|
Post by guillaume on Feb 22, 2010 9:08:00 GMT
According to Zenit :
Benedict XVI to Visit Lutheran Church in Rome
Ecumenical Event Scheduled for March 14
VATICAN CITY, FEB. 18, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI will visit a Lutheran church in Rome for a German-language service in which both he and a Lutheran pastor will give homilies.
The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Vatican press office today confirmed that the visit -- previously announced -- will take place March 14.
The president of the unity council, Cardinal Walter Kasper, will participate in the visit.
Rome's Lutheran community had invited the Pope in 2008 to mark the 25th anniversary of Pope John Paul II's visit to the church. The Polish Pontiff's 1983 visit commemorated the 550th anniversary of the birth of Martin Luther (1483-1546).
According to the Lutheran community, Benedict XVI's homily will be on the biblical passage from John: "Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." For his part, Pastor Jens-Martin Kruse will analyze the first chapter of the Second Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians, which speaks about Christ's consolation in moments of tribulation. In statements to the NEV agency, Kruse noted his sense of the importance of the visit: "To have the Bishop of Rome among us is a good sign for ecumenism in our city."
Earlier this month, the Holy Father gave a special greeting to a U.S. Lutheran delegation visiting the Vatican. On that occasion, he said he has "been encouraged that relations between Catholics and Lutherans have continued to grow, especially at the level of practical collaboration in the service of the Gospel."
Last year, the 10th anniversary of the joint Catholic-Lutheran declaration on justification was celebrated
The Pope in an heretic "church" ? Is the Catholic church still catholic ?
|
|
|
Post by melancholicus on Feb 22, 2010 23:29:10 GMT
Guillaume,
The Pope is not going to celebrate a Lutheran ceremony. He is simply visiting the Lutheran church at Rome, during which visit he will preach.
The Pope's visit does not imply his approval of the errors of Luther, any more than his recent visit to the Roman synagogue implies a denial of the divinity of the Lord Jesus.
We know from experience where Benedict XVI's ecumenical programme is going; he wishes the dissidents to return to the Church and be united in one fold under one shepherd; witness the unprecedented progress made with the Anglicans, and the considerable thawing of relations with the Orthodox.
There is a difference of approach between this pontificate and that preceding—for John Paul II, dialogue and fraternisation seem to have been an end in themselves, whereas for Benedict XVI they are merely the means toward the eventual return of the separated brethren.
If the Lutheran church as a whole continues to pursue the same modernist/secularist policies as the Anglican Communion, we might see some kind of canonical structure for them at some point down the line. That is only to be welcomed.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 23, 2010 16:42:10 GMT
Guillaume, The Pope is not going to celebrate a Lutheran ceremony. He is simply visiting the Lutheran church at Rome, during which visit he will preach. The Pope's visit does not imply his approval of the errors of Luther, any more than his recent visit to the Roman synagogue implies a denial of the divinity of the Lord Jesus. We know from experience where Benedict XVI's ecumenical programme is going; he wishes the dissidents to return to the Church and be united in one fold under one shepherd; witness the unprecedented progress made with the Anglicans, and the considerable thawing of relations with the Orthodox. There is a difference of approach between this pontificate and that preceding—for John Paul II, dialogue and fraternisation seem to have been an end in themselves, whereas for Benedict XVI they are merely the means toward the eventual return of the separated brethren. If the Lutheran church as a whole continues to pursue the same modernist/secularist policies as the Anglican Communion, we might see some kind of canonical structure for them at some point down the line. That is only to be welcomed. I don't know if the Pope will celebrate or not in this temple. But is it his role to visit synagogues, mosque and protestant temples without trying to convert those poor souls and lead them to the right path : Jesus Christ ? Ecumenism leads to relativism, a real cancer for the conversion of souls. Is the moto : Outside the Church, no salvation still occurs ? Does the church still believe that she is the unique Church of Christ or not ? If the Church is the unique and only guardian of the Truth, so why does she act like if the other religions could be right ? Is it not leading the souls in research to the Truth to a total confusion ? For what ? Charity ? If you know the Truth and you know that your neighbor is wrong, as religious leader and successor of the Apostles, what kind of charitable attitude you should have ?
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Feb 23, 2010 20:32:15 GMT
I really can't understand why you ask these questions sometimes Guillaume because I can see that you have intelligence and that you would have the strength of mind to see the obvious. First of all you should really stop reading SSPX and "integrist" websites who think they know the totality of the Catholic faith-they do not. What passes for Catholicism for many "tradis" in France and elsewhere are social teachings of the Church vis á vis the state in the age of the enlightement.Has no-one ever asked why Dignitatis Humanae wasn't such huge problem for the rest of the Church as it was for Archbishop Lefrevre? There were many also who had imbibed the spirit of the time and had little appreciation for the true spirit of the council. We here in Ireland didn't have much objection other than the hermeneutic of rupture reading of DH. The problem was the Church in France had since the the revolution developed a painful relationship with the French state- a modern day example is of the Church in China where similar paralells exist. I'll ask you a question Guillaume....are Lutherans by virtue of their baptism part of the mystical body of Christ? Personally I think they are. Most Lutherans from this standpoint in history are no longer guilty of the sins of Father Luther. Thats why the Church engages in ecumenism-to lead toward the truth...ie the Church. Various trads think there is only the "hands above your heads and come in slowly" approach of leading former enemies back into the Church...I think some even like this and don't like the idea of suffering patiently while others come to appreciate the uniqueness of the Catholic Church. Guillaume for Gods sake put as much water between you and all those other people who are telling you nonsense about the Pope. Remember, its better to be wrong and side with the vicar of Christ than to be correct and side with the Archbishop emeritus of Tulle.
|
|
|
Post by melancholicus on Feb 23, 2010 20:58:28 GMT
None of us would dispute that the fullness of truth is to be found in the Catholic Church, and that the Holy Father in virtue of his Petrine office as 'fisher of men' has an obligation to seek out the lost and wayward.
Nor is this truth lost on the Holy Father himself, who has made more progress toward Christian unity in the past five years than was made in the previous thirty.
What we are dealing with here is a prudential matter: what is the best way to make overtures to the separated brethren?
St. Francis de Sales reminds us that we shall catch more flies with a spoonful of honey than a barrelful of vinegar.
As western society at large becomes more secular and more hostile to the Christian religion generally, and as mainline protestant denominations continue to embrace the spirit of the age in regard to doctrine and morals, those members of such denominations who do believe in God and in the Lord Jesus are more likely to turn their eyes towards the protection and stability the Catholic Church can offer them. We must be careful not to frustrate the return of the separated by an attitude of haughty superiority, or a hectoring tone; much better to be like the father in the parable of the prodigal son, and as Pius XI puts it in Mortalium Animos, 'let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion'. Benedict XVI surely desires their return as fervently as Pius XI; the whole thrust of his pontificate thus far is a testament to that. But he will not take the risk of turning the Lutherans off by issuing a flat ultimatum.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 24, 2010 8:37:48 GMT
I really can't understand why you ask these questions sometimes Guillaume because I can see that you have intelligence and that you would have the strength of mind to see the obvious. First of all you should really stop reading SSPX and "integrist" websites who think they know the totality of the Catholic faith-they do not. What passes for Catholicism for many "tradis" in France and elsewhere are social teachings of the Church vis á vis the state in the age of the enlightement.Has no-one ever asked why Dignitatis Humanae wasn't such huge problem for the rest of the Church as it was for Archbishop Lefrevre? There were many also who had imbibed the spirit of the time and had little appreciation for the true spirit of the council. We here in Ireland didn't have much objection other than the hermeneutic of rupture reading of DH. The problem was the Church in France had since the the revolution developed a painful relationship with the French state- a modern day example is of the Church in China where similar paralells exist. I'll ask you a question Guillaume....are Lutherans by virtue of their baptism part of the mystical body of Christ? Personally I think they are. Most Lutherans from this standpoint in history are no longer guilty of the sins of Father Luther. Thats why the Church engages in ecumenism-to lead toward the truth...ie the Church. Various trads think there is only the "hands above your heads and come in slowly" approach of leading former enemies back into the Church...I think some even like this and don't like the idea of suffering patiently while others come to appreciate the uniqueness of the Catholic Church. Guillaume for Gods sake put as much water between you and all those other people who are telling you nonsense about the Pope. Remember, its better to be wrong and side with the vicar of Christ than to be correct and side with the Archbishop emeritus of Tulle. Actually I don't only read "integrist" websites, like DICI.org or laportelatine.org, but also books ! ;D. My bro, 100 % SSPX, offered me a book called "catechism of the crisis of the church", written by a SSPX Priest. It teachs in very simple ways, what is going on (in a traditional way of catechism with questions and answers). It is compeling. I had been introduced in the Church some years ago in the catholic tradition. But I left it, on somehow, to follow more often the NO and the parishes Mass. I know that SSPX creates controversies, oppositions, reactions... etc... However when I see and experience the state of the reformed church, I wonder if Bishop Lefebvre was not right after all. We recongnize a tree according to its fruits.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Feb 26, 2010 11:08:27 GMT
But is it his role to visit synagogues, mosque and protestant temples without trying to convert those poor souls and lead them to the right path : Jesus Christ ? Guillaume, I think this is a statement that many people may consider offensive. I know you mean well and do not wish to offend anyone, however the above wording does come accross as slightly arrogant. I'm sure the adherants to the above faiths you mentioned do not consider themselves as "Poor Souls". I am sure you would not wish for them to refer to you as such or to take pity on you, just because you happen to be Catholic and follow a different faith than they do.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 26, 2010 15:18:46 GMT
I am broadly going to come in behind Melancholicus and Harris on this one. But I want to put the boot on the other foot for a change. This forum has had quite a lot to say about Catholic-Anglican dialogue, for very obvious reasons - the Anglican communion, specifically the Church of Ireland, is the body outside the Catholic Church which Catholics in Ireland are most familiar with, and like many Irish Catholics, I have Irish Anglicans in places in my family tree (though there is some irony in the fact that the only relatives I have who are overt Sinn Féin supporters and who have been right through the troubles are distant cousins of my father who live somewhere or other in Co Wicklow - my father's maternal grandmother was from Rathdrum or somewhere like that). I should at writing this in Alaisdir's persona may lead to some misunderstanding as attempts have been made to name him (here and elsewhere) which don't take into account that 'he' (ie - I ) might be a 'they' (we). So just be careful of some of the personal nuggets in Alaisdir's posts as they don't necessarily reflect a single identity. Anyway, enough digression.
There are a lot of parrallels between Catholic-Anglican and Catholic-Lutheran dialogue and it has been put to me that it is debatable as to which of the two is closer to Catholicism (another user of the Alaisdir persona speaks good German and has some theories in this regard). But I want to focus on a form of Protestantism which is a bit more distant - Presbyterianism/Reformed Calvinism.
Presbyterianism is the expression of Calvinism found predominantly in the English-speaking world, though the most zealous and traditional forms are found among speakers of Scots Gaelic and Ulster Scots. The classical expression of Calvinism on the continent is the Heidelberg Cathecism, used by the Dutch, Swiss and French Reformed Churches, while the Westminster Cathecism is the basic credal statement of Presbyterians in Scotland, Ireland, North America and other countries. In its original, the Westminster Cathechism refers to the Pope as the Antichrist.
From my point of view, if a Presbyterian anywhere wishes to believe the Pope is Antichrist and lives a decent life otherwise, there is no comment to be made, but if a Presbyterian minister were to mount the pulpit in a politically charged atmosphere like pre-Peace Process Northern Ireland week in, week out denouncing followers of the Antichrist which would lead to attacks on Catholics, then that is another matter. And the fact that the scenario I painted is not an idle caricature is a reason why it is important that Catholic-Presbyterian dialogue should exist.
My first reminiscence dates from John Paul II's visit to Britain in 1982 when he spent a couple of days in Scotland. The problem was the matter of his visiting the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which liberals of that persuasion but fundamentalists opposed. By way of compromise, the Pope was received in building, but not in the chamber and in that in his secular capacity as head of the Vatican City State rather than as Pope. And fundamentalists were outraged and they protested. I am talking about the mainstream Church of Scotland - not something on the fringe.
Next I go to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland in 1988. Their momentous decision was to amend the Westminster Cathechism referring to the Pope as Antichrist. Liberals in the General Assembly wanted to refer to the belief as 'unchristian', whereas conservatives termed in 'unbiblical' (that means a lot more within Calvinism than within Catholicism - so I would refer to this as a good compromise). Of course the opposition in Paisley's Free Presbyterians who continue to use the unadulterated Westminster Cathechism made hay out of this ecumenical sellout.
Finally, there was the Irish Presbyterian reaction to Dominus Jesus in 2001. At the same time, the Irish Bishops dropped certain scriptural readings from the liturgy on the grounds they were 'sexist' (especially Ephesians 5: 22-33 from the nuptial Mass). They said that Dominus Jesus was the Catholic Church restating something that Presbyterians always knew it professed (in relation to Protestant Churches in particular), but that the Irish Bishops had no authority to censor the Word of God in scripture (it emphasises the gulf that exists between Catholicism and Protestantism in this regard).
Now, I could get all sniffy at Presbyterian attitudes to Catholicism (as they could with the contrary, though Presbyterianism doesn't command the same numbers, strength and influence as Orthodoxy, Anglicanism or Lutheranism, so I doubt the Curia gives them much thought), but there is no point. At the same time, there is a need for honest dialogue and an effort to work together for the common good. In this regard, visiting the places of worship of other faiths by the Pope is helpful. And even a head case like Malachy Martin applauded John Paul II for preaching Catholicism in these circumstances.
|
|
andyf
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by andyf on Mar 1, 2010 20:42:13 GMT
guillaume: This is the same trap that was addressed in the concern with Vatican II. We use the limited experiential and the empirical to try to understand what we are seeing, when it is impossible to understand what inspiration can convey to our senses. "Imagine the audacity of the Pope. Surely this must be treasonous?" we say. And in the days of Vatican II, "Why this change to liturgy it surely seems inappropriate and unacceptable?" Not long ago another master of diplomacy for Christ did an even seemingly more serious affront to Christianity when the Pope kissed the Koran. www.deceptioninthechurch.com/popekiss.htmAn explanation was made, and the incident was forgotten. The reason was that he was paying respect of that part of the Koran that was the Truth, and the result was a brilliant show of diplomatic strategy and the gaining of respect from the Muslim peoples. A collective "I see now." was exclaimed. The active word is "see". How many have now opened their heart to Christ that would have otherwise been lost.? Why did we even need to question.? The point is that we are to give the Pope the benefit of the doubt and trust that all is for the Faith-in-Common Good. So we can see a lesson was not learned and there is a danger of repeating our reaction as before. St. John/Cross cautions on the dangers of the soul when trying to analyze the effects of the Holy Spirit who is the cause. They may not reveal the total effect in man's timetable. He cautions on depending on our limited sense. (Ascent to Mount Carmel) "For God is wont to declare and teach and promise many things, not that they be understood or possessed at the time, but that they may be understood at a later time, when it is evident that the soul(s) ought to have light concerning it". Andy
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 2, 2010 11:14:32 GMT
Monkeyman says "It is better to be wrong with the Pope than right with the archbishop emeritus of Tulle". Isn't that a bit sweeping? Surely there are circumstances under which a faithful Catholic is permitted or even obliged to rebuke the Pope. The problems with the Pixies - and they do have some legitimate grievances - are (a) they demand that any discussion must start from the premise that their views are self-evidently true and not open to discussion (b) they justify their actions by appealing to subjective sincerity as total justification; this of course can justify any act whatsoever so long as the perpetrator sincerely believes himself to be right (c) they make a habit of it and treat it as a matter of course; they complettely ignore the divine guarantee to St. Peter, which requires that at the very least a papal decision is entitled to the presumption that it is correct unless just cause can be shown against it.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Mar 2, 2010 17:48:52 GMT
Hibernicus, With regard to my post stating"It is better to be wrong with the Pope than right with the archbishop emeritus of Tulle". I am (I would have thought it was evident) referring to matters of Church discipline and also matters of faith/morals. I stand by this statement. The doctrine of indefectibility is willed by God not only to protect the deposit of faith but also to be a clear guide on who ultimately is to be obeyed in the Church. If we don't follow the Pope as a matter of course in these things then there will be chaos-observe the last 40 years. I am certainly no traditionalist or ultra-montane but I observe that at the end of the day God will not punish his flock for following the Pope whom he willed to govern them. As I have stated before,one has to reason also what must be obeyed. The SSPX line on obedience is not Catholic. Obedience to pre-conciliar Popes is demanded but barely anything applies to Popes after the council. When was the last time you read of the SSPX encouraging their faithful to read encyclicals of any of the last 4 Popes? They only do so to critique. I think my statement is a very good rule of thumb for any Catholic. Remember Hibernicus, most of the worlds Catholic population is not as well read and conversant in philsophical/theological terms and principles as you are.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 3, 2010 18:14:24 GMT
monkeyman: I take your point. I still think that saying it is better to be wrong with the Pope than right with Lefebvre is a bit startling, but I take it to be meant as legitimate hyperbole (a comparison might be with St. Ignatius Loyola's famous remark that a Jesuit should say black was white if his superior told him so, which was not meant to be taken literally or universally but was intended to emphasise the importance of obedience to a correspondent in a particular situation). Be careful, though. Superiors can abuse their powers, too andI think the SSPX had some legitimate grievances in the beginning. So had Luther.
|
|