their proper traditions

We’ve seen it with regard to the Anglicans who have come into full communion with Rome. It was unimaginable in the 1960s that Anglican liturgy would be adopted into the Roman Church – as we’ve seen with the iterations of the Book of Divine Worship that adopted elements of the Book of Common Prayer for Roman Catholic worship, with Anglican chant, etc. Texts of Thomas Cranmer in Catholic liturgy. Of course, the inculturation of the liturgy in Africa was once unimaginable, too

The ways in which this will continue to evolve and carry forward the ecumenical movement is for the years ahead and the generations after me. I don’t think anyone in 1917 could have envisioned a Pope and a Lutheran Bishop co-presiding at a service of common prayer for 2017…but that is what we will see on October 31. So…who knows what the commemoration of the Reformation will look like in 2117? Hopefully, it will be a concelebrated Eucharist*

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Wannano and Father (Don Ruggero): thank you for those good posts.

I have to ask: is it accurate to say that Ecumenism of Return has been set aside? Or should we rather say that it is now just one ecumenism among others (but no longer “the ecumenism”, as one might say)?

It depends upon the context.

Stemming from the Church’s work of evangelisation – classic or the New Evangelisation – then, of course, an ecumenism of return is certainly an outcome at the individual level. The non-Catholic Christian, practicing or non-practicing, petitions for…and is received into…full communion with the Catholic Church.

Pope Benedict, in his address, is speaking of a corporate situation…in this case, with the Lutherans…not an individual situation. This is best seen in light of, for example, the ordinariate erected for the Anglicans. The Anglicans desiring full communion were not asked to abandon their Anglican heritage and simply return to the Roman. Rather, they were invited but to bring their heritage, customs, traditions, and elements of their liturgy with them into the new condition of being in full communion with Rome with needed provisions made to accommodate the necessary arrangements.

The sense in which, for example, Lutherans would be asked to set aside what is now their history, their heritage and their identity is what Pope Benedict refers to when he says that the ecumenism of the return is not a position today. That concept, once held, would not be advanced today from the Catholic side and it is, obviously, not remotely a position on the non-Catholic side…at all.

 

[Peter_J]

This is so different than what I hear from Catholics on CAF.

There are many Catholics (over a billion we say). Even just reading CAF, not everybody says what everybody else says.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Good question.

This question is addressed at length in From Conflict to Communion, the document that it at the base of the anniversary’s joint commemoration. I limit myself to the following extract:

*Consequences

1. The Council of Trent, although to a large extent a response to the Protestant Reformation, did not condemn individuals or communities but specific doctrinal positions. Because the doctrinal decrees of the Council were largely in response to what it perceived to be Protestant errors, it shaped a polemical environment between Protestants and Catholics that tended to define Catholicism over and against Protestantism. In this approach, it mirrored many of the Lutheran confessional writings, which also defined Lutheran positions by opposition. The decisions of the Council of Trent laid the basis for the formation of Catholic identity up to the Second Vatican Council.
2. By the end of the third gathering of the Council of Trent, it had to be soberly acknowledged that the unity of the church in the Western world had been shattered. New church structures developed in the Lutheran territories. The Peace of Augsburg of 1555 at first secured stable political relationships, but it could not prevent the great European conflict of the seventeenth century, the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648). The establishment of secular nation-states with strong confessionalistic delineations remained a burden inherited from the Reformation period.

The Second Vatican Council

1. While the Council of Trent largely defined Catholic relations with Lutherans for several centuries, its legacy must now be viewed through the lens of the actions of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). This Council made it possible for the Catholic Church to enter the ecumenical movement and leave behind the charged polemic atmosphere of the post-Reformation era. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), the Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae), and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) are foundational documents for Catholic ecumenism. Vatican II, while affirming that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, also acknowledged, “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” (LG 8). There was a positive appreciation of what Catholics share with other Christian churches such as the creeds, baptism, and the Scriptures. A theology of ecclesial communion affirmed that Catholics are in a real, if imperfect, communion with all who confess Jesus Christ and are baptized (UR 2).*

I would add these paragraphs from the beginning of the document as a further elucidation, however

*Catholic developments

1. The Second Vatican Council, responding to the scriptural, liturgical, and patristic revival of the preceding decades, dealt with such themes as esteem and reverence for the Holy Scripture in the life of the church, the rediscovery of the common priesthood of all the baptized, the need for continual purification and reform of the church, the understanding of church office as service, and the importance of the freedom and responsibility of human beings, including the recognition of religious freedom.
2. The Council also affirmed elements of sanctification and truth even outside the structures of the Roman Catholic Church. It asserted, “some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church,” and it named these elements “the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too” (UR 1).(6) The Council also spoke of the “many liturgical actions of the Christian religion” that are used by the divided “brethren” and said, “these most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation” (UR 3). The acknowledgement extended not only to the individual elements and actions in these communities, but also to the “divided churches and communities” themselves. “For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation” (UR 1.3).
3. In light of the renewal of Catholic theology evident in the Second Vatican Council, Catholics today can appreciate Martin Luther’s reforming concerns and regard them with more openness than seemed possible earlier.
4. Implicit rapprochement with Luther’s concerns has led to a new evaluation of his catholicity, which took place in the context of recognizing that his intention was to reform, not to divide, the church. This is evident in the statements of Johannes Cardinal Willebrands and Pope John Paul II. The rediscovery of these two central characteristics of his person and theology led to a new ecumenical understanding of Luther as a “witness to the gospel.”

This latter title was accorded to Martin Luther as a joint action by both confessions in 1983, for the joint observance of the 500th anniversary of his birth.

 

[2PT3]

That may be your opinion. That puts you in direct opposition, however, to Pope Benedict and to Pope Francis. Pope Benedict announced a global celebration which Pope Francis will inaugurate in Sweden this October…according to what Pope Benedict outlined in 2011

In contrast to the term you use, “revolt,” there is the language used by the Holy See today
*VATICAN CITY, JAN. 24, 2011 (Zenit.org)

Here is /…/ the address Benedict XVI gave /…/ a delegation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany, who are in Rome for the end of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.

Regional Bishop Friedrich!
Dear Friends of Germany!

I give a cordial welcome to all of you, representatives of top leaders of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany, here in the Apostolic Palace, and I am happy because of the fact that you, as a delegation, have come to Rome at the end of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity /…/

In the meantime, the official dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics — so it is written here — can look back to more than 50 years of intense activity. You spoke of 30 years. I think that 30 years ago, after the Pope’s visit, we began officially, but in fact we had been dialoguing for a long time. I myself was a member of the “Jaeger-Stahlin-Kreis” born directly after the War. One can speak then of 50 or 30 years. Despite the theological differences that continue to exist on questions that in part are fundamental, a “togetherness” has grown between us, which becomes increasingly the basis of a communion lived in faith and in spirituality between Lutherans and Catholics. What has already been achieved reinforces our trust in continuing the dialogue, because only in this way can we stay together on that way that, finally, is Jesus Christ himself

Hence, the commitment of the Catholic Church to ecumenism, as my venerable predecessor Pope John Paul II affirmed in his encyclical “Ut Unum Sint,” is not a mere strategy of communication in a changing world, but a fundamental commitment of the Church from her own mission (cf. Nos. 28-32)

For some contemporaries the common goal of full and visible unity of Christians seems to be again today very far. The ecumenical interlocutors in the dialogue have ideas on the unity of the Church that are completely different. I share the concern of many Christians over the fact that the fruits of the ecumenical endeavor, above all in relation to the idea of Church and ministry, are still not sufficiently received by the ecumenical interlocutors. However, even if new difficulties always arise, we look with hope to the future. Even if the divisions of Christians are an obstacle in molding catholicity fully in the reality of the life of the Church, as was promised in Christ and through Christ (cf. “Unitatis Redintegratio,” No. 4), we are confident in the fact that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the ecumenical dialogue, as important instrument in the life of the Church, will serve to overcome this conflict. This will happen, in the first place, also through the theological dialogue, which must contribute to understanding on the open questions, which are an obstacle along the path to visible unity and the common celebration of the Eucharist as sacrament of unity among Christians /…/

Today the ecumenical dialogue cannot be split from the reality and from the life in the faith of our Churches without harming them. Hence, let us look together to the year 2017, which will recall theses of Martin Luther from 500 years ago. On that occasion, Lutherans and Catholics will have the opportunity to celebrate throughout the world a common ecumenical commemoration*, to fight at the world level for fundamental questions, not — as you yourself have just said — under the form of a triumphant celebration, but as a common profession of our faith in the One and Triune God, in the common obedience to Our Lord and to his Word. We must attribute an important place to common prayer and to interior prayer addressed to our Lord Jesus Christ for forgiveness of mutual wrongs and for the fault related to the divisions. Part of this purification of the conscience is the reciprocal exchange on the appraisal of the 1,500 years that preceded the Reformation, and which are common to us. For this we wish to implore together, in a constant way, the help of God and the assistance of the Holy Spirit, to be able to take further steps toward the unity that we long for, and to not be satisfied with where we are now

We are encouraged along this path also by this year’s Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. It recalls for us the chapter of the Acts of the Apostles: “And they devoted themselves to the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42). In these four acts and conduct the early Christians were constant, and therefore the community grew with Christ and from it flowed this “togetherness” of the men of Christ. This extraordinary and visible witness to the world, of the unity of the early Church could also be for us an incentive and norm for our common ecumenical path in the future.

In the hope that your visit will reinforce further the valid collaboration between Lutherans and Catholics in Germany, I implore for you all the grace of God and His abundant blessings

I don’t know, to me, to “celebrate a common commemoration” carries a quite different meaning than “celebrating” the Reformation. And, I still come back to the question at hand - should Catholics praise Luther? And, I still say no, I can’t find any basis for that, just as we don’t praise Henry VIII. That we don’t celebrate those men says absolutely ZERO about how we feel about or interact with Lutherans and Anglicans in 2016. Just as not praising Hitler says ZERO about how we feel about today’s Germans.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I don’t know, to me, to “celebrate a common commemoration” carries a quite different meaning than “celebrating” the Reformation. And, I still come back to the question at hand - should Catholics praise Luther? And, I still say no, I can’t find any basis for that, just as we don’t praise Henry VIII. That we don’t celebrate those men says absolutely ZERO about how we feel about or interact with Lutherans and Anglicans in 2016. Just as not praising Hitler says ZERO about how we feel about today’s Germans.

If the answer I have given is not adequate to your satisfaction as an individual Catholic, you have only to wait something just less than 100 days and you will hear the Successor of Peter speak to these issues himself.

 

[Wannano]

Would you consider the Council of Trent a positive outcome of the reformation? It would be the Catholic relative reform for its day. Can Protestants celebrate/praise that Council?

I have to admit my ignorance re: the Council of Trent. Reading the response from Father Ruggero in relation to your questions of me I would off the cuff say it seems positive. I will try to gain knowledge about Trent. Let me know if you have an easy way to access info coming from the council.

 

[2PT3]

If the answer I have given is not adequate to your satisfaction as an individual Catholic, you have only to wait something just less than 100 days and you will hear the Successor of Peter speak to these issues himself.

Yes, I do hope he exercises some restraint.

 

[Wannano]

To Wannano, part 2

Question

This is so different than what I hear from Catholics on CAF. I came to this forum hoping to gain insight into the Catholic faith. In my non-catholic world I have heard vibes of how the Catholic Church is/has changed from what my ancestors experienced it to be. So many posters here have attitudes that do not confirm this change. I devour all the presentations you have brought forward and am thrilled at what I understand the Church to be saying. Why does there seem to be such a huge disconnect between the Churches presentations and dialogue and the Catholic posters here? Has the Church adequately informed the laity of the changes it implements?

*I am aware of this. I think it sad

I find posters here quote documents that are not only outdated, they’ve been superannuated. They quote works of history that the Holy See has said are, today, worthless in terms of historical assessment. Such is beyond egregious when the position is diametrically opposed to that articulated today by the Successor of Peter, the dicasteries of the Holy See, and the world’s Bishops due to developments at the Council and afterward

The Catholic position is what the Holy See says it is. That’s critical to know. The measure is: “Does this statement/position accord with what the Holy See says TODAY? Not what was said in a past that has been revised”

The things I quote are from the Holy See. These aren’t hidden or esoteric texts; they’re available to anyone reading this website. IF they bother to inform themselves

The Holy See…and above all Benedict and then Francis personally…have been actively preparing for the 500th anniversary of the Reformation for over a decade. That’s the Catholic position. That any individual has a different position communicates one thing: they do not share the thought of the Successor of Peter. All opinions are not equal when it comes to what is the Catholic position

Unitatis Redintegratio is a document over 50 years old. There are Catholics, sadly of a certain type, who rush to condemn the documents of Vatican II, for example, under all sorts of epithets. They not only lack any background or rudimentary knowledge in theology, they’ve not even bothered to read* the documents

There is no excuse for any Catholic who has read The Catechism of the Catholic Church to have failed to read Ut Unum Sint and to have failed to read the documents of the ecumenical council – which govern our daily lives as Catholics today and which every Catholic ought to be familiar

To speak positions that have not been dispositive for 100 years is not only to show the gravest of ignorance, it is to fail in fidelity to the Church. To act in this way is also to directly disobey the directive of the Council Fathers to all Catholics. They decreed, in Unitatis Redintegratio, that when any Catholic speaks, they apply

first, every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult

Question

I think this paragraph explains the Protestant view of the diverse expressions of the one common faith within the Church of God

*Among non-Catholic Christians I have worked with over the years, I have certainly seen a great capacity to recognise and concede a diversity of expression of discipleship

Some of my most fascinating contacts over the years were with non-sacramental Christians…particularly of the United States. I was enriched by interactions with them very much. Our paradigm of liturgical worship and our theology surrounding the sacraments were completely foreign to their entire mode. I appreciated the experience of spending time in actual encounter with them as it gave much insight into them and their theological positions. These present particularly unique challenges to bridge for both sides. I wish the generation after me every success and the help of the Holy Spirit. His presence and action among these Christians was clearly evident

We see in the non Western Churches in communion with Rome a remarkable diversity in terms of liturgy, of the expression of their theology and of the preservation of their proper traditions

We’ve seen it with regard to the Anglicans who have come into full communion with Rome. It was unimaginable in the 1960s that Anglican liturgy would be adopted into the Roman Church – as we’ve seen with the iterations of the Book of Divine Worship that adopted elements of the Book of Common Prayer for Roman Catholic worship, with Anglican chant, etc. Texts of Thomas Cranmer in Catholic liturgy. Of course, the inculturation of the liturgy in Africa was once unimaginable, too

The ways in which this will continue to evolve and carry forward the ecumenical movement is for the years ahead and the generations after me. I don’t think anyone in 1917 could have envisioned a Pope and a Lutheran Bishop co-presiding at a service of common prayer for 2017…but that is what we will see on October 31. So…who knows what the commemoration of the Reformation will look like in 2117? Hopefully, it will be a concelebrated Eucharist*

Thank you for answering and giving me more insight.

 

[Reuben_J]

Question

This is so different than what I hear from Catholics on CAF. I came to this forum hoping to gain insight into the Catholic faith. In my non-catholic world I have heard vibes of how the Catholic Church is/has changed from what my ancestors experienced it to be. So many posters here have attitudes that do not confirm this change. I devour all the presentations you have brought forward and am thrilled at what I understand the Church to be saying. Why does there seem to be such a huge disconnect between the Churches presentations and dialogue and the Catholic posters here? Has the Church adequately informed the laity of the changes it implements?

Maybe I answer this, for you to get another perspective.

I would start by saying that there are roughly over a billion Catholics spread all over the world. About in all countries you will find Catholics.

There are basically two things that the Catholics need to know:

(1) The basic of their faith/belief. Basically these are things they learned in their Sunday schools or Catechism.
(2) The teaching of the Catholic Church which have been officially disseminated to the faithful. These include teaching on birth control, for example.

If you have the two, generally speaking, you can be a good practicing Catholic.

Now what’s been discussed here on this thread is basically what the Vatican is doing.

What is the Vatican? You would have a gist of it. Unlike any other church denominations, the Pope is also a head of a state, in which case besides being a spiritual head he is also a diplomat. A Catholic has to admit that fact, especially the latter, no choice about it. Of course that has nothing to do with your question and my answer but it is important to realize the vastness of the scope of the activities in the Vatican.

The Vatican is a big master computer functioning every day, reaching out everywhere. Some of the things they do would hardly reach the average Catholics, say a Catholic farmer in central China, under persecution by their own government and that he would be just glad to be able to attend a mass of his choice, which is underground.

A Catholic in Brooklyn in New York, would probably be quite preoccupied by the traffic and he would be glad if he can attend at least the obligatory mass on Sunday. Again, sorry for the stereotyping, just to demonstrate a point.

Of course these are extreme examples, but for you to get the picture.

So, no, many ordinary Catholics, that include those who come to CAF, may not follow the activities of the Vatican, some of which may have been happening for more than half a century, important they may be.

People like Don Ruggero, by his own disclosure, have been actively involved and exposed to the ecumenical activities of the Vatican. He would be very passionate about this because (1) it is true and (2) why, it even comes from the top man himself, the Pope.

That is as far as the information goes. Except for those within the circle of the activities and some Bishops, the rest may have heard of it but it is not the first thing in their mind, and thus not much of importance and therefore ignorant of what’s going on.

I hope you get the big picture. Some of us lay people, who are leaders of the Church, are involved in activities that are at the Vatican level, which require regular yearly discussions and meetings, like with head of the Pontifical Right of the Laity and even an audience with the Holy Father, having private mass with him. Many of the outcomes of those things are approved by the Vatican, but if you discuss with other Catholics back home, many of them do not know what transpire in your meetings and therefore cannot appreciate what you are doing are right.

Look at it that way, then you can see the reason for the different reactions of Catholics here.

 

[Wannano]

Maybe I answer this, for you to get another perspective.

I would start by saying that there are roughly over a billion Catholics spread all over the world. About in all countries you will find Catholics.

There are basically two things that the Catholics need to know:

(1) The basic of their faith/belief. Basically these are things they learned in their Sunday schools or Catechism.
(2) The teaching of the Catholic Church which have been officially disseminated to the faithful. These include teaching on birth control, for example.

If you have the two, generally speaking, you can be a good practicing Catholic.

Now what’s been discussed here on this thread is basically what the Vatican is doing.

What is the Vatican? You would have a gist of it. Unlike any other church denominations, the Pope is also a head of a state, in which case besides being a spiritual head he is also a diplomat. A Catholic has to admit that fact, especially the latter, no choice about it. Of course that has nothing to do with your question and my answer but it is important to realize the vastness of the scope of the activities in the Vatican.

The Vatican is a big master computer functioning every day, reaching out everywhere. Some of the things they do would hardly reach the average Catholics, say a Catholic farmer in central China, under persecution by their own government and that he would be just glad to be able to attend a mass of his choice, which is underground.

A Catholic in Brooklyn in New York, would probably be quite preoccupied by the traffic and he would be glad if he can attend at least the obligatory mass on Sunday. Again, sorry for the stereotyping, just to demonstrate a point.

Of course these are extreme examples, but for you to get the picture.

So, no, many ordinary Catholics, that include those who come to CAF, may not follow the activities of the Vatican, some of which may have been happening for more than half a century, important they may be.

People like Don Ruggero, by his own disclosure, have been actively involved and exposed to the ecumenical activities of the Vatican. He would be very passionate about this because (1) it is true and (2) why, it even comes from the top man himself, the Pope.

That is as far as the information goes. Except for those within the circle of the activities and some Bishops, the rest may have heard of it but it is not the first thing in their mind, and thus not much of importance and therefore ignorant of what’s going on.

I hope you get the big picture. Some of us lay people, who are leaders of the Church, are involved in activities that are at the Vatican level, which require regular yearly discussions and meetings, like with head of the Pontifical Right of the Laity and even an audience with the Holy Father, having private mass with him. Many of the outcomes of those things are approved by the Vatican, but if you discuss with other Catholics back home, many of them do not know what transpire in your meetings and therefore cannot appreciate what you are doing are right.

Look at it that way, then you can see the reason for the different reactions of Catholics here.

I am aware of most of what you gave here but thanks for sharing it. It gives a fascinating perspective. A slightly different model than the early church!

 

[Reuben_J]

I am aware of most of what you gave here but thanks for sharing it. It gives a fascinating perspective. A slightly different model than the early church!

Thanks. If you say different, it is because of size, both in numbers (Catholics) and issues that need to be dealt with, as I mentioned.

In early Church, we have this tradition, that the Bishop of Rome (Pope), was able to share the consecrated bread at the Eucharist with his fellow Catholics in other areas. It was broken and the other pieces sent by couriers, usually on horses’ back to them. Of course, we now cannot imagine how such things were done.

 

[rcwitness]

I am aware of most of what you gave here but thanks for sharing it. It gives a fascinating perspective. A slightly different model than the early church!

A different model? Maybe less primitive. Here is the account of the early Church:

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

… Now many signs and wonders were done among the people by the hands of the apostles. And they were all together in Solomon’s Portico. None of the rest dared join them, but the people held them in high honor. And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women, so that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed.

As the whole body of believers, we are very distant from this primitive Church! These days are gone. As individuals, we can share this devotion just as they did. As an individual, I fail to follow Christ like the “model” of the first believers. I know I am closer when I do not judge, obey our leaders, testify about Jesus, make peace in my home, attend Mass, pray for others (from faithless to heiarchy), confess my sins, help those in need, learn about the faith, apply myself to my Parish, etc.

 

[Wannano]

Thanks. If you say different, it is because of size, both in numbers (Catholics) and issues that need to be dealt with, as I mentioned.

In early Church, we have this tradition, that the Bishop of Rome (Pope), was able to share the consecrated bread at the Eucharist with his fellow Catholics in other areas. It was broken and the other pieces sent by couriers, usually on horses’ back to them. Of course, we now cannot imagine how such things were done.

I guess I have an aversion to bureaucracies so the early practice looks attractive.

 

[Wannano]

A different model? Maybe less primitive. Here is the account of the early Church:

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

… Now many signs and wonders were done among the people by the hands of the apostles. And they were all together in Solomon’s Portico. None of the rest dared join them, but the people held them in high honor. And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women, so that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed.

As the whole body of believers, we are very distant from this primitive Church! These days are gone. As individuals, we can share this devotion just as they did. As an individual, I fail to follow Christ like the “model” of the first believers. I know I am closer when I do not judge, obey our leaders, testify about Jesus, make peace in my home, attend Mass, pray for others (from faithless to heiarchy), confess my sins, help those in need, learn about the faith, apply myself to my Parish, etc.

You brought forward an excellent point with the individual aspect still available in simple form today.