Vatican Surrenders to Luther: A Neo-Catholicism Update

In his Responsio ad Lutherum, St. Thomas More called Luther an "ape", a "drunkard", and a "lousy little friar". But who was he to judge?

The Vatican has announced another milestone in neo-Catholicism: a joyous Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017! The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity proclaims the surprising development that makes this very special commemoration possible:
Catholics and Lutherans realize that they and the communities in which they live out their faith belong to the one body of Christ. The awareness is dawning on Lutherans and Catholics that the struggle of the sixteenth century is over. The reasons for mutually condemning each other’s faith have fallen by the wayside.
Yes, the awareness is dawning: Catholics and Lutherans are one after all! And since this great good news comes to us from a Pontifical Council, we ought not to protest it because, as the neo-Catholics so rightly insist, there must be no public criticism of the Pope. Ever. Under any circumstances.
Link
Francesco Federico
Sancte Pie V et Sancte Pie X orate pro nobis et propter Sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam!
Rockford pro-life
The ELCA is pro-abortion.......I'm not in communion with them.
Prof. Leonard Wessell
@Reesorville, I thank you for your clear and revealing presentation. You have not, alas, relieved my problematic, rather given a measuring rod relative to which I may more precisely examine the current extension of the "One Body of Christ" to Lutherans. (You should know that a group of Lutheran and German Catholic theologians got together and agreed upon what "justification" means, hence apparently …More
@Reesorville, I thank you for your clear and revealing presentation. You have not, alas, relieved my problematic, rather given a measuring rod relative to which I may more precisely examine the current extension of the "One Body of Christ" to Lutherans. (You should know that a group of Lutheran and German Catholic theologians got together and agreed upon what "justification" means, hence apparently ending a major point of contention. This fact may be one reason that some theologians conclude that the then Pope quoted out of context. It must be so because, if current dialoque results correctly reverse the past and if the current dialoque is "IN-context", then yesterday's Pope was "out-of-context and, hence, formally erred.)

If the current Papacy backs an interpretation differing significantly from the one you offer, then a material discrepancy re truth has de facto taken place. Many a time, Louie Verrecchio (Harvesting the Fruit of Vat II) has accused Pope Fancis of material heresy, i.e., uttering some statements that are materially false and, hence, are heretical, only made not in a formal manner. Hence, the Church has not had its claims of infallibility compromised. If, however, the Church (i.e., the relevant leaders) of today comes to an interpretation significantly different from the one you have proposed and if the mode of pronouncement must be seen as a formal act, then, logically speaking, a significant truth formally announced in the 16th Century has been found to be formally false by those responsible in the 21st Century. The result is that I must see myself, at least for the moment, obliged, in the name of truth, to judge that the Church of today (t³) has altered, changed, abridged, restricted or rejected the truth pronounced by the Church of yesteryear (t²), making problematic the equation of continuation between Church² and Church³ as phases of the ongoing Church (t' = eternally).

Is the logic of my reflections sound? If so, such logic places me in a difficult position. As often said in logic, he who says a, must say b. Where lies the faultiness of my attempted reflections?
Reesorville
Pius XII in his 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi
"13. If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church [12] - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated …More
Pius XII in his 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi

"13. If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church [12] - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.

14. That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. "Christ," says the Apostle, "is the Head of the Body of the Church."[13] If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ."[14] But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body.[15] Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond."

The Body of Christ, as defined by the Pope, who is infallible on matters of faith and doctrine, consists in the catholic church united with the pope, and it is an error to state that other Christian communities which are not in communion are also united to the same body by an invisible bond. Hence, all Christians separated from Rome, including not only Lutherans, but also Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox and even catholics who are under excommunication, are all not part of the body of Christ.

This is the teaching of the church.

However, having said that, I really dislike what the article says: ' we ought not to protest it because, as the neo-Catholics so rightly insist, there must be no public criticism of the Pope. Ever. Under any circumstances.'

We are not supposed to criticize the pope. And catholics who think otherwise are the ones breaking from tradition. You see what I did above- I simply repeated what the church teaches from its own magisterial documents... absolutely no criticism or mention of the pope was necessary. I think people don't need to say anything bad at all about the holy father in order to fight error in the church.

When Noah was drunk his sons walked backwards to put the blanket over their father's nakedness.

God bless,
Prof. Leonard Wessell
It depends on the details of how the "community" is defined. If the Catholic Church via offficials, I guess, with papal blessing, accepts Lutherism as "belonging to the ONE body of Christ" essentiallly as Cahtolicism and concludes that, therefore, there is no longer need to condemn each other (which implies the correlative of acknowledging the validity of each other), THEN I find myself constrained …More
It depends on the details of how the "community" is defined. If the Catholic Church via offficials, I guess, with papal blessing, accepts Lutherism as "belonging to the ONE body of Christ" essentiallly as Cahtolicism and concludes that, therefore, there is no longer need to condemn each other (which implies the correlative of acknowledging the validity of each other), THEN I find myself constrained, based upon my "limited" knowledge of Luther and his -ism, to hold that the "Church" has fallen into formal doctrinal heresy and, alas, thereby proven itself not to be at ONE with the body of Christ. Succinctly, a crisis of faith, based on lack of continuity of THE faith, would take place in me.

I mentioned "limited" knowledge. 40+ years ago, for an advanced Seminar on 16th Century German literature, I wrote a 100+ page seminar study (earned an A+) on Luther's theology and that of Catholicism. Since then I have read some marvelous thinkers, Lutheran and Catholic, explaining positions. There are irreconciable differences. So, I make a sincere request.

I would ask Gloria.tv to find some one whose knowledge is not so limited as is mine to hold a or many lectures on the subject of Luther(ism) and explain to me in just what way Lutherans and Catholics are in the same "One body of Christ" and, if they are, why not Anglicans or any sincere Protestant denomination that accepts Jesus as the Savior.

I repeat: This is a request, but one I need to have fulfilled. I am too old to return to my youth and pick up Luther/Catholic interactions for the last 500 years. I thought I knew well enough the Luther(an) point of view and the Catholic one. Now, it has become vague and threatening to affect me as a clear cut doctrinal change in Catholicism, a change that must put in doubt any claims of existence of the Church as the TRUE Church of the Body of Christ. Pychologically I am one of those types that Pope Francis has mocked. Philosopically, I have my own anglo-american-objective-idealist view of truth, similar in essential poinst to the views of Thomas of Aquinas. My knowledge of the essential veritatis does not allow me to play games. It seems the multireligious-ism is being imported to the oneness of the "ONE body". And that is not compatible with my view of truth and, unless, someone can convince me of a different view, I wil be foreced to find "error" where the traditional Church said there cannot be any.