Posted on 05/05/2018 6:12:36 PM PDT by ebb tide
A few weeks ago we were told—by usually reliable sources—that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had rejected the German bishops’ proposal for administering Communion to the non-Catholic spouses of Catholics. We were further informed that Pope Francis had approved the CDF decision.
Evidently that report was inaccurate. Or if was accurate at the time, the decision has been rescinded.
Now the Pope has instructed the German bishops to seek consensus—ideally, unanimity—on the hotly disputed question, for the sake of “ecclesial communion.”
Three observations here:
1) The role of the Roman Pontiff is to resolve disputes among the world’s bishops. Here is a dispute. The Pope has not resolved it; he’s told the bishops involved to try to resolve it by themselves.
2) In their plea to the Vatican, the minority of German bishops who opposed the new policy did not argue that it was imprudent; they argued that it was impossible because it would be incompatible with Church teaching. (Would you blame me for suspecting that the CDF sided with the minority, and the Pope chose to overrule—or at least suspend—the decision?) If the issue is framed as a question of whether or not the policy can possibly be reconciled with Church teaching, it makes little sense to send the German bishops back home with a mandate to find unanimity; they can’t reconcile the irreconcilable. On the other hand, if this is only a question of prudence, then compromise makes sense. So has the Pope, by declining to make a decision, actually made a decision?
3) By prodding the German hierarchy to reach consensus, the Pope’s non-decision puts extra pressure on the minority that resisted the new policy. If the goal is “ecclesial communion” rather than doctrinal purity, it’s easy to see which side is expected to give ground.
There may be more to the story than what the Vatican has announced. Maybe the German bishops have been given further instructions on how to alter their proposal, bringing it into line with existing Church teaching. But there is little in the Vatican’s non-decision to bolster confidence.
1) The role of the Roman Pontiff is to resolve disputes among the world’s bishops. Here is a dispute. The Pope has not resolved it; he’s told the bishops involved to try to resolve it by themselves.
Isn’t having the German bishops work together considered subsidiarity? The correct minority shouldn’t back down, and thus unanimity will never be reached.
It is true this discussion really should be held in the first place, but acting as a “brother bishop” and not the “authoritarian” reminds the fraternity of bishops of the deep responsibility in their own dioceses, as well as the need for unity with the Pope.
The discussion is not necessary and never was. You don’t “discuss” sacrilege of the Holy Eucharist.
This was predictable after the scandalous meeting to honor Luther in Lund where we see a successor to St. Peter and the apostles flanked by gay and lesbian priestesses. Since when did the Catholic Church honor heretics? Germany is the home of Protestantism and the cultural and theological rot of this heresy has undoubtedly influenced the Church in Germany. As then Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out in Dominus Iesus there is no salvation except through the salvific mission of Church.
Yet in contrast Jesus said, 6Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. John 14:6 NASB
8But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” 12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.” Romans 10:8-13 NASB
No Roman Catholic church membership required or mentioned.
I thought unanimity was the current rule for bishops conferences on doctrinal questions anyways.
Bishops’ conferences have absolutely no authority to rule/vote on doctrinal matters.
Instead of quoting scriptural fragments out of context, it might help if you take the time to read with an open mind the actual document itself. The writings of Cardinal Ratzinger, considered by many to be the theological Einstein of our times may be above the intellectual IQ grade for many. But I trust you are not one of them. Instead, it is my hope you will read and convert as have so many leading Protestant theologians have done following a lifetime of study, teaching, prayer, and contemplation.
I could quote you every verse in the NT that deals with belief or faith. In not one will you find the requirement of being a member of the RCC.
Excellent link with footnotes, even!
Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors'”.27 Therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain.
You're denomination is saying that the Koran, the Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, the Bhagavad Gita, were received from Christ....and contain elements of goodness and grace????
I quote Surah 9:5 from the Koran.
If viewed in chronological order, this is one of the last "revelations" received from Allah by Muhammed.
This is one of the verses Muslims use to justify jihad.
You're attempting to tell me in some way this came from Christ??
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." Surah 9:5, The Holy Qur'an
It would appear from this statement that the RCC has equated these other texts to be of equal value with the Bible.
NO where is Scripture is this supported.
This is why Christianity relies upon only the Scriptures as the only inspired texts to be used by the believer.
Christianity and Roman Catholicism....there is a difference.
They receive the “elements of goodness and grace.” Of course. These are folks who have never been introduced to the Gospel or the Church which authenticated the Bible.
Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims can be good people who can just as well follow the Sermon on the Mount. However, it is through the salvific mission of the Church that prays for sinners and nonbelievers that in God’s mercy they may obtain salvation as a “revelation of his love.” That is what Ratzinger is alluding to. If you read Ratzinger’s long and heavily authority-referenced treatise you will get this whole picture. It took me several days of very careful reading and actually reading some of the footnotes as well as you would expect (as I say this with utmost humility) from someone with a postdoctoral degree from a major ivy league school. Please don’t use this against me. It is today a highly secular, some would call an anti-Christian university. I keep an open mind and went from Fabian socialist to hard right Reagan conservative. The study of economics, culture, and even science all require a deep historical insight.
The great convert who founded the Oxford Movement, John Henry Cardinal Newman once said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
Many colleges an universities have what is called the campus Newman Club.
The history of Church takes you to Peter, Linus, Cletus etc. St. Irenaus, a disciple of St. John and his writings on the early Church and belief in the Eucharist. This is why folks like Dr. David Anders, a theologian who entered Wheaton to specifically disprove Catholicism and write the definitive proof on “why” Church doctrine is untrue, ended up being a convert to Catholicism.
Cardinal Newman recognized the obvious difference between the current Roman Church and the early church. He was too deep in history not to see it. He had to develop his famous idea of doctrinal development to explain it. He argued that all the later Roman doctrines and practices were “hidden” in the church from the beginning. They were made explicit over time under the guidance of the Spirit. But the problem that many Roman Catholics fail to see is that there is a difference between development and contradiction. It is one thing to use different language to teach something the church has always taught (e.g., the “Trinity”). It is another thing altogether to begin teaching something that the church always denied (e.g., papal supremacy or infallibility). Those doctrines in particular were built on multitudes of forgeries.
Cardinal Manning solved the problem by treating any appeal to history as treason. He called for blind faith in the papacy and magisterium. Such might have been possible had the fruits of the papacy over 1,500 years not consistently been the precise opposite of the fruit of the Spirit (Matt. 7:16).
Cardinal Newman said that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. The truth is that to be deep in real history, as opposed to Rome’s whitewashed, revisionist, and often forged history, is to cease to be a Roman Catholic.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/be-deep-history/
Cardinal Newman would be amazed as this revisionist view of him. Indeed, The Newman Club at all major universities uses his understanding of history, and doctrine to confirm Catholic theology in every dot and iota. If you hadn’t read his book “The Catholic Church,” I strongly suggest you do.
The Newman Club at all major universities uses his understanding of history, and doctrine to confirm Catholic theology in every dot and iota. If you hadn’t read his book “The Catholic Church,” I strongly suggest you do.
Of course it's going to jive with RCC theology....the key phrase though is "his understanding of history"....which is not necessarily the correct one.
But none of this addresses the point I noted in the link you kindly provided about other writings and the credibility given to them by Rome. That is a very disturbing admission by Rome.
No,its not.
It is “his” understanding of history that subsequent converts Episcopalian and Lutheran have since embraced. Cardinal Newman does give the appropriate theological responses into the kinds of queries you raise.
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/cw_feb98/Newman.html
His version of history reads into actual history to find things not there. The RCC is well known for practicing eisegesis in its understanding of things. That is the RCC reads into the text to “see” hidden meaning not intended by the author. It leads to bad and false theology as witnessed in Roman Catholicism.
This simply cannot be. It is a continuous apostolic tradition and an unassailable history of divine authority as Cardinal Newman so eloquently reminds us.
For example, the fidelity to what Paul received was fundamentally important. Yet he did not want “to invent” a new, so-to-speak, a new “Pauline” Christianity. Therefore, he insisted, “I have passed on to you what I too received”. He passed on the initial gift that comes from the Lord and the truth that saves. Then, towards the end of his life, he wrote to Timothy: “Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us (II Tm 1: 14).
It is also effectively demonstrated by this ancient testimony of the Christian faith written by Tertullian in about the year 200: “(The Apostles) after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judea and founding Churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded Churches in every city, from which all the other Churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become Churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic Churches” (Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum, 20: PL 2, 32).
This is what St Clement of Rome, among the Church fathers and Pope said towards the end of the first century:
“The Apostles”, he wrote, “have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent by God. Christ, therefore, was sent forth by God, and the Apostles by Christ. “Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God.... Our Apostles also knew, through Our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the episcopal office.
“For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry” (Ad Corinthios, 42, 44: PG 1, 292, 296).
This chain of service has continued until today; it will continue to the end of the world. Indeed, the mandate that Jesus conferred upon the Apostles was passed on by them to their successors.
Briefly put, the Church cannot, indeed is incapable of erring on doctrinal matters.
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.