"…it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their [non-Catholic] assemblies..."

[Lepanto]

“…it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their [non-Catholic] assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.”

from Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 8:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

Can someone please cite any Vatican II or any post- conciliar document which abrogated Pius XI’s position?

 

[notself]

Shouldn’t this be posted on the Ask an Apologist Forum?

 

[Lepanto]

Shouldn’t this be posted on the Ask an Apologist Forum?

Why would it be inappropriate in the “Non-Catholic Religions” room?

 

[rr1213]

I direct your attention to the following except from a document of your Church entitled DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OFPRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM:

Sharing in Non-Sacramental Liturgical Worship

1. By liturgical worship is meant worship carried out according to books, prescriptions and customs of a Church or ecclesial Community, presided over by a minister or delegate of that Church or Community. This liturgical worship may be of a non-sacramental kind, or may be the celebration of one or more of the Christian sacraments. The concern here is non-sacramental worship.
2. In some situations, the official prayer of a Church may be preferred to ecumenical services specially prepared for the occasion. Participation in such celebrations as Morning or Evening Prayer, special vigils, etc., will enable people of different liturgical traditions—Catholic, Eastern, Anglican and Protestant—to understand each other’s community prayer better and to share more deeply in traditions which often have developed from common roots.
3. In liturgical celebrations taking place in other Churches and ecclesial Communities, Catholics are encouraged to take part in the psalms, responses, hymns and common actions of the Church in which they are guests. If invited by their hosts, they may read a lesson or preach.
4. Regarding assistance at liturgical worship of this type, there should be a meticulous regard for the sensibilities of the clergy and people of all the Christian Communities concerned, as well as for local customs which may vary according to time, place, persons and circumstances. In a Catholic liturgical celebration, ministers of other Churches and ecclesial Communities may have the place and liturgical honors proper to their rank and their role, if this is judged desirable.,

 

[notself]

Why would it be inappropriate in the “Non-Catholic Religions” room?

I thought you would get a faster answer to your question.

It appears I was wrong. See above.

 

[Yerusalyim]

LEPANTO,

You are a Cafeteria Catholic, you pick and choose what you want to accept from the teaching of the Church…the document you sited is in NO WAY an Infallible teaching of the Church. The church’s circumstances and understanding of the issues have changed and evolved since that time. Face it, V2 was a legitimate Council of the Church, it’s teachings are every single bit as valid as those you’ve sited, and even more so because the Circumstances and issues address are completely different. How are you any different than Luther or Calvin or Lefebre by placing your own ideas and opinions above the current Magesterium?

 

[Lepanto]

LEPANTO,
You are a Cafeteria Catholic,

Thank you. Name-calling always helps make one’s case.

you pick and choose what you want to accept from the teaching of the Church…

On what do you base your allegation? I merely asked for clarification on an apparent contradiction.

the document you sited is in NO WAY an Infallible teaching of the Church.

By what authority do you claim to know that it is or is not? It’s part of the magisterium, so it must be worth something.

The church’s circumstances and understanding of the issues have changed and evolved since that time.

Exactly what has changed to invalidate this magisterial document? (Harkening back to my original post…)

Face it, V2 was a legitimate Council of the Church, it’s teachings are every single bit as valid as those you’ve sited

Wow…where to begin? Where (besides your imagination) did I claim that V2 was invalid?

Also, how can one council be “more” valid than another council or magisterial document? Validity is binary: either yes or no.

How are you any different than Luther or Calvin or Lefebre by placing your own ideas and opinions above the current Magesterium?

Exactly what ideas did I place?

 

[latinmasslover]

Everyone keep in mind that Popes Paul VI and John Paul II have stated that Vatican II was not dogmatic, that Paul VI said that the smoke of Satan has entered the Church, and Pope Benedict clarified that the Third Secret of Fatima (prophesied *before *Vatican II) referred to the Apostacy in the Church and that it would begin at the top. Not to mention, Jesus did ask that when He comes again will He find faith on earth. Coincidence?

 

[notself]

Everyone keep in mind that Popes Paul VI and John Paul II have stated that Vatican II was not dogmatic, that Paul VI said that the smoke of Satan has entered the Church, and Pope Benedict clarified that the Third Secret of Fatima (prophesied *before *Vatican II) referred to the Apostacy in the Church and that it would begin at the top. Not to mention, Jesus did ask that when He comes again will He find faith on earth. Coincidence?

Here is a link from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which translates the third secret. There is no mention of “Apostacy in the Church.” You have been misinformed.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

The extensive analysis of the secrets concludes with this.

And so we come to the final question: What is the meaning of the “secret” of Fatima as a whole (in its three parts)? What does it say to us? First of all we must affirm with Cardinal Sodano: “… the events to which the third part of the ‘secret’ of Fatima refers now seem part of the past”. Insofar as individual events are described, they belong to the past. Those who expected exciting apocalyptic revelations about the end of the world or the future course of history are bound to be disappointed. Fatima does not satisfy our curiosity in this way, just as Christian faith in general cannot be reduced to an object of mere curiosity. What remains was already evident when we began our reflections on the text of the “secret”: the exhortation to prayer as the path of “salvation for souls” and, likewise, the summons to penance and conversion.

I would like finally to mention another key expression of the “secret” which has become justly famous: “my Immaculate Heart will triumph”. What does this mean? The Heart open to God, purified by contemplation of God, is stronger than guns and weapons of every kind. The fiat of Mary, the word of her heart, has changed the history of the world, because it brought the Saviour into the world—because, thanks to her Yes, God could become man in our world and remains so for all time. The Evil One has power in this world, as we see and experience continually; he has power because our freedom continually lets itself be led away from God. But since God himself took a human heart and has thus steered human freedom towards what is good, the freedom to choose evil no longer has the last word. From that time forth, the word that prevails is this: “In the world you will have tribulation, but take heart; I have overcome the world” (Jn 16:33). The message of Fatima invites us to trust in this promise.

 

[latinmasslover]

Here is a link from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which translates the third secret. There is no mention of “Apostacy in the Church.” You have been misinformed.

Actually, I haven’t. I have to go to bed as I work the night shift but I’ll cite the info later tonight or tomorrow. To put it nicely, the whole truth about the Secret would cause a panic which is likely why it hasn’t been fully revealed. But this isn’t the thread to debate it. I’ll post probably under Traditional Catholicism where it can be “properly” discussed.

 

[notself]

notself;2672221:

Here is a link from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which translates the third secret. There is no mention of “Apostacy in the Church.” You have been misinformed.

Actually, I haven’t. I have to go to bed as I work the night shift but I’ll cite the info later tonight or tomorrow. To put it nicely, the whole truth about the Secret would cause a panic which is likely why it hasn’t been fully revealed. But this isn’t the thread to debate it. I’ll post probably under Traditional Catholicism where it can be “properly” discussed.

Will you quotes and sources be from the Vatican? Since the entire third secret is reproduced and can be translated by anyone who knows Portuguese, I hardly think anything is being kept back.

I am continually surprised by Catholics who resist trusting the Vatican and come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories about secrets within secrets. It appears that the Church isn’t as catholic as I once thought. It seems to be splitting into two groups; one group who trusts and respects the Vatican and another that can’t really adjust to Vatican II

It is a shame that links to YouTube are not allowed but if you really want to see how truly separate the two groups are becoming, then go to YouTube and put “The Amazing Heresies of Paul VI” in the search window. It claims that the Catholic Church has had 40 anti-Popes throughout history with the latest being Paul VI and the Vatican II is a false teaching.

 

[latinmasslover]

latinmasslover;2672269:

Will you quotes and sources be from the Vatican? Since the entire third secret is reproduced and can be translated by anyone who knows Portuguese, I hardly think anything is being kept back.

I am continually surprised by Catholics who resist trusting the Vatican and come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories about secrets within secrets. It appears that the Church isn’t as catholic as I once thought. It seems to be splitting into two groups; one group who trusts and respects the Vatican and another that can’t really adjust to Vatican II

It is a shame that links to YouTube are not allowed but if you really want to see how truly separate the two groups are becoming, then go to YouTube and put “The Amazing Heresies of Paul VI” in the search window. It claims that the Catholic Church has had 40 anti-Popes throughout history with the latest being Paul VI and the Vatican II is a false teaching.

It’s a shame that nondogmatic Vatican II (again, as stated by the popes) contradicts constant Church teaching in certain areas. You yourself, in the spirit of Vatican II, will have to decide if the citations are valid or not. BTW, I am not sedevacantists, I do not believe that papacy has been vacant, but there are major problems in Rome which is not denied by the Pope and orthodox Cardinals. Now I’m going to be. Laters.

 

[rr1213]

Everyone keep in mind that Popes Paul VI and John Paul II have stated that Vatican II was not dogmatic, that Paul VI said that the smoke of Satan has entered the Church, and Pope Benedict clarified that the Third Secret of Fatima (prophesied *before *Vatican II) referred to the Apostacy in the Church and that it would begin at the top. Not to mention, Jesus did ask that when He comes again will He find faith on earth. Coincidence?

So…does that mean that the gates of hell will, in actuality, prevail against the Church?

 

[rr1213]

notself;2672221:

Here is a link from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which translates the third secret. There is no mention of “Apostacy in the Church.” You have been misinformed.

Actually, I haven’t. I have to go to bed as I work the night shift but I’ll cite the info later tonight or tomorrow. To put it nicely, the whole truth about the Secret would cause a panic which is likely why it hasn’t been fully revealed. But this isn’t the thread to debate it. I’ll post probably under Traditional Catholicism where it can be “properly” discussed.

Why don’t you post it in Apologetics? (I’ve been asked to stay out of the Traditional Catholicism fourm ).

 

[latinmasslover]

So…does that mean that the gates of hell will, in actuality, prevail against the Church?

Did the gates of hell prevail because Judas betrayed Christ? Did they prevail because the Apostles abandoned Christ in the Garden? Did they prevail because of the 11 Apostles (that remained alive) that Jesus Christ Himself chose after a night of prayer, only ONE remained at the Cross with Him? No, no, and no. The situation is the same in the Church today…the world is closing in on Jesus, as back then, and the flock scattered. The Apostles, as before, panicked and left the Lord. They also hid after His death for “fear.” St. Peter denied Christ three times, even after he was warned that he would (you’d expect him to be a little more on guard) and Jesus still left him with authority. At the last Supper Jesus did not tell St. Peter who would betray Him; He told it to St. John, the beloved disciple. It’s all happening again, and I just ask everybody who thinks that Vatican II is the greatest thing that’s happened to the Church to sincerely consider the above. The Pope is protected from error when declaring a matter of Faith and Morals for the universal Church…Vatican II didn’t define anything, which Pope Paul VI declared was not the purpose of the Council.

 

[rr1213]

Did the gates of hell prevail because Judas betrayed Christ? Did they prevail because the Apostles abandoned Christ in the Garden? Did they prevail because of the 11 Apostles (that remained alive) that Jesus Christ Himself chose after a night of prayer, only ONE remained at the Cross with Him? No, no, and no. The situation is the same in the Church today…the world is closing in on Jesus, as back then, and the flock scattered. The Apostles, as before, panicked and left the Lord. They also hid after His death for “fear.” St. Peter denied Christ three times, even after he was warned that he would (you’d expect him to be a little more on guard) and Jesus still left him with authority. At the last Supper Jesus did not tell St. Peter who would betray Him; He told it to St. John, the beloved disciple. It’s all happening again, and I just ask everybody who thinks that Vatican II is the greatest thing that’s happened to the Church to sincerely consider the above. The Pope is protected from error when declaring a matter of Faith and Morals for the universal Church…Vatican II didn’t define anything, which Pope Paul VI declared was not the purpose of the Council.

Hey, calm down, I’m not the one claiming that the Catholic Church can never, ever err in matters of dogma or doctrine…

 

[notself]

I am confused. I thought that Catholics accepted guidance from the leaders of the Church. From the posts on this thread, it appears that if some Catholics don’t like the guidance, they feel free to criticize their leaders as being in error or misguided or pawns of evil.

Many of the comments on this thread use the same arguments that Protestants have used. The Church isn’t orthodox. It has or is on the edge of falling into error.

As a non Christian this is quite startling.

 

[nonsumd]

I am confused. I thought that Catholics accepted guidance from the leaders of the Church. From the posts on this thread, it appears that if some Catholics don’t like the guidance, they feel free to criticize their leaders as being in error or misguided or pawns of evil.

Many of the comments on this thread use the same arguments that Protestants have used. The Church isn’t orthodox. It has or is on the edge of falling into error.

As a non Christian this is quite startling.

Sad to say, notself, there are some Catholics who consider themselves “more Catholic than the Pope” (some go even so far as claiming there is no valid Pope now).

Such “conservative” Catholics aren’t less wrong than those “liberal” Catholics who think every Catholic should be his own Pope.

Personally, I see all the Popes since Vatican II as striking an appropriate balance between showing due respect to other religions as vehicles in some fashion, if imperfect, of God’s grace and affirming that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth as the ordained, visible means by which God communicates to humankind.

Despite affirming that God’s grace is at work in other religions, the Church has never denied that it is our mission as Christians to evangelize, to bring the Gospel of Christ to the whole world. What I think the Church understands better these days is the idea so well expressed by Saint Francis so many centuries ago: “Preach always…and if necessary with words.”

Preaching that claims to build bridges over which non-believers can cross towards the fullness of truth yet denies that those non-believers already have in their traditions some elements of that bridge is preaching that *loses more souls *than it wins. It can can easily be dismissed by potential converts as mere cultural imperialism.

 

[notself]

Thank you for your post.

 

[latinmasslover]

Sad to say, notself, there are some Catholics who consider themselves “more Catholic than the Pope” (some go even so far as claiming there is no valid Pope now).

Such “conservative” Catholics aren’t less wrong than those “liberal” Catholics who think every Catholic should be his own Pope.

Personally, I see all the Popes since Vatican II as striking an appropriate balance between showing due respect to other religions as vehicles in some fashion, if imperfect, of God’s grace and affirming that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth as the ordained, visible means by which God communicates to humankind.

Despite affirming that God’s grace is at work in other religions, the Church has never denied that it is our mission as Christians to evangelize, to bring the Gospel of Christ to the whole world. What I think the Church understands better these days is the idea so well expressed by Saint Francis so many centuries ago: “Preach always…and if necessary with words.”

Preaching that claims to build bridges over which non-believers can cross towards the fullness of truth yet denies that those non-believers already have in their traditions some elements of that bridge is preaching that *loses more souls *than it wins. It can can easily be dismissed by potential converts as mere cultural imperialism.

There was nothing wrong with the way the Church evangelized before the recent pastoral Council.