ECUMENISM? Provided that DONE IN TRUTH AND THE TRUTH: THE SUCCESS OF LUTHER

The success of Luther is largely due to the fact that he picked up and developed heretical bodies already existed in the history of the Church, such as those more immediately preceding Hus and Wycliffe, as well as the Waldensians, of Manichaean, of the Cathars, Ockham and Cusano, although it is true that every heretic always gives a special character to the doctrines that invents, and this clearly allows to distinguish the heresies of Luther from those of other heretics. On the other hand, it must also find in Luther trace of genuine instances of reform, that already characterized the great reformers like medieval Saint Bruno, San Pier Damiani, St. Romuald, Saint Bernard, St. John Gualberto, St. Francis, and St. Catherine of Siena.

.

.

.

.

With all the news of the case, while you are approaching the celebration of 500 years of “reform” heresiarch Luther, the editors of’Patmos Island proposes an article published two years ago by Father John Cavalcoli, ON

.

.

Now more than ever, in the era of ecumenism, we ask what is the meaning or the meaning of Lutheranism. And on this point continue the discussions and conflicting interpretations, despite the steps taken by ecumenism. What are the origins and causes of Lutheranism? What are your intentions, its instances, its essential themes? What are your results? How is it that five centuries later, after the convictions of the Church, it is still alive, enough to influence the Catholic theology today? What determines the power of his seduction? How is it that attracts great minds and men of valor? And what could be done to bring the separated brethren to fellowship with the Church of Rome?

.

A misconception that has spread in the Catholic world because of a false ecumenism, is that, after all, Lutheranism was a choice like any other, within Christianity or the Church, as were, for example, religious families founded by St. Benedict or St. Francis or St. Dominic. Lutheranism would not be a false interpretation of Christianity and the Church, but it would be just a different choice. For other, then, Luther was a great reformer of the Church, a great religious genius thirsting for Christ and his righteousness, a whirlwind prophetic, a scourge of scandal, Abuse, vices and heresies, which would become aware of the Church of Rome and their doctrinal and moral deviations medieval and would lead them with energy and intransigence to the rediscovery of the true Gospel and the true saving relationship with Christ, rejecting many concepts and practices spurious, well as the traditions of men, that had accumulated in the past, such as debris covering a monument in time hiding the genuine beauty.

.

Modern followers of Luther, considering the ecumenical climate, no longer own the violence of the attacks of the "reformer" against the Pope, Catholic doctrine and morals, and yet, if legitimize the existence of the Roman Church, see it with some sufficiently, a tolerant and benevolent compassion, as a respectable surplus of the past, why would not dream of considering the guidance of the Church, role, this, jealously reserving only to themselves, that fifty years from now they are embellished with the title of “Progressives” and are revered and proclaimed these.

.

Others, believing then to operate in such a way to Christian unity, there has been the idea that Catholics and Protestants represent equal, albeit in a different and mutually complementary, two large fragments of the Church, divisasi at the time of Luther because of mutual wrongs and misunderstandings and thus to faults on both sides. To which the solution or the remedy of this split, break up, fracture, or division or whatever you want to call it, would not be in the fact, how to order and hopes the Council document on ecumenism (1) that the separated brethren, giving up their mistakes, are “fully incorporated” in the Catholic Church, in which alone is the fullness of truth, but they can easily maintain their positions. The important thing is that there is dialogue and mutual cooperation. At the same time continues to “pray for L'Unità”. But I wonder if in this condition of mind and mentality that prayer becomes a hypocrisy.

.

Like this, to recover the unity, reaccommodate and the broken vase, each party should give up what the opposing side, proposed as Karl Rahner in his book Union of Churches real possibility (2). In practice, he suggested that the Catholic Church should ask all, Catholics and Protestants, adherence to dogmas that we have all shared, while it should make “Optional” for all and especially for Protestants those dogmas they not allowed.

.

We must say clearly which it is actually wrong to conceive the unity discovery by comparing the operation to that of an orthopedic that reassembles the fracture of a broken femur. The marine biotoxins right here instead gives him to Christ: heretics are branches that have fallen off or almost detached from the vine, that the Roman Church; whereby, while the Church as the Church (not as individual Catholics!) no wrongs or errors to be repaired, but only to preach the whole gospel to the whole world dispelling the darkness of error, vice versa separated brethren are saved only if, correct their mistakes, come into full communion with Rome, communion which, however,, known as the Council, it is now completely absent, but only partial, imperfect and incomplete, which does not exclude the possibility of a Lutheran in good faith to be saved.

.

The Church itself is essentially one and indivisible. No force can split or divide the broken up and put one side against the other inside or outside. There can be and there are divisions among Christians, but not in the Church, much less the Church. The heretics and schismatics do not divide the Church, but split from the Church; are not a part of the Church, but are separated from the Church, which is essentially a whole and. So this is not to reunite the Church, but that heretics and schismatics come back in the Church. It will be difficult for the Church, as they would like, go on their side. True Catholics are back, as Catholics, not as sinners, all joined together in the Church, which of course does not mean that there are clashes or disagreements between them, which do not affect their fundamental communion in the Church and members of the Church. And it is supremely the Pope define, procure, guard, protect and enhance the unity of the Church by promoting assembly or meeting of Christians, harmony and reconciliation between the opposing parties - for example, modernist Lefebvre - and the discovery of the lost sheep. The mission of the Pope schismatics and heretics do not understand it completely. They believe that the Pope is the principle of division because it requires, to be true Christians, condition that they do not want to admit. So there are fools who believe that ecumenism would be better, if it were not for the Pope.

.

In this search for distant, then this call to unity with Rome - the “center” - Francis Pope refers when he speaks of the need for the Church “bait” and go “in the suburbs”; not so much of the slums, but rather of the areas most human undernourished in terms of spiritual. The suburbs can also be the pastor or Sunday school teacher who do not live in full communion with the Church. Still others, as Hans Küng (3) and Edward Schillebeeckx (4), pushing hard syncretism indifferentist, and misinterpreting the famous thesis of the Council, that "the Church of Christ subsists" (stops) "The Catholic Church" (5), come to envisage a “Church of Christ” or a “Christianity” resulting from the synthesis of all religions concerned about human rights, justice and peace in humanity, where the Catholic dogmas are not denied but, deprived of their universal and compulsory, are integrated by the doctrines of other religions, evident Enlightenment secularization of Christianity that excludes the supernatural, considered myth, fanaticism and superstition, according to the well-known form of Freemasonry. Of course such a thing would have liked not even Luther, attached in the end, though in his own way, the essential content of faith of the Gospel (6). But Luther did not realize that once destroyed the Magisterium of the Church, the sheer refer to Scripture private, despite the conviction to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit and without difficulty admitting the clarity of many passages of Scripture itself, is by no means sufficient to ensure with certainty and precision the content of the faith. But above all, does not correspond to the will of Christ expressed in the Gospel.

.

In this regard we must remember that the Church and the doctrine of the faith are created and protected organisms from the infinite divine wisdom, such so as to resist, If well kept, every attack of the enemy, but at the same time, as creatures, are the result of a harmonious set of elements and factors, “joints and links” [With the 2,8], where the links do not all have the same strength, but some are less firm than others, for which they can be more easily broken by a desire malignant. Like this, for instance, in the human body, which is also a wonderful work of God, some structures are more vulnerable than others: if one puts the wrong foot, easy to take a wrong; if it keeps your teeth clean, easily take caries and so on. The Word of God does indeed united “joints and marrow,” [EB 4,12]; but if the soul does not take away from the snare of the devil lies, these delicate ties can be broken. This is the case in the heresy. This is what happened to Luther, who, although it has had its own strong personality able to influence others, I have not completely made up his heresies, Jupiter brings forth Minerva by her boss, fully armed. Instead he went to undermine fragile points or joints of the ecclesial, sometimes plunged into a crisis in the history of the Church, as are, for example, the relationship Pope-Church or Scripture or Church-grace-grace-sin or free will or faith and reason or faith-works.

.

The other part, we can no longer see in Luther's heresy only, but in some ways it is more important to highlight its positive instances of reform, that have contributed to its success and, duly purified and inserted into the Catholic context, found some satisfaction in the doctrines and pastoral care of the Second Vatican Council. The same phenomenon of modernism of the time of St. Pius X, was largely an unsuccessful attempt to operate this recovery, instead it was done by the council with all the authority that belongs to an Ecumenical Council.

 

.

As to the question of reform, we must say that the essence of the Church is immutable in itself, but this does not mean that it has periodically need of reform: The Church must always be reformed, says an old adage. The fear of Romano Amerio that the Second Vatican Council “changed” the essence of the Church has no foundation, and he tends to confuse the true ecclesiology of the Council with the interpretations Give a few Modernists.
To operate but real reform, that what is beneficial and conformed to Christ her Founder, need to know what the Church can change and what you can not change without thereby destroying itself, corrupt or impair the essence of the Church. To tell the truth, The Church is in itself indestructible (portae hell not praevalebunt). The trouble is that its essence can corrupt the minds of false reformers, which they believe to reform, but actually build a false church, which is contrary to the will of Christ. Therefore necessary to distinguish from deformation reform. The reform periodically necessary and requested by the same human essence and history of the Church, has the task of finding, maintain and enhance the shape blurred by arbitrary additions or subtractions, spurie purely umane.

.

Instead a reform that purported to change the essence of the Church or conceive this essence as changing course, according to the modernist form, instead of renewing, purify it and improve it, destroy it. In the work of Luther are both aspects, it is supremely necessary, under the guidance of the Magisterium of the Church, make this distinction to accommodate the positive and reject the negative.

.

The success of Luther It is so largely due to the fact that he picked up and developed already existed heretical instances in the history of the Church, such as those more immediately preceding Hus and Wycliffe, as well as the Waldensians, of Manichaean, of the Cathars, Ockham and Cusano, although it is true that every heretic always gives a special character to the doctrines that invents, and this clearly allows to distinguish the heresies of Luther from those of other heretics.
The other part, as I said, you also find in Luther trace of genuine instances of reform, that already characterized the great reformers like medieval Saint Bruno, San Pier Damiani, St. Romuald, Saint Bernard, St. John Gualberto, St. Francis, and St. Catherine of Siena.

.

One of the reasons why it did not catch on Lutheranism in some countries such as Italy, was that even before Luther certain religious orders, as for example the Dominicans, had promoted a reform against the pagan influences of the nascent humanism, as it was for the school Catherinian of Blessed Raymond of Capua, Blessed John Dominici, St. Anthony of Florence and of Girolamo Savonarola.
The Eras, for its part, always attack some weaknesses, some difficult passage, breaks any connection or relationship fragile, where many may fall, and this has happened, although there may be so absurd heresies, who always find the blockhead who makes his eagerly, species to the present day.
A delicate point of the Catholic faith is that of the Petrine. To deny this all heretics in different ways the authority of the Pope. And you know how violence Luther rejected the charism of Peter. In fact, about the mission of the Pope, There are in principle two difficulties, where you easily play the spirit of lies.

.

The first is that the Pope must distinguish two things: the infallibility of his ministry as a teacher of the faith and the frailty of his humanity of the son of Adam, which can also commit unjust actions, indiscretions or sins on the floor, as well as personal, Also the government or ministry. The usual tactic of heretics, which does not escape even Luther, is to start from criticism or even just claims about the pastoral or moral conduct of the Pope, to attack him as a teacher of the faith and guide to salvation.

.

The second challenge is to understand and appreciate the relationship between the Pope and the Church. That the Church is guided by Christ, heretics generally admit. What they should not be is that it is led by the Pope in the interpretation of Scripture and Tradition, in essence, the truth of faith and divine revelation.

.

According to them it is sufficient to Christ or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And in principle, This may be true. If God had willed, could have found a community of salvation from Him directly driven, unmediated literary, magisterial, catechetics, Hierarchical, liturgical and sacramental, priestly or papal. God has no problem to be known directly in their own conscience, and command him directly what to do and guide you through the grace of heaven.
Except that though God wanted to adjust things differently. And these are problems that only God can solve, such as those relating to salvation, it is logical that we must trust that He has a positive and historically wanted (“divine right”) through his apostles and especially Jesus Christ. The problem is not heresy to not believe in Christ; the problem is to accept everything that Christ taught and willed.

.

The heretic may also speak of the Church, faithful, of charity, Posting, of Tradition, of Revelation, of sacraments, of the Holy Spirit, of grace, of virtue, of sin, of salvation, Mystique. Can you speak of the Holy Trinity, of Christ and of God. But it is to see one by one conceives as these values. We do not care to only words, heresy because they are emptied of their true meaning. For this reason, it is not always easy to expose the heresies, well disguised under the appearances of piety, interpretations of Scripture or Tradition, projects holiness, proclamations reformers, theological ideas of genius, apocalyptic prophecies, heavenly visions ...

.

In the case of Luther's rebellion to the Pope arises from the fact that he, in its tendentious readings of Paul, he was convinced he had found the peace of his soul and the essence of the Gospel according to Rome he had lost. Hence his rejection of the doctrine of the Magisterium of the Church. From there the opposition to many other tenets as enshrined in that infallibility papal he did not want to recognize.
The other part, as taught by St. Augustine, we come to believe in Christ by believing the testimony of the Church. It is from the Church and under the patronage of the Church that we receive the Bible, that is the truth of faith, and then we come to faith in Christ.

.

A faith in Christ immediate, priori, athematics, preconceptual, given to all, come the intende Karl Rahner, without belonging either invisible or implied to the Church, does not exist. Not that you should believe in the infallibility of the Church just because it tells the Church. It would be a vicious circle. This leads instead to believe in the infallibility of the Church through the signs of credibility that the Church offers. But once you discover Christ in the Church, we must believe in the infallibility of the Church because, knowing that the Church is infallible, the Church itself teaches us to be infallible in the name of our faith in Christ.

.

Luther, as one may suppose, Thanks to Catholic education received, was well come to believe in the Church, even if it became part of a religious order. Why then at some point repudiated the faith in the Church? Like Luther came to lose faith in the authority of the Pope? It was a vera fede? If it was vera stinks, why lose it? In the name of what? Under such pressure? Under what suggestion? It was really worried about his own safety or something else not so noble? He could not keep the true faith in Christ because he lost his faith in the Church.

.

Believing he had found the true faith, Luther actually lost it when he lost his faith in the authority of the Pope doctrinal, under the pretense of interpreting Scripture better than him. He thought he find out the truth and fell into the illusion; and those who follow him are victims of the same delusion. What greater tragedy for a man to share the faith that is illusion? It's like exchanging Christ with Belial. And as much damage as you can make it to the next lead him out of the path of truth? What is the meaning of all the preaching of Luther? There are serious questions, which still, after five centuries of studies on Luther, is difficult to answer. One thing is certain. One lesson that comes from Luther this: take care to get a solid faith and authentic and always keep it in the cost of living.

.

Fontanellato, 31 October 2014

.
__________________________________________

.

NOTE
(1) Reintegratio, 3.

(2) Morcelliana, Brescia 1986
(3) Cf Save the Church, Rizzoli, Milan 2011
(4) Cf Site. The story of God, Queriniana, Brescia 1992, pp. 218-223.
(5) The light, 8

(6) His tremendous persistence in heresy was just remain stuck his conviction of being in the true faith, while the second he was in Rome to have fallen into heresy.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.