The words of Luther himself regarding the Papacy

[quantum_star22]

What is shameful about it exactly other than perhaps the statement about Unam Sanctam’s infallibility?

The issue I have is that it Unam Sanctam certainly implores the language of infallibility:

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

(source: papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm)

This is the final statement made in which Boniface VIII states that it is a definitive doctrine. Does this not fit the requirement for infallibility?

 

[clem456]

The issue I have is that it Unam Sanctam certainly implores the language of infallibility:

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

(source: papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm)

This is the final statement made in which Boniface VIII states that it is a definitive doctrine. Does this not fit the requirement for infallibility?

Not sure what your point is in starting a thread on matters that were settled a few years ago.

 

[TimothyH]

When you say hit piece against the leadership of the Church are you referring to Martin Luther’s words?

No. Martin Luther is not the leadership of the Church.

The article explains how someone in the leadership of the Church said something nice about Luther and Lutherans and then contrasts that with some vile stuff Luther himself said. The nice things said about Luther and Lutherans were taken out of context and the whole point of the article is to portray the leadership of the Church as being in favor of Martin Luther and the Reformation.

Rorate is sinking lower and lower every day. They used to have good spiritual articles and some decent news but are now nothing more than just another anti-Catholic website.

-Tim-

 

[quantum_star22]

No. Martin Luther is not the leadership of the Church.

The article explains how someone in the leadership of the Church said something nice about Luther and Lutherans and then contrasts that with some vile stuff Luther himself said. The nice things said about Luther and Lutherans were taken out of context and the whole point of the article is to portray the leadership of the Church as being in favor of Martin Luther and the Reformation.

Rorate is sinking lower and lower every day. They used to have good spiritual articles and some decent news but are now nothing more than just another anti-Catholic website.

-Tim-

Defending the Reformation is what is anti-Catholic.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Defending the Reformation is what is anti-Catholic.

The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity has begun providing copies of the Ceremony of Common Prayer that will be used for the joint commemorations for the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, next year. The Pope is now regularly speaking about this anniversary in his public remarks.

 

[otjm]

Defending the Reformation is what is anti-Catholic.

t takes a bit of knowledge to understand what the Church legitimately does in the area of ecumenism.

And I would presume that no one would hold the position that the 2,500 bishops of the world, in making decisions as to the future work the Church needed to do in regard to our separated brethren were wrong in their decisions.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Defending the Reformation is what is anti-Catholic.

I’ll take it over this thread any day of the week. If this is pro-Catholic I’m outta here. For fear of my salvation.

 

[Anthony2112]

Defending the Reformation is what is anti-Catholic.

How so?

Not that I am looking to defend the Reformation, but I thought we were way beyond this in terms of reconciliation.

 

[FollowChrist34]

How so?

Not that I am looking to defend the Reformation, but I thought we were way beyond this in terms of reconciliation.

We are. Seriously, we are.

Don’t use this thread as an indicator of the where the Catholic Church is at in terms of the Reformation or Martin Luther, and of relating to other non-Catholic Christians. That would be a huge mistake.

 

[Anthony2112]

We are. Seriously, we are.

I don’t think it is anti Catholic to acknowledge our mistakes. Were indulgences abused? I think they were and I consider myself a Catholic Apologist.

But if we turn a blind eye to mistakes that were made in the name of the Church, we lose credibility.

The Church is infallible in terms of doctrine. It is not in terms of practice.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I don’t think it is anti Catholic to acknowledge our mistakes. Were indulgences abused? I think they were and I consider myself a Catholic Apologist.

But if we turn a blind eye to mistakes that were made in the name of the Church, we lose credibility.

The Church is infallible in terms of doctrine. It is not in terms of practice.

Exactly. In recognizing the mistakes of our past, we disown them. It makes the Church stronger and healthier. We can’t choke ourselves with the kind of infantile hate pedaled here; we’re better than that. We recognize the sins of both sides in the Reformation - this is stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As far as I know all modern Popes have stated this as well. This thread theme really is a throwback to earlier meaner, leaner times. Just take it in that vein. We can move forward toward Christian unity without compromising the integrity of our Catholic faith - or acting like this.

 

[Anthony2112]

Exactly. In recognizing the mistakes of our past, we disown them. It makes the Church stronger and healthier. We can’t choke ourselves with the kind of infantile hate pedaled here; we’re better than that. We recognize the sins of both sides in the Reformation - this is stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As far as I know all modern Popes have stated this as well. This thread theme really is a throwback to earlier meaner, leaner times. Just take it in that vein. We can move forward toward Christian unity without compromising the integrity of our Catholic faith - or acting like this.

 

[guanophore]

This post in my view is shameful to the Catholic Church and I am very confident, irony of ironies, Pope Francis would back me up on that 100%.

How is any of that shameful?

Pope Francis knows that the successor of Peter was given the care of the WHOLE flock, not just a certain part of it. There are many that rebel against the shepherd placed over them by God, but that does nothing to the role he has been appointed by God. He prays for all of them every day, and serves them all, though they be schismatics or whatever.

 

[Anthony2112]

The issue I have is that it Unam Sanctam certainly implores the language of infallibility:

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

(source: papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm)

This is the final statement made in which Boniface VIII states that it is a definitive doctrine. Does this not fit the requirement for infallibility?

Probably not.

I think this bull is clarified here:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

One of the most misunderstood teachings of the Catholic Church is this one:
“Outside the Church there is no salvation” (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
Those trying to grasp the meaning of this teaching often struggle with its formulations by various Church Fathers and Church Councils down through history. Of course, to understand an isolated formulation of any Church teaching, one must study the historical context within which it was written: why it was written, what was going on in the Church at the time, who the intended audience was, and so on. One must discover how the magisterium (teaching office) of the Church understands its own teaching. If someone fails to do this and chooses, rather, to simply treat a particular formulation as a stand-alone teaching, he runs the risk of seriously misunderstanding it.
In recent times, the Church has recognized that its teaching about the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation has been widely misunderstood, so it has “re-formulated” this teaching in a positive way. Here is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church begins to address this topic: “How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Reformulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846).
In keeping with the Church’s current spirit of ecumenism, this positive reformulation comes across less harshly than previous negative formulations. Even so, it remains quite controversial. So, let’s see how this new formulation squares with Scripture. …

 

[Anthony2112]

…Jesus, the Way

The first part of the reformulated teaching—“all salvation comes from Christ the Head”—is quite easy for all Christians, even non-Catholics, to understand and embrace. It echoes Jesus’ own words recorded by John: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (Jn 14:6). So, Christians unanimously agree on this first part. But is this all that needs to be said about how one may be saved? The Catholic Church has historically recognized the importance of explaining further the means through which salvation is offered through Christ.
When speaking of salvation, Jesus offered more details than just his words quoted above. For example, consider these three verses:

• He who believes and is baptized will be saved. (Mk 16:16)
• nless you repent you will all likewise perish. (Lk 13:3)
• [H]e who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Jn 6:54)

Notice that in these three verses Jesus associated salvation with baptism, confession, and the Eucharist, respectively. Catholics recognize that these sacraments are administered through the Church. In fact, in the case of the latter two, a validly ordained priest is necessary for their administration, so the sacrament of ordination must also be associated with salvation. A primary role of the Catholic Church in conjunction with salvation is becoming quite clear.
This brings us to the second part of the Catechism’s formulation of the doctrine being considered: “. . . through the Church which is his Body.”
With Him or Against Him

Since the sacraments are the ordinary means through which Christ offers the grace necessary for salvation, and the Catholic Church that Christ established is the ordinary minister of those sacraments, it is appropriate to state that salvation comes through the Church.
This is not unlike the situation that existed prior to the establishment of the Catholic Church. Even before it was fully revealed that he was the Messiah, Jesus himself taught that “salvation is from the Jews” (Jn 4:22). He pointed the woman of Samaria to the body of believers existing at that time, through which salvation would be offered to all mankind: the Jews.
In a similar fashion, now that the Messiah has established his Church, Jesus might say, “salvation is from the Catholics”!
Recognizing this, we can see why the Church, especially during times of mass exodus (such as has happened in times when heresies have run rampant), has been even more forceful in the way it has taught this doctrine. Instead of simply pointing out how God offers salvation from Christ, through the Church, the Church has warned that there is no salvation apart from Christ, outside his Church.
Since Jesus established the Catholic Church as necessary for salvation, those who knowingly and willingly reject him or his Church cannot be saved. We see this in Jesus’ teaching: “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters” (Mt 12:30). Also: "f he [a sinning brother] refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector" (Mt 18:17). Paul warned similarly: “As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Ti 3:10-11).
Having said all this, we must recognize that this doctrine is not as far reaching as some imagine it to be. People will sometimes ask, “Does this means non-Catholics are going to hell?” Not necessarily.
…

 

[Anthony2112]

…Invincibly Ignorant

The Church recognizes that God does not condemn those who are innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation. Regarding the doctrine in question, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, 16) states:This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)
Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spesteaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (22)
This teaching is consistent with Jesus’ own teaching about those who innocently reject him: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin” (Jn 15:22).
But once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it. We see this in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (Jn 9:41). Paul taught likewise concerning the Gentiles:When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:14-16)
Notice Paul’s carefully chosen words: “their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them.” Paul did not say that those who are innocently ignorant of the truth will be saved; he simply keeps open the possibility of it.
Similarly, he wrote: "s God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith" (Rom 3:29-30).
Necessary for Salvation

As we have seen, God introduced salvation to the world through his chosen people, the Jews. God’s revelation to the Jews found its fulfillment in Christ, the Messiah, who established the Catholic Church. The grace necessary for salvation continues to come from Christ, through his Church. Those who innocently do not know and embrace this might still attain salvation but those who knowingly and willingly choose to reject it, reject salvation on God’s terms.
The Catechism (once again quoting Lumen Gentium) summarizes all this as follows:Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (CCC 846)

 

[FollowChrist34]

How is any of that shameful?

Pope Francis knows that the successor of Peter was given the care of the WHOLE flock, not just a certain part of it. There are many that rebel against the shepherd placed over them by God, but that does nothing to the role he has been appointed by God. He prays for all of them every day, and serves them all, though they be schismatics or whatever.

I think it is shameful because using terms like “heretic” against other non-Catholic Christians in 2016 is divisive. Compare this to Pope Francis:

Pope Francis has described the division between the different denominations of the Church as the work of the devil.

“Division is the work of the Father of Lies, the Father of Discord, who does everything possible to keep us divided,” he said in a video message a ‘Celebration of Christian Unity’ event organised by the John 17 Movement in Phoenix, Arizona on Saturday. The movement is named after the biblical passage in which Jesus prays for his disciples “that they may be one as we are one”.

The Pope said: "I feel like saying something that may sound controversial or even heretical, perhaps. But there is someone who ‘knows’ that, despite our differences, we are one…
**
“He knows that Christians are disciples of Christ, that they are one, that they are brothers! He doesn’t care if they are Evangelicals or Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic… he doesn’t care! They are Christians.”**

He also said that the devil is responsible for the persecution of Christians around the world. “It is he who is persecuting Christians today, who is anointing us with (the blood of) martyrdom.”

Francis added that Christians are united by their experience of persecution, saying: "we are living in an ‘ecumenism of blood’."christiantoday.com/article/pope.francis.says.its.the.who.divides.protestants.and.catholics/54765.htm

Is he calling Martin Luther a heretic here?

 

[guanophore]

I think it is shameful because using terms like "heretic" *against* other non-Catholic Christians in 2016 is divisive.

Maybe you are participating in more than one thread and have become confused? No one on this thread has mentioned the word heretic except yourself.

No one on this thread has used any such terms about non-Catholic Christians in 2016.

In fact, no one has said anything “against” other non-Catholic Christians in 2016"?? The Catechism specifically instructs us not to hold against moderns the heresies of their spiritual ancestors.

However, I do agree with your point, that had anyone done so, it would be divisive.

It would also likely be inaccurate. To qualify as a heretic, one must first embrace the One Faith, then willingly and knowingly depart from it. Most modern non-Catholic Christians have never been exposed to Catholicism.

Is he calling Martin Luther a heretic here?

No. A schismatic is not the same as a heretic. Even so, what does Luther’s status as a heretic have anything to do with “modern non-Catholics in 2016”?

There was a reference made to the heresies that were embraced by Luther, evident in his publications, and one of the causes of his excommunication. Luther was Catholic, and departed from the doctrines of the faith, creating his own doctrines to replace them.

Be that as it may, none of us are in a position to judge whether he died as a heretic. Only God can judge the heart/soul of a person, and we do not know what transpired before he met his Maker.

 

[spedteacherita]

Here is an informative link with Luther’s own words reflecting his disdain for Holy Mother Church and the Vicar of Christ:

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/01/luther-and-holy-roman-church-in-his-own.html#more

Do you suppose there will be a time when Luther can be forgiven?

As Casilda stated:

Luther was the product of his time. He witnessed abuses. He was scrupulous. He lacked spiritual direction. I have read in his own words he did not wish to destroy the church, simply reform it, to stop the abuses.

That was almost 500 years ago and, at some point, you need to let go. I appreciate that Casilda stated she would pray for his soul - let’s go on and build the “invisible church” by discussing our differences now.

God bless all!

Rita

 

[FollowChrist34]

Maybe you are participating in more than one thread and have become confused? No one on this thread has mentioned the word heretic except yourself.

No one on this thread has used any such terms about non-Catholic Christians in 2016.

In fact, no one has said anything “against” other non-Catholic Christians in 2016.

However, I do agree with your point, that had anyone done so, it would be divisive.

It would also likely be inaccurate. To qualify as a heretic, one must first embrace the One Faith, then willingly and knowingly depart from it. Most modern non-Catholic Christians have never been exposed to Catholicism.

If this did occur on this thread, I cannot find it. There was a reference made to the heresies that were embraced by Luther, evident in his publications, and one of the causes of his excommunication.

Luther was Catholic, and departed from the doctrines of the faith, creating his own doctrines to replace them.

Be that as it may, none of us are in a position to judge whether he died as a heretic. Only God can judge the heart/soul of a person, and we do not know what transpired before he met his Maker.

Agreed - and we are talking about the same comment:

Luther flat out refused submission to the Roman Pontiff thereby making him a schismatic(in addition to his heresies).

And I am on the right thread - no confusion. Here is the OP:

Here is an informative link with Luther’s own words reflecting his disdain for Holy Mother Church and the Vicar of Christ:

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/201…-own.html#more

So our overriding theme here is Luther’s “disdain” for his Holy Mother Church and the Vican of Christ, his rejection of same and his acts of heresy. (identified above as such)

Somewhere in here is a great comment by a different poster about how this thread theme is “starting a fire and watching others dance around it.”

And so here we dance…I stand by my comment that this “fire” is, in my mind, shameful, in the context of Pope Francis’ commitment to Christian unity and healing division.