Reunion Between Catholics And Lutherans

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

As you can see the law brings death, but aye alleluia Jesus resurrects and makes new. I guess without the law which causes death one would not know resurrection which is new life, when i was a child i was blind and could not see what tripped me, as a young man i could see what tripped me but still fell, now i am an adult i see what trips me and avoid it. Ultimately Jesus iz LORD and if one is to judge than let it be the LORD! Man is justified by faith in christ not the law though the law is essential and needed, but even that justification perhaps in faith is only a temporal salvation and it is grace alone that can assure us eternal salvation, although both faith and grace are essential and righteous, neither being against the other and gifts from GOD. :)

Edited April 12, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[chrysostom]

Maybe I'll post more on this later, but for now I'll just say that I think one can interpret these statements in such a way that they do not absolutely contradict previous Church teaching, even though they're skimming dangerously close to the limit.  On the other hand, do I view these statements as helpful or necessary?  No.  Perhaps they would be more helpful if they included at the same time a frank acknowledgement of doctrinal points both Catholic and Lutheran that the other side still viewed as heresy.

Edited April 12, 2014 by chrysostom

[Seven77]

Not sure what you mean, but I personally have difficulty understanding how Catholics and heretics are both part of the body of Christ. My understanding was that salvation lies within the Catholic Church, and to separate yourself from the Church brings one into considerable spiritual danger. Apparently we have been mistaken, since despite heresy and tearing the Church apart, heretics and Catholics remained united:

 

"As members of one body, Catholics and Lutherans remember together the events of the Reformation that led to the reality that thereafter they lived in divided communities even though they still belonged to one body"

 

 

This is how I look at it and I believe the Catechism backs it up: There is one baptism… everyone who is validly baptized enters in to the one body of Christ. There is only one church, the Catholic Church and one baptism. Non-Catholic Christians are imperfectly united to the Church--- that is, they are not in *full* communion. Everything that they have is because of this imperfect union... if they did not have at least an imperfect union they could not rightly be called Christian at all. If they have the sacrament of baptism, is because of the Catholic Church.  Because of baptism, they have God as their Father and the Church as their mother-- even though they do not acknowledge the latter. They need to come in to full communion that the grace he received in baptism may come to fruition.

 

To know that the Catholic Church is true and to willingly refuse to come into full communion is putting oneself into "considerable spiritual danger."

Edited April 13, 2014 by Seven77

[mortify ii]

This is how I look at it and I believe the Catechism backs it up: There is one baptism… everyone who is validly baptized enters in to the one body of Christ. There is only one church, the Catholic Church and one baptism. Non-Catholic Christians are imperfectly united to the Church--- that is, they are not in *full* communion. Everything that they have is because of this imperfect union... if they did not have at least an imperfect union they could not rightly be called Christian at all. If they have the sacrament of baptism, is because of the Catholic Church.  Because of baptism, they have God as their Father and the Church as their mother-- even though they do not acknowledge the latter. They need to come in to full communion that the grace he received in baptism may come to fruition.

 

Why do they need to come to full communion? The Church of Christ already exists and operates in communities that reject Roman Catholic dogma:

 

17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.⁵⁸ The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.⁵⁹Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

[Luigi]

It will never cease to amaze me that people with little to no specialized education or training or insight or spiritual development have an idea and think that they have figured out the everlasting truth that the rest of benighted humanity (or the Church) has overlooked or misunderstood or willfully ignored for the last twenty centuries of community and prayer and councils and administration and I don't even know what all else. 

 

It's the very definition of hubris. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(And how 'bout that first sentence, huh? SEVENTY-TWO words without a comma!) 

 

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Lutherans and Catholics can never be reunited unless the Lutherans reject their heresies, and reject Luther as a spiritual leader.

[mortify ii]

Lutherans and Catholics can never be reunited unless the Lutherans reject their heresies, and reject Luther as a spiritual leader.

And yet both Catholics and Lutherans are part of the Church of Christ

[Nihil Obstat]

And yet both Catholics and Lutherans are part of the Church of Christ

Only those Lutherans who are innocent of the Lutheran errors.

[Seven77]

Why do they need to come to full communion? The Church of Christ already exists and operates in communities that reject Roman Catholic dogma:

 

17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.⁵⁸ The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.⁵⁹Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

 

 Why don't they need to come into full communion, or are you being sarcastic? I'm trying to understand where you're coming from my friend.

 

That paragraph number 17 is talking about the Eastern Orthodox  and Oriental Churches that are not in full communion with Rome. Because they have apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, they are more closer united (through imperfectly) to the Catholic Church then Protestants who only have the one sacrament of initiation, baptism. Baptism is a sacrament of the Catholic Church that Orthodox and Protestant groups have… and therefore they are indebted to the Catholic Church because without her they wouldn't have baptism.  Doesn't that mean the Catholic Church is still understood to be the universal sacrament of salvation? I think its important to understand #17 in the context of #18:

 

 

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,⁶¹ are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.⁶² Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.⁶³

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

 

 

Baptism tends to the end which is "full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church."

Edited April 13, 2014 by Seven77

[mortify ii]

Peace,

 

 Why don't they need to come into full communion, or are you being sarcastic? I'm trying to understand where you're coming from my friend.

 

I was being serious, why do Lutherans (or any other Christian group for that matter) need to come into full union since according to many documents they are already part of the Church of Christ? I have yet to read anywhere something that states they must embrace Catholicism. It seems the Roman Catholic Church has come to accept the existence of these groups within their own right. 

 

 

That paragraph number 17 is talking about the Eastern Orthodox  and Oriental Churches that are not in full communion with Rome. Because they have apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, they are more closer united (through imperfectly) to the Catholic Church then Protestants who only have the one sacrament of initiation, baptism. Baptism is a sacrament of the Catholic Church that Orthodox and Protestant groups have… and therefore they are indebted to the Catholic Church because without her they wouldn't have baptism.  Doesn't that mean the Catholic Church is still understood to be the universal sacrament of salvation? I think its important to understand #17 in the context of #18:

 

 

What it also says is that the Church of Christ remains in these schismatic communities despite rejecting Catholic Dogma. My understanding which apparently is wrong, is that the Church of Christ *is* the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church headed by the Roman Pontiff and that baptism made one a member of this Church. To separate you from the Church founded on Peter meant cutting yourself off form the Church of Christ. It seems the correct view now is to say that the Church of Christ exists in it's own right and subsists in many communities even if they hold on to doctrines that are mutually exclusive from one another. 

[ardillacid]

wat

[mortify ii]

wat

 

Lutherans and Catholics are members of the Church of Christ.

[Benedictus]

It's not either/or. I can have family who I think are in error and/or rejecting the truth. (I do, actually) They are still my family, and they are of the family body. The anaology is similar to ecumenism -  others have a faith and proclaim Jesus, even if we hold them in error on many things or not adhering to the fullness of truth. Our work should be to pray and minister to them. You can't work out problems if you don't talk, or if you don't highlight what is good in the other. This doesn't mean selling yourself short and faling to hold what is true.  Ultimately God knows if people are really his or not, we can only go on our best of spiritual patrimony and faith. If people compromise the truth they hold for other reasons they are spiritual devils (hypocrites and against God). But we also need to recognise, aside from ecumenism, we have work on problems in our own dioceses. Thre are those i' in communion' (and there always have been) who are defective and  or in error. Is the church doing enough on this front? How can the church work with others when it doesn't adequately sort out its own problems?

[Eliakim]

Peace,

 

 

I was being serious, why do Lutherans (or any other Christian group for that matter) need to come into full union since according to many documents they are already part of the Church of Christ? I have yet to read anywhere something that states they must embrace Catholicism. It seems the Roman Catholic Church has come to accept the existence of these groups within their own right. 

 

 

 

What it also says is that the Church of Christ remains in these schismatic communities despite rejecting Catholic Dogma. My understanding which apparently is wrong, is that the Church of Christ *is* the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church headed by the Roman Pontiff and that baptism made one a member of this Church. To separate you from the Church founded on Peter meant cutting yourself off form the Church of Christ. It seems the correct view now is to say that the Church of Christ exists in it's own right and subsists in many communities even if they hold on to doctrines that are mutually exclusive from one another. 

 

Mortify, you were not wrong.  The Pope did teach as you understood.  The Church has since changed its teaching on what the nature of the Church is in recent times as Lumen Gentium (promulgated in Vatican II) states.  How the Church reconciles its modern understanding with its original is a circle I've not been able to square.  Some will point to doctrinal development without understanding Newman's own limits on the theory, while others try to convince themselves documents like Unam Sactum can be understood in a Lumen Gentium way. 

 

Anyway, yours is a good question.  Honest Catholics will admit their Church errs sometimes in its teachings.  (Church also used to teach unbaptized infants didn't go to heaven but stuck in limbo and that usery was sinful). 

 

E

[Nihil Obstat]

The Church cannot err. If something was true before VII, it remains equally true for Catholics today. The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, and the Church is necessary for salvation.