Another Koran-kissing moment

[dalcent]

When I was a university student my fundamentalist Muslim room-mate from Turkey used to pray towards me. My bed was in the way of Mecca: it was a bit disconcerting. He probably didn’t realise that he was praying towards the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

I remember the weekend this full-bearded 19-year old wrangled an invitation to spend a weekend at my parents home. My dad was unimpressed that he called the U.S.A. the ‘Great Satan’ but was more bothered that he wanted to cut off dad’s cat’s ear: Apparently Allah is perfect and the perfection of a cat is an affront to Allah. So the ear had to go. I do not jest!

We’d walk round London’s Hyde Park as pals and watch the debates at the famous Speaker’s corner especially the Christian-Muslim “dialogue”. Our friendship was commended by those who saw nothing but bitter acrimony between our religions.

When he returned to Turkey he wailed and beat his chest at the end of our friendship: and insisted I never send him a Christmas card! Quite sad really. Maybe the Muslims are like ‘the poor’ they’ll always be with us. They are certainly unresponsive to the Gospel however directly it is delivered to them.

 

[maggieodae]

Yeah, I wonder what possible good comes of doing things like that. It scandalizes Catholics and other Christians and Muslims don’t give a flying you-know-what because he’s still representing a false religion in their eyes–but he just doesn’t appear as convicted of it as Muslims are to their religion.

Obviously you were born after Vatican II

Pope Benedict and Facing East

Meanwhile Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Vatican’s powerful doctrinal office, has written a new book in which he suggests that priests turn away from the people in order to face east during portions of the Mass. He also supported placing tabernacles in a central location in churches and endorsed a “renewed appreciation” of kneeling. All are customs associated with pre-Vatican II liturgical piety.

 

[hasikelee]

The reason it is an IF he kissed the Koran is because there is no proof on what exactly he is kissing. All you have is a green book being kissed by the Pope in front of someone wearing traditional headress. It could be a book of Gospels presented as a gift. There has never been any proof that it is in fact the Koran.

Marauder, that is what I heard. I had always thought that he was accepting a gift of the Bible written in arabic.

 

[Catherine_S]

JP2 was a far far far cry from Jesus.

And it is obvious that you are a far far far far far far cry from John Paul 11 or Pope Benedict so that puts you a looooooooger way from Jesus Christ .
The pharisees believed they had arrived at a place where they could judge others, they were full of self rightous pride and boasting they were the sons of Abraham but Christ pointed out to them that they had not even begun :nope: and that** they** were in fact in the dark.
No more swats at these Holy Men from you**…take that judgeing finger of yours and point it towards yourself.**
Thank you!
.

 

[Anima_Christi]

no, what the CCC says is correct. notice it says “the plan of salvation includes the muslims”

this is true because christ’s sacrifice redeemed the whole world, every human being is part of the PLAN of salvation but this doesn’t nessesarilly mean that they HAVE salvation

Confusing, vague, and misleading. This is why I prefer older catechisms.

 

[Redbandito]

Confusing, vague, and misleading. This is why I prefer older catechisms.

Huh? What is confusing about it? God’s plan for salvation includes the “whole world.” Is that confusing? Simply because He desires the salvation of the whole world, does not mean everyone in the world will receive this gift. It’s only confusing when we make it as such.

 

[CherokeeBrave]

Quit :crying: (j/k )
The fact is that we all know what the score is and only the a-Cs will jump on this.

Too many people would rather do anything but pray along with people who have been our enemies in obedience to the Lord who told us to love them and do good to them.

I feel real sure that Our Lord knows not only who he was praying to but what he is praying for as well.
We’ll be alright.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

Your contention about a-C’s is not quite above-board and can’t hold any water. Unless you believe that a-C’s are the only ones who know your by-laws of communicatio in sacris. A heresy of which your pope(s) are guilty.​

Canon 1258 of the Code of Canon Law (1917) legislated:

“It is forbidden to actively participate in the worship of non-Catholics.” (communicatio in sacris)

And also Canon 2316:
“One who cooperates communicatio in sacris contrary to the provision of Canon 1258 is suspected of heresy.”

In the conclusion of his teaching on false ecumenism, Pope Pius XI stated:

“Thus, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”

---

Are these canon laws repealed?​

Consider the numerous, blasphemous ecumenical meetings of John Paul II:

November 17, 1980: During a visit to Germany, John Paul II went to a Lutheran church and declared: “I come to you as to the spiritual heritage of Martin Luther.” He expressed admiration for Luther’s “profound religious spirit.”

May 25, 1982: In England, John Paul II took part in a religious service in Canterbury Cathedral, side by side with the Anglican archbishop.

January 25, 1983: John Paul II promulgated the New Code of Canon Law in which noticeably omitted is the sanction of excommunication against Freemasons, and in which permission is given in certain cases to allow “Holy Communion” to be administered to schismatics and heretics without their return to the Catholic Church.

December 11, 1983: John Paul II, accompanied by several cardinals, preached from the pulpit of a Lutheran church in Rome, took part there in a heretical service, and recited a prayer composed by Luther. Earlier, he had stated his opinion that Luther’s case should be re-opened so that it could be “considered in a more objective light.”

April 17, 1984: John Paul II received a delegation from B’nai B’rith, and called the audience a “meeting of brothers.”

May 10, 1984: In Thailand, John Paul II visited the supreme Buddhist patriarch Vasna Tara, who received him seated on his throne, and before whom John Paul II bowed profoundly.December 11, 1984: John Paul II sent a representative to the laying of the foundation stone for the biggest mosque in Europe at Rome.

December 11, 1984: John Paul II sent a representative to the laying of the foundation for the biggest mosque in Europe at Rome.

August 8, 1985: In Togo, Africa, John Paul II went to the “sacred forest” where he attended animist rites. He further participated in pagan rites at Kara and Togoville.

August 9, 1985: At Casablanca, Morocco, next to King Hassan II, “Commander of the Believers,” and before a crowd of 80,000 young Muslims, John Paul II preached “dialogue with Islam” and claimed “we all have the same God.”

February 2, 1986: During his visit to India, as one could see in the media and on television, John Paul II received from the hands of a Hindu priestess the sign of the Tilak. Less publicized was another act which was positively more serious; on February 5, at Madras, John Paul II received the imposition of the “sacred ashes” from the hands of a woman.

April 13, 1986: John Paul II went into a Jewish synagogue in Rome where he was received by Rabbi Elio Toaff in order to join in an ecumenical prayer service. There he called the Jews “our elder brothers, our dearest brothers.”

October 27, 1986: John Paul II convened the ecumenical “prayer meeting” at Assisi in which 150 religions of the world were invited by him to pray to their false gods for world peace.

These acts of false ecumenism remind us of the words of Pope Pius XI:

“...to favor this opinion and to encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God” (Mortalium Animos, 1929).

---

Would you like to know what a-C wrote this?

cmri.org/97prog4.htm

Perhaps you’d care to retract your contention about a-C’s and consider that within your church lay elements of disunity and ignorance of what the fullness of faith and truth REALLY teaches? One would not believe that of a pope?


A hand to the writer of the treatise!
:clapping:

 

[tequilamac]

Your contention about a-C’s is not quite above-board and can’t hold any water. Unless you believe that a-C’s are the only ones who know your by-laws of communicatio in sacris. A heresy of which your pope(s) are guilty.​

Canon 1258 of the Code of Canon Law (1917) legislated:

“It is forbidden to actively participate in the worship of non-Catholics.” (communicatio in sacris)

And also Canon 2316:
“One who cooperates communicatio in sacris contrary to the provision of Canon 1258 is suspected of heresy.”

In the conclusion of his teaching on false ecumenism, Pope Pius XI stated:

“Thus, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”

---

Are these canon laws repealed?​

Consider the numerous, blasphemous ecumenical meetings of John Paul II:

November 17, 1980: During a visit to Germany, John Paul II went to a Lutheran church and declared: “I come to you as to the spiritual heritage of Martin Luther.” He expressed admiration for Luther’s “profound religious spirit.”

May 25, 1982: In England, John Paul II took part in a religious service in Canterbury Cathedral, side by side with the Anglican archbishop.

January 25, 1983: John Paul II promulgated the New Code of Canon Law in which noticeably omitted is the sanction of excommunication against Freemasons, and in which permission is given in certain cases to allow “Holy Communion” to be administered to schismatics and heretics without their return to the Catholic Church.

December 11, 1983: John Paul II, accompanied by several cardinals, preached from the pulpit of a Lutheran church in Rome, took part there in a heretical service, and recited a prayer composed by Luther. Earlier, he had stated his opinion that Luther’s case should be re-opened so that it could be “considered in a more objective light.”

April 17, 1984: John Paul II received a delegation from B’nai B’rith, and called the audience a “meeting of brothers.”

May 10, 1984: In Thailand, John Paul II visited the supreme Buddhist patriarch Vasna Tara, who received him seated on his throne, and before whom John Paul II bowed profoundly.December 11, 1984: John Paul II sent a representative to the laying of the foundation stone for the biggest mosque in Europe at Rome.

December 11, 1984: John Paul II sent a representative to the laying of the foundation for the biggest mosque in Europe at Rome.

August 8, 1985: In Togo, Africa, John Paul II went to the “sacred forest” where he attended animist rites. He further participated in pagan rites at Kara and Togoville.

August 9, 1985: At Casablanca, Morocco, next to King Hassan II, “Commander of the Believers,” and before a crowd of 80,000 young Muslims, John Paul II preached “dialogue with Islam” and claimed “we all have the same God.”

February 2, 1986: During his visit to India, as one could see in the media and on television, John Paul II received from the hands of a Hindu priestess the sign of the Tilak. Less publicized was another act which was positively more serious; on February 5, at Madras, John Paul II received the imposition of the “sacred ashes” from the hands of a woman.

April 13, 1986: John Paul II went into a Jewish synagogue in Rome where he was received by Rabbi Elio Toaff in order to join in an ecumenical prayer service. There he called the Jews “our elder brothers, our dearest brothers.”

October 27, 1986: John Paul II convened the ecumenical “prayer meeting” at Assisi in which 150 religions of the world were invited by him to pray to their false gods for world peace.

These acts of false ecumenism remind us of the words of Pope Pius XI:

“...to favor this opinion and to encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God” (Mortalium Animos, 1929).

---

Would you like to know what a-C wrote this?

cmri.org/97prog4.htm

Perhaps you’d care to retract your contention about a-C’s and consider that within your church lay elements of disunity and ignorance of what the fullness of faith and truth REALLY teaches? One would not believe that of a pope?


A hand to the writer of the treatise!
:clapping:

No retraction necessary. Simply because a sedavacantist or a sedavacantist supporter could easily, very easily be considered an anti Catholic. What Church Militant said stands true. Better luck next time.

 

[Redbandito]

Your contention about a-C’s is not quite above-board and can’t hold any water. Unless you believe that a-C’s are the only ones who know your by-laws of communicatio in sacris. A heresy of which your pope(s) are guilty.​

Canon 1258 of the Code of Canon Law (1917) legislated:

“It is forbidden to actively participate in the worship of non-Catholics.” (communicatio in sacris)
And also Canon 2316:
“One who cooperates communicatio in sacris contrary to the provision of Canon 1258 is suspected of heresy.”

In the conclusion of his teaching on false ecumenism, Pope Pius XI stated:

“Thus, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”​

Are these canon laws repealed?​

Consider the numerous, blasphemous ecumenical meetings of John Paul II:

November 17, 1980: During a visit to Germany, John Paul II went to a Lutheran church and declared: “I come to you as to the spiritual heritage of Martin Luther.” He expressed admiration for Luther’s “profound religious spirit.”

May 25, 1982: In England, John Paul II took part in a religious service in Canterbury Cathedral, side by side with the Anglican archbishop.

January 25, 1983: John Paul II promulgated the New Code of Canon Law in which noticeably omitted is the sanction of excommunication against Freemasons, and in which permission is given in certain cases to allow “Holy Communion” to be administered to schismatics and heretics without their return to the Catholic Church.

December 11, 1983: John Paul II, accompanied by several cardinals, preached from the pulpit of a Lutheran church in Rome, took part there in a heretical service, and recited a prayer composed by Luther. Earlier, he had stated his opinion that Luther’s case should be re-opened so that it could be “considered in a more objective light.”

April 17, 1984: John Paul II received a delegation from B’nai B’rith, and called the audience a “meeting of brothers.”

May 10, 1984: In Thailand, John Paul II visited the supreme Buddhist patriarch Vasna Tara, who received him seated on his throne, and before whom John Paul II bowed profoundly.December 11, 1984: John Paul II sent a representative to the laying of the foundation stone for the biggest mosque in Europe at Rome.

December 11, 1984: John Paul II sent a representative to the laying of the foundation for the biggest mosque in Europe at Rome.

August 8, 1985: In Togo, Africa, John Paul II went to the “sacred forest” where he attended animist rites. He further participated in pagan rites at Kara and Togoville.

August 9, 1985: At Casablanca, Morocco, next to King Hassan II, “Commander of the Believers,” and before a crowd of 80,000 young Muslims, John Paul II preached “dialogue with Islam” and claimed “we all have the same God.”

February 2, 1986: During his visit to India, as one could see in the media and on television, John Paul II received from the hands of a Hindu priestess the sign of the Tilak. Less publicized was another act which was positively more serious; on February 5, at Madras, John Paul II received the imposition of the “sacred ashes” from the hands of a woman.

April 13, 1986: John Paul II went into a Jewish synagogue in Rome where he was received by Rabbi Elio Toaff in order to join in an ecumenical prayer service. There he called the Jews “our elder brothers, our dearest brothers.”

This whole post lacks even a fragmentary understanding of the Catholic faith. Did you notice what the Canon Law said? "It is forbidden to actively participate in the worship of non-Catholics.” (communicatio in sacris)
And also Canon 2316:
“One who cooperates communicatio in sacris contrary to the provision of Canon 1258 is suspected of heresy.”

Since this happened in neither occasion, you just wasted a lot of time, and hot air, in writing this post. Try again. Adoration/Worship is difference from honoring something and showing respect. I used to have posters of Michael Jordan on my wall. I watched every game he played in. I even bought his clothing line and shoes. He was my hero. I did not, however, WORSHIP him. If you can’t make this distinction (which I think you are perfectly capable of if you want to) then I can’t help you. Check your motives though. My suspicion is that this is a deceptive tactic you are using to frighten Catholics of the last two HOLY men who have led their Church.

 

[valient_Lucy]

JP2 was a far far far cry from Jesus.

Aren’t we all?

 

[Dan_Sheffield]

So why is the Pope kissing the Q’uran any more ‘shocking’ or ‘inappropriate’ than him (any Pope) kissing the surface of the airport runway after touching down?

It’s just a sign of graciousness and respect - it does not imply that he ascribes to Islam’s religious teachings.

I’ve read the first two Surah’s of the Q’uran (about 100 pages) and there is no comparison to the Bible in terms of content, style and literary beauty. (The reason I stopped at around 100 is that the same jumbled repititious prohibitions and such kept coming up which made it difficult to continue. Only a die-hard could make it all the way through - or a Muslim.)

We’d be well served to hear what Pope John Paul II said about the ‘great divide’ between Christians and Muslims in “Crossing the Threshold of Hope”. Here is his quote:

“Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the last prophet, Muhammad. There is also mention of Mary, His Virgin Mother, but the tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity.”

 

[myfavoritmartin]

What Bible are you using man? Mine nowhere specifies the Islamic faith as either Satanic, or anti-Christ.

You apparently dont read 1john 2john or 3john and you clearly have no idea how the term anti christ is revealed in the bible.

here is an example…
1 Jn.2:22-23 “Who is a liar but** he who denies that Jesus is the Christ He is anti Christ **who denies the father and the Son, Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either, he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.”

So tell me do muslims qualify???

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Aren’t we all?

Yes that was my point, it wasn’t meant to be specifically degrading. Or judging as some felt.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

And it is obvious that you are a far far far far far far cry from John Paul 11 or Pope Benedict so that puts you a looooooooger way from Jesus Christ

Hardly I’ve a very personal relationship with Jesus.
I pray for all of you to have the same.
Besides I don’t aspire to be like JP2 or B16, I aspire to be like Christ.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

You treat it likes it an either/or. Ecumenism is the means in which we share the truth in love. What are you calling for? Without dialogue, how are we to “call on all nations to repent and believe”? I think you are making a false dichotomy here. We must practice ecumenism in a way that never abandons or compromises the truth. However, the truth must be preached in love, or it ceases to be truth. Ecumenism does not always me overly gentle dialogue. Sometimes it calls us to be direct. BUT, we must always do it in LOVE! Never out of self-righteousness. For those who attempt to do so, the truth is lost.

What you describe is envangelization. This is what the Church used to do. If ecumenism were the same thing, it wouldn’t be a new word. The Church has only talked about ecumenism since Vatican II. Or, to be more accurate, the Church has only spoken in a positive way about ecumenism since Vatican II, as before Vat2 the Church spoke of it to warn Catholics not to have any part with the ecumenical movement, which is inherently protestant. Please consult Pius XI’s encyclical “Mortalium Animos” for the Church’s view on ecumenism before Vatican II. It’s very eye-opening. You can find it on the Vatican’s website.

By the way, can you give me a detailed and/or official Church definition of both ecumenism and dialogue?

Thanks,
UK

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

"…Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever?

Certainly it would be either on account of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter.

In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises.

But what is most amazing is that their are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teacher of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate…"

Saint Pius X
On the Doctrines of the Modernists 1907

Marci,

Thank you for that quote. It shows how absolutely accurate the pre-Vatican II Pontiffs were in recognizing the evils of Modernism, which we are now seeing destroy the Faith. St. Pius X, ora pro nobis!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hardly I’ve a very personal relationship with Jesus.
I pray for all of you to have the same.
Besides I don’t aspire to be like JP2 or B16, I aspire to be like Christ.

If you aspire to be like Christ, then perhaps you will want to give your opinion of His words I provide yet again.

"While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and “sinners” came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?” On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matthew 9:10-12)

Or perhaps you want to follow the example of Paul who wrote:

“Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:19-22)

What are your thoughts on how these words are connected to the work that the Pope is doing in Turkey and how each one of us should apply them in our own relations with non-Christians?

 

[trogiah]

You apparently dont read 1john 2john or 3john and you clearly have no idea how the term anti christ is revealed in the bible.

here is an example…
1 Jn.2:22-23 “Who is a liar but** he who denies that Jesus is the Christ He is anti Christ **who denies the father and the Son, Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either, he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.”

So tell me do muslims qualify???

The question of who qualifies for God’s kingdom is worth considering. For Muslims, Catholics, and anyone else…

Please consider the following Scriptures:

** When he entered Capernaum, a centurion approached him and appealed to him, ****6 ****saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, suffering dreadfully.” ****7 ****He said to him, “I will come and cure him.” ****8 ****The centurion said in reply, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed. ****9 ****For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come here,’ and he comes; and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” ****10 ****When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, "Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. ****11 **I say to you, many will come from the east and the west, and will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the banquet in the kingdom of heaven,
And also the following:

**Then Peter proceeded to speak and said, "In truth, I see that God shows no partiality. **
**35 **Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him.
And for an indication of who is not qualified for the kingdom, consider this:

"**Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. ****22 ****Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ ****23 **Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'

I conclude, primarily from the words of Jesus, that those who are considered “saved”, that is, worthy of God’s kingdom, are those who act like they follow Jesus - whether they claim to follow Jesus or not. I do believe that life is simplest and best if a person both follows the words of Jesus and also claims to follow the words of Jesus.

So, if a person lives by the words of Jesus, (whether or not they have even heard the name of Jesus) they will find a place in God’s kingdom. Those who do not live by the words of Jesus, even if they claim to follow Jesus, will not have a place in God’s kingdom.

Apparently the images of a Pope kissing the Koran or receiving a gift from a Hindu Priestess or sharing a prayer with a Rabbi or a Buddhist monk are potentially discouraging images to some Catholics. Please consider that these images may do something to encourage peoples from other traditions to seriously consider the way of life that Jesus taught.

Either way, Jesus is still Lord.

peace

Jim

 

[Dan_Sheffield]

I won’t name names here or refer to any specific posts, and I’ll be quite charitable… but in response to those who consider themselves “more Catholic than the Pope” and have a vindictive vendetta against the popes of recent memory, and have set themselves up as their own private magesteria (but claim justification with Christ), and this has been going on long before Lefebvre got himself excommunicated, I’ll say charitably but forcefully to them…

“Not every one who says to me ‘Lord Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Mt 7:21

A personal love and devotion to Christ radiates outward for all to see. I’ve never seen the majority of them radiate Christ to the world. So many choose to miss the living forest for some old withered dead trees… trees that bear no fruit.

Those who respond back to me with the most un-Christian venom, (“papal-ater”, “neo-Con”, or perhaps some contrived name in Latin), all in the name of what they consider to be the “objective truth” will most assuredly give themselves away. They’ll prove my point also so I humbly thank any of them in advance.

 

[Redbandito]

What you describe is envangelization. This is what the Church used to do. If ecumenism were the same thing, it wouldn’t be a new word. The Church has only talked about ecumenism since Vatican II. Or, to be more accurate, the Church has only spoken in a positive way about ecumenism since Vatican II, as before Vat2 the Church spoke of it to warn Catholics not to have any part with the ecumenical movement, which is inherently protestant. Please consult Pius XI’s encyclical “Mortalium Animos” for the Church’s view on ecumenism before Vatican II. It’s very eye-opening. You can find it on the Vatican’s website.

By the way, can you give me a detailed and/or official Church definition of both ecumenism and dialogue?

Thanks,
UK

A detailed or offical “definition”? Are you kidding me? Nobody here is claiming that the word “ecumenism” has been officially defined by the Church. You are writing a defense as if someone has made this claim. Sorry buddy, you’re debating your own strawman. The reality is that the SCRIPTURE teaches us to “speak the truth in love” (Eph 4:15), and to “be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love” (Eph 4:2). So, whether the Church has officially defined ecumenism is beside the point. The Scripture has infallibly defined how the truth is to be preached. You would do well to read it. And as far as ecumenism vs. evangelism, you are splitting hairs. Ecumenism is a movement that seeks to achieve unity among all religions through cooperation and the fostering of greater mutual understanding. Thus, there is nothing inherent in ecumenism that contradicts being a good evangelist. Attempting to pit them against each other is creating a false dichotomy. The two work hand in hand when done properly. Again, THE SCRIPTURE TEACHES, to “speak the truth in love!” Ecumenism merely attempts to emphasize the similarities in order to build a common bridge rather than polarizing, as you would have us do. Nowhere does ecumenism teach that we must abandon the truth.