Pope Francis meets with Rev. Jens-Martin Kruse at Rome’s Evangelical Lutheran Church on Nov. 15 2016
Posted on 06/23/2017 9:12:09 AM PDT by ebb tide
Pope Francis meets with Rev. Jens-Martin Kruse at Rome’s Evangelical Lutheran Church on Nov. 15 2016
The commission consists of representatives from all three denominations, all bound to secrecy.
The journalist, who is well known in Italy for his accurate reporting of all things happening in the Vatican, has said that while this news is merely a “rumor” at this point, his “sources are usually good.”
According to his sources, the commission is finding little difficulty in finding common ground in the “liturgy of the word”. Tosatti reports: “After the confession of sins, asking for forgiveness, and reciting the Gloria, there would be the readings and the Gospel.”
He also said that the commission is allegedly studying the problem of the Creed. Protestant churches prefer to pray the Apostles’ Creed, although they do recognize the Nicene Creed. The Catholic Church alternates between them. So not even this point should be a major problem.
The presentation of the gifts likewise does not present a major obstacle to the project.
According to Tosatti, the central issue lies in the Eucharist, since the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is profoundly different from that of the Lutherans or of other Protestant denominations. Catholics believe in Transubstantiation and the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, while Protestants believe that it is merely a memorial.
Tosatti reports that a possible “solution” being proposed is that the words of Consecration be replaced by silence:
But how can a common liturgy be celebrated that clearly differs in the wording right at the most important point of the event?
One of the proposed possible solutions would be silence. It would mean that after the Sanctus, at the moment in which normally during the Mass the priest would say the words: “Father, you are holy indeed…” the different celebrants would keep silent, everyone mentally repeating “his own” formula.
The silence is broken in the congregation with the recitation of the Our Father. It is still not clear how the lines for Communion would be formed.
In light of this well-founded rumor, we should take heed of the remarks of Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, a close collaborator of Pope Francis and currently the President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. The Vatican cardinal has suggested that we stop thinking of sacraments so rigidly as only either valid or invalid. For the sake of ecumenism, he opined that we should start looking into sacraments perhaps having “imperfect” or “partial” validity. Below are his exact words, as published in his exclusive interview with Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register:
We say, everything is valid; nothing is valid. Maybe we have to reflect on this concept of validity or invalidity. The Second Vatican Council said there is a true communion [between Catholics and Protestants] even if it is not yet definitive or full. You see, they made a concept not so decisive, either all or nothing. There’s a communion that is already good, but some elements are missing. But, if you say some things are missing and that therefore there is nothing, you err. There are pieces missing, but there is already a communion, but it is not full communion. The same thing can be said, or something similar, of the validity or invalidity of ordination. I said let’s think about it. It’s a hypothesis. Maybe there is something, or maybe there’s nothing — a study, a reflection. ∎
by John Supplers, Veritas Vincit
How many SSPX and SV Catholics do you think there are on this sub-forum? 3 maybe? You are suggesting that since the forum allows for the three of us to talk amongst ourselves (our very own sub-caucus) that we should be just fine with the way things are set up. You seem to think that it's okay for other Catholics to "other" us and keep us out of Catholic-related threads that pertain to us just as much as them. You seem to think that it's just fine and dandy for *those* Catholics to whine and complain and insult Francis but the rest of us can't opine because we don't measure up to their standards of Catholicity?
How is this okay? Sorry. It's not. And I do hope that the owner and mods of this website reconsider getting rid of the clicky, uncharitable sub-caucuses. I think one Protestant, one Catholic and one Orthodox Caucus should suffice since I get the need for each general group to discuss matters that pertain only to them.
Ironically, if the Catholics are going to have a Catholic caucus that excludes certain traditional subsets of Catholicism, then by default they are breaking their caucus designation right from the get go.
If they are discussing current doctrine, the minute they mention the older stuff, they are breaking the caucus designation that would keep you off it, no different than if they set up a thread as a Catholic caucus and then started discussing Protestantism.
And honestly, I cannot see the hair splitting that would keep the Traditionalists off their threads, especially if they were to allow the Orthodox on them.
As I see it, there are more differences between the Orthodox and the Roman rite, than there is between the Pre and post Vatican 2 factions (for lack of a better term)
IOW, by excluding you they are cutting of their nose to spite their face.
Also, to *outsiders* (non-Catholics) their claims to the unity of Catholicism fall very short if they start that kind of cliquey hair-splitting. And their criticism of Protestantism as being fractured therefore it’s *proof* of the weakness of Protestantism, falls flat as well, especially when they are the very ones doing the fracturing themselves.
We keep being told, *once a Catholic, always a Catholic* and encouraged to swim the Tiber, and there you are, never not a Catholic, and they exclude you.
I see more acceptance of each other across denominational lines within Protestantism (for lack of a better term), than these Traditionalist-excluding Catholics have towards fellow Catholics
Go figure......
Actually, many non-Catholic believers do not accept the generic term of *Protestant* as the mainline Protestant churches have gone off the rails theologically and deny the authority of the Scripture.
They prefer, for now, the term *Evangelical*.
It represents a much more conservative, back to the basics of the faith, kind of believe more similar to your position.
We see mainline Protestantism the same way I think you view post Vatican 2 Catholics.
All that to say, having an Evangelical caucus designation would be useful as *Protestant* doesn't accurately define what I believe.
Not when most of them are viewed as pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, women ordaining, etc, liberals.
You do understand that in so doing the very intent of the caucus designation is undermined, don’t you?
I’d suggest posting an open thread on a given, controverted topic that has been caucused, if you find it objectionable.
Please explain how teaching and believing in the "catching up" of the Bride of Christ prior to "The Tribulation" (not just tribulation or tribulations, but THE Tribulation spoken of in numerous Scripture passages) is "not the Gospel" or a "dangerous novelty"? Whether or not someone believes Jesus will come to rapture up His church as we meet Him in the air and take us to heaven where we will not experience the wrath of God/the time of Jacob's trouble upon the corrupt world system, really doesn't change the Gospel. The Gospel is the good news that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life. It is a given that all who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution, trials and tribulations FROM the corrupt world system. My watching events around me and looking up and lifting up my head because my redemption draws nigh, as Jesus told us to do, only makes me want to please Him more and always be ready to meet Him.
I mean this respectfully, but I can't help but think you are awfully selective in your tolerance towards extra-biblical things. FYI...sola Scriptura is NOT about those who don’t believe in any source BUT Scripture. That is a straw man that keeps on being trotted out usually when the sufficiency of Scripture is discussed. I've probably said 159 times that not all tradition is bad or rejected. Can we agree that the Divinely-inspired word of God BECAUSE it is the word of God is the higher authority than traditions?
Ewwww!
A rather vulgar and unfortunate, but sadly accurate term.
I normally use it to refer to CNN!
Interesting, that.
We *Prots* are in a similar boat.
If we criticize him, or point out the obvious, we're *haters* and *Catholic bashing*.
Your post #390 is being removed.
Please review the guidelines for posting on the Religion Forum which can be found by clicking on my name at the bottom of this post,.
“Typo. It happens.
But I see you avoided answering the question.”
Now that I can see that it was a typo (the typo not in presenting only one question but in stating that your question was in the plural when it was in reality meant to be only a single question) I will provide an answer when later today am at liberty to do so.
I appreciate your comments. I can see how the current Catholic sub-caucus set-up probably looks to the non-Catholics. It is interesting that it is us Catholics with the forced divisions here.
As for the “Protestant” designation, I recognize that for some here that is problematic. I guess I am just trying to find one caucus name that would include those who do not identify with the Catholic Church (other than the Orthodox).
As for the mention of the pre-Vatican II doctrine, that is a very good point. Any Traditional Catholic that was originally excluded should be included on that basis alone. I would also think that any thread that argues against Vatican II would include all Traditional Catholics on that basis alone.
I am used to being on forums where there are no caucuses. Everyone posts their opinions and views and let the chips fall where they may. Posters stay out of the kitchen if they can’t stand the heat and the Mods interject when necessary.
In doing what? And how so? I am suggesting three large caucuses rather than various sub-caucuses within a group. That's not done with the non-Catholics. I'm not seeing how that undermines anything other than the uncharitable desire by some Catholics to exclude other Catholics. Or their private determination that certain Catholics aren't really Catholic at all.
I’d suggest posting an open thread on a given, controverted topic that has been caucused, if you find it objectionable.
RM: Is that even allowed?
R&B:
If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.
eal:
Serious questions (sic):
Does this only apply when the Pope is speaking “ex cathedra” or for all things said by the Pope?
___________________+______________________
The words of Pope Pius IX will shed light on the question:
What good is it to proclaim aloud the dogma of the supremacy of St. Peter and his successors? What good is it to repeat over and over declarations of faith in the Catholic Church and of obedience to the Apostolic See when actions give the lie to these fine words? Moreover, is not rebellion rendered all the more inexcusable by the fact that obedience is recognized as a duty? Again, does not the authority of the Holy See extend, as a sanction, to the measures which We have been obliged to take, or is it enough to be in communion of faith with this See without adding the submission of obedience, — a thing which cannot be maintained without damaging the Catholic Faith?
…In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who would deny this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quae in Patriarchatu [Sept. 1, 1876], nn. 23-24; in Acta Sanctae Sedis X [1877], pp. 3-37; English taken from Papal Teachings: The Church, nn. 433-434; underlining added.)
Additionally, no less than JESUS, God with us, taught the removal of the righteous in Christ will be removed BEFORE the judging wrath begins.
That's right.....the Body of believers were appointed to Salvation 'from' what is to come in the Tribulation, which is Judgement, the Judgement Jesus paid for us.... He bore God’s wrath for us..... Jesus gives two examples of end times signs...... End times will be like the days of Noah and the days of Lot..... In both examples, both Noah and Lot are 'taken out' of danger before God’s judgement takes place..... and the The whole point of the Tribulation is to turn Israel back to the Lord in the end.
I’d suggest posting an open thread on a given, controverted topic that has been caucused...Yes it is.RM: Is that even allowed?
The unspoken rule is to wait until the next day.
Amen! Gen 19:22, the destroying Angel tells Lot that the Destroyer CANNOT (not will not but CANNOT) act until Lot is out of there ... snd the only one of five cities on that peninsula that was not destroyed was Zoar, where the Angel directed LOT to go so the destruction could happen in the others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.