Was is a Catholic Declaration?

[EvangelCatholic]

EvangelCatholic;12300639:

 It may seem exasperating but this thread is specifically on what is a "Catholic Declaration".

Well, yes an no. You are comparing apples and turnips. The JDDJ is not the kind of declaration you imagine. The definition you were given of a “declaration” is part of the Magesterial authority of the Church. It is from a list of levels of official aurthorative Catholic teaching.

It is correct within the context from which it was taken, which is one of the levels of authorative instruction.

A papal or conciliar declaration is binding upon all Catholics.

I commend you for your careful research.

Yes. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the modern version of the Inquisition. It’s job is to preserve the purity of doctrine, and to prevent Catholics from teaching and promulgating error.

The reason the CDF has to review ecumenical documents like the JDDJ before they are published is to ensure that there are no false or misleading contents so that they will accurately represent the faith.

The JDDJ, like all ecumenical works in progress, is a document for discussion and further development. These types of “declarations” are not the offcial teaching of the Church (you won’t find it published in the Catechism) but clarify points of difference and unity so that continued work can progress.

Catholic "law’ (canon law) is different within various rites of the Church, and applies to how the business of the Church will be conducted on a day to day basis. It can be changed and adapted. Catholic “teaching” is the Doctrine of the Faith - the teaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit. The Church cannot add or subtract from this once for all divine deposit of faith.

Papal and conciliar declarations, unlike the JDDJ, are jurisdictional applications of the Once for all Divine deposit of faith. An example of a papal declaration is contained in ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS

/I]

" I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful."

There is no source that can prove your assertion is without merit. The JDDJ is not a papal or conciliar declaration, and no amount of trying to squeeze it into the official definition of an authorative declaration will make it become one. The Document itself states it’s sources and purposes, contrary to a declaration binding on all the faithful. You just can’t seem to accept that declarations made as part of the ecumenical work toward unity are not part of the Magesterial teaching of the faithful.

It is regrettable that some Catholics appear to be resistant to the work of the Church on unity, but your efforts to force the document into a category to which it does not belong will not solve the problem. On the contrary, it will only alienate those Catholics because you are losing your credibility.

May God grant that we quickly show the world the One unity of the One Faith so that the world may know Him.

Yes, there are always those who have difficulty accepting change, and the ultra traditionalists and Sede Vacantists are good examples. These folks, fortunately, are not given by God the authority to shepherd the Church.

I am sorry guanophore but you are providing opinions when I ask for clarification. In my ongoing reading of JDDJ there are many anecdotal statements; I included a critique from the Rorate Caeli website in which they cautioned seminary professors in teaching JDDJ; even alluded to a Catholic archbishop who canceled a joint Lutheran-Catholic celebration of JDDJ because of alleged unawareness of both denominations’ priests/ pastors.

My sense is that some Catholics are also quite unfamiliar with JDDJ and I know for a fact that the average Lutheran has little if any knowledge of the Catholic-Lutheran Commission on Unity.

But thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[JonNC]

I was thinking the same thing! I can’t even count the number of times that Lutherans have criticized the Catholic practice of “binding the conscience” of believers with things that are not in Scripture (like the Assumption of Mary). Yet, here is a Lutheran who wants the consciences of Catholics to be “bound” to believe and obey an ecumenical work in progress that has not been promulgated by the Magesterium.

Well spotted, guan and Peter. And you are right: we expect that the binding of the conscience by the Church is on those things extant in scripture.
but further, if we are to be in a dialogue that is frank and indeed charitable, convergences made by the representatives of each part must be expected to be evaluated by the leadership. It is then the leadership that determines if it is somehow binding.

It is not up to Lutherans to decide for the Catholic Magisterium if the JDDJ is a binding document.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The Dialogue proposes these steps for Lutherans to accept “magisterial mutuality”.

1. Specific questions are likewise raised which Lutherans ought to examine seriously:

1. Should not Lutherans be ready to acknowledge that the polemical language traditionally used to describe the papal office is inappropriate and offensive in the context of Catholic-Lutheran relationships today?83
2. Should not Lutherans, as participants in a movement toward a common Christian witness in our day, be willing to consult with Catholics in framing doctrinal and social-ethical statements?
3. Should not Lutherans move to develop closer institutional relationships with the Catholic Church in respect to teaching authority which would be expressive of the converging state of their traditions?

1. Should not creative efforts be made to discover a form of institutional relationship between the Catholic and the Lutheran churches which would express magisterial mutuality and would correspond to the converging state of their traditions? The present Catholic authorization of some sacramental sharing with the Orthodox, who do not acknowledge papal infallibility, shows more flexibility in Catholic thought and practice than was anticipated a few decades ago. Should the current developments in our two churches lead to analogous authorizations regarding sacramental sharing between Catholics and Lutherans?

1. This, to be sure, is not yet full agreement. Catholics, as well as many Lutherans, regret the absence in Lutheranism of a universal magisterium (i.e., of effective means of speaking to and for the whole Church), while Lutherans, as well as many Catholics, believe that the doctrine and practice of papal teaching authority and infallibility are not yet sufficiently protected against abuses. Catholics look upon the papacy, in view of its high responsibilities and the promises given to Peter, as especially assisted by the Holy Spirit.

1. Should not Catholic theology take a new look at the Lutheran Confessions, especially those—such as the Augsburg Confession—whose original purpose was irenic? Reinterpreted in a new context which would highlight their Catholic dimension, could these Confessions be recognized as valid expressions of the Church’s teaching? Could such recognition serve as an instance, of magisterial mutuality?82
   Ecumenical DocumentsIV Building Unity
   books.google.com/books?id=ICCi66SNBUoC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=2)+Should+not+Catholic+theology+take+a+new+look+at+the+Lutheran+Confessions,+especially+those%E2%80%94such+as+the+Augsburg+Confession%E2%80%94whose+original+purpose+was+irenic?+Reinterpreted+in+a+new+context+which+would+highlight+their+Catholic+dimension,+could+these+Confessions+be+recognized+as+valid+expressions+of+the+Church’s+teaching?+Could+such+recognition+serve+as+an+instance,+of+magisterial+mutuality?82&source=bl&ots=7loWyQ7mWl&sig=j4LNIqqiOZTttPtWPRZERqReU9I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=F24DVNr_FqS-igKH2oG4Cw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=2)%20Should%20not%20Catholic%20theology%20take%20a%20new%20look%20at%20the%20Lutheran%20Confessions%2C%20especially%20those%E2%80%94such%20as%20the%20Augsburg%20Confession%E2%80%94whose%20original%20purpose%20was%20irenic%3F%20Reinterpreted%20in%20a%20new%20context%20which%20would%20highlight%20their%20Catholic%20dimension%2C%20could%20these%20Confessions%20be%20recognized%20as%20valid%20expressions%20of%20the%20Church’s%20teaching%3F%20Could%20such%20recognition%20serve%20as%20an%20instance%2C%20of%20magisterial%20mutuality%3F82&f=false+Should+not+Catholic+theology+take+a+new+look+at+the+Lutheran+Confessions,+especially+those%E2%80%94such+as+the+Augsburg+Confession%E2%80%94whose+original+purpose+was+irenic?+Reinterpreted+in+a+new+context+which+would+highlight+their+Catholic+dimension,+could+these+Confessions+be+recognized+as+valid+expressions+of+the+Church’s+teaching?+Could+such+recognition+serve+as+an+instance,+of+magisterial+mutuality?82&source=bl&ots=7loWyQ7mWl&sig=j4LNIqqiOZTttPtWPRZERqReU9I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=F24DVNr_FqS-igKH2oG4Cw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=2)%20Should%20not%20Catholic%20theology%20take%20a%20new%20look%20at%20the%20Lutheran%20Confessions%2C%20especially%20those%E2%80%94such%20as%20the%20Augsburg%20Confession%E2%80%94whose%20original%20purpose%20was%20irenic%3F%20Reinterpreted%20in%20a%20new%20context%20which%20would%20highlight%20their%20Catholic%20dimension%2C%20could%20these%20Confessions%20be%20recognized%20as%20valid%20expressions%20of%20the%20Church’s%20teaching%3F%20Could%20such%20recognition%20serve%20as%20an%20instance%2C%20of%20magisterial%20mutuality%3F82&f=false)

 

[guanophore]

I am sorry guanophore but you are providing opinions when I ask for clarification.

You may not realize it, Evangel, but I am the one that posted the defiition of “declaration” you are referencing. It is contained in an explanation about the levels of teaching authority in the Church. It its not my opinion. Neither is the fact that the JDDJ is an ecumenical work in progress my opinion.

In my ongoing reading of JDDJ there are many anecdotal statements; I included a critique from the Rorate Caeli website in which they cautioned seminary professors in teaching JDDJ; even alluded to a Catholic archbishop who canceled a joint Lutheran-Catholic celebration of JDDJ because of alleged unawareness of both denominations’ priests/ pastors.

Yes, I read it. I am familiar with the site. The activities and opinons of individual Catholics have little bearing on the teaching of the Church. There are some groups that reject the entire Vatican II council also, and every pope that has served since that council. Their opinions do not change the facts. They are not part of the Magesterium, which Catholics understand to be the authority appointed by Christ to feed and care for the flock.

The teaching/position of the Church is not determined by democracy, or by those who dissent from her.

My sense is that some Catholics are also quite unfamiliar with JDDJ and I know for a fact that the average Lutheran has little if any knowledge of the Catholic-Lutheran Commission on Unity.

I am sure you will do all that you can to rectify this situation, as I have myself, however, trying to promote that it is a type of document that it is not will not help any, and in fact, I think will do a disservice.

 

[Peter_J]

I have had this discussion before and invariably the feedback I get is opinion not reliable, direct citations or authoritative sources.

Welcome to the Internet. (I admit I spend more time on Catholic forums than on Lutheran, but I have to guess that the former aren’t any worse than the latter in this regard.) Fortunately, the Catholic teaching remain the same regardless of what any individual Catholic might say about it. (I thought about adding an H. M. S. Pinafore style “except me” … but that seemed too much of a stretch, even for my sense of humor.)

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Considering it is Wikipedia, is the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification a magisterial document?

Some Catholics have argued that the Lutheran signers do not have the required authority to represent their communities (since, from a Catholic perspective, they are not full Churches) and, therefore, that no Lutheran can make the agreement binding on the constituents of the Lutheran World Federation. The final paragraph of the Annex to the Official Common Statement, however, settles this matter.[4] Some Catholics argue that the JDDJ is out of line with the Council of Trent but the document is clear that it is not negating or contradicting any statements from Trent, rather it is arguing for the non-applicability of its canons to concrete Christian bodies in the modern world. The document was approved by the Vatican under the auspices of the PCPCU and is therefore a magisterial document, though since it is not an ex cathedra statement, it may be possible for Catholics to hold that it is open to reform or correction.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Declaration_on_the_Doctrine_of_Justification

 

[rcwitness]

Considering it is Wikipedia, is the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification a magisterial document?

Seems to me it is a statement which was in fact issued by the Magisterium, but within the statement itself, it acknowledges that it does not carry the weight of ex Cathedra, therefore NOT being infallible from correction or reform (which may have to do with the members of the Lutheran community participants).

 

[Peter_J]

archbishoplefebvre.com/october-1999.html

 

[EvangelCatholic]

archbishoplefebvre.com/october-1999.html

Thanks Peter, very interesting article but I am a little confused. Wasn’t Archbishop Lefebvre excommunicated by Pope John Paul II in the early 1990’s; several years before the Joint Declaration was signed.

 

[Peter_J]

Wasn’t Archbishop Lefebvre excommunicated by Pope John Paul II in the early 1990’s;

In 1988 actually (along with the four men he consecrated to the episcopacy). He died in 1991.

 

[guanophore]

Considering it is Wikipedia, is the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification a magisterial document?

The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity reviews these documents before publication to make sure there are no contradiction to the faith. The document accurately clarifies what Catholics believe. To that extent, it does reflect the teaching of the Church. The contents affirm what we have received from the Apostles.

These types of documents are also reviewed and approved through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to ensure that they don’t contain anything that might be doctrinally misleading to the faithful.

The document itself, though, is not part of the official teaching of the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

There is a discussion about the definition of a Catholic declaration on another thread. Some proclaim that declarations are actually not official teaching or law. Anyone familiar with declarations by the Roman Catholic Church and what kind of authority papal or council declarations have on Catholics?

There is no such thing as “a Catholic Declaration”.

This is reminiscent of a thread I scanned several years ago asking about a “Sacred Heart wedding”.

There is no such thing.

BUT, here’s the caveat:

It is true that the magisterium does make declarations, pronouncements, professions, etc.

Yet the fact that the magisterium does make declarations is a different animal than a “Catholic Declaration.”

Just like the fact that a person may have attended a wedding that was somehow themed with a devotion to the Sacred Heart.

That is different than an actual liturgical (non-existent) entity called a “Sacred Heart Wedding.”