R
Redbandito
Guest
Good, we agree then! Since nobody has done so, can we move on?
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I think we should recognize the fact that a ridiculous statement was made at the outset of this thread.
Since Catholics have taken issue with it, now there is the need to defend it no matter what.
The strategy being employed is to hang in there long enough until we get bored and move on…he who posts last wins.
This leads from the ridiculous to the absurd.
Since Catholics have taken issue with it, now there is the need to defend it no matter what.
The strategy being employed is to hang in there long enough until we get bored and move on…he who posts last wins.
This leads from the ridiculous to the absurd.
A
Anima_Christi
Guest
Just when was ecumenism “lost”, Redbandito? Just what point in Church history prior to the Second Vatican Council did we ever practice ecumenism? Can you list some of the good fruits of the Second Vatican Council and ecumenism (and I’m asking for concrete examples, not vapid statements such as “we are now more open to dialogue”. The truth is, ecumenism is but one of the many novelities of the Second Vatican Council and the pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II that contradicts the teachings of earlier popes and councils and has resulted in nothing but disaster for the Catholic Church. Contrary to what you may think, we are currently in a *crisis–*there is no “new springtime”, there is no “renewal”. And the blame for this crisis can be laid squarely at the feet of John Paul II, the ecumenical movement, and ultimately Vatican II.
Long live Christ the King!
T
tequilamac
Guest
A nice example of heresy within assuming of course you were once baptised into the faith but talking your way out of it now.
I believe it was justforasking4 who was seeking a definition of heresy among laity. Hey justfor asking4 here it is.
U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
Charging someone with heresy is quite serious. What dogma does Anima Christi deny? That is the standard for one to be condemned a heretic, you know.A nice example of heresy within assuming of course you were once baptised into the faith but talking your way out of it now.
I believe it was justforasking4 who was seeking a definition of heresy among laity. Hey justfor asking4 here it is.
U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
I apologize if I made it sound that you were intentionally trying to be dishonest. I meant it in a more loose way-- that I don’t think you’re allowing yourself to see the truth, not that you’re trying to deceive anyone. I believe you when you say you are sincere. Again, my apologies.
I’m still not understanding why you keep bringing up “preaching the Truth in love.” Where have I disagreed with this? I accept that teaching with my whole heart. What does this have to do with ecumenism?
T
tequilamac
Guest
What dogma does she deny? The infallibility of the Magesterium and the last three popes concerning Vatican II.
I doubt the inquisition will arrive at her door for disparaging the Pope, magesterium and vatican II.
Never fear. Her charges are also quite serious but because she is laity she is free to teach erroneous teachings all over the internet without incurring any actual responsibility. And I am equally free to state the obvious_ her current disparagement of several popes and the vatican and councils is in real life heresy. Sorry you don’t like it. One of the nice fruits of Vatican II that she is ignoring but taking advantage of here is being able to do just that- spread heresy unchecked. She should be happy about it.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Yes. In fact I can. There has been between 100-200 Anglican priests who have converted to the Catholic faith since Vatican II. Anglicans as a whole, along with Orthodox have really looked into coming into full communion with the Church. freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1546898/posts
Something you need to do desperately. Informed Protestants have been converting in droves, including well known ministers such as Scott Hahn and Thomas Howard.
Secondly, you have posted NO evidence of any contradictions. It’s ironic that you demand “concrete examples” from me as to the fruits of VII, yet your accusation of “ecumenism is but one of the many novelities of the Second Vatican Council and the pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II that contradicts the teachings of earlier popes and councils and has resulted in nothing but disaster for the Catholic Church” is what you called a “vapid statement.” Don’t let double standards get in your way though in your attempt to bash the Church. That’s very “Christian” of you. Your posts are at best, begging the question. At worst, they are flat out dishonest. I don’t presume to know your intent, but either way they are not good.
Third, I pointed out SCRIPTURAL verses that teach ecumenism. “Preach the truth in love,” is something PAUL taught. That is what is stressed in ecumenism. I tis the very heart of it. Are you even bothering to read the responses, because you seem to be ignoring the responses and just re-stating your unproven thesis? Not much of a dialogue in that.
Finally, your claim that there is “no renewal” is a load of garbage. You say that from a completely self-serving point of view. I see A LOT of change in seminaries, in local parishes, etc. that are at the heart of what Vatican II taught. There are more parishes getting involved with more programs to get the laity involved. These are all GREAT things! Your pessimistic attitude toward VII shows more about your faith than it does about VII.
R
Redbandito
Guest
It’s fine. I appreciate your kind response. I will give you the benefit of the doubt in future posts.
As for ecumenism and the quote from Eph 4, one has everything to do with the other. For preaching the truth in love is at the heart of ecumenism. It is an appeal to the sense of reason that we all possess. It seeks to unify through building bridges, but never forsaking truth. Frankly, I really just don’t understand the point you are trying to make. If you accept that we are to preach the truth in love, how else do you suggest we do that. Bible thumping is not loving. Telling people they are going to hell is not loving. Building relationships with people, and seeking to share the Gospel as they become open to it is LOVING! Why would I “throw pearls to the swine?”
M
Marilena
Guest
when you say another quran kissing moment, as far as i know the Holy Father did not kiss the quran.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Even his own people have admitted see the first page of this thread it gives a link.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And others have repeatedly said, “So what? What exactly does that prove or suggest to your way of thinking?”
World War I was started when a single bullet was fired killing Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Can you imagine the global conflagration that would be sparked if the Pope took your approach to relations with the Muslim world?
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Just pointing her to the link.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Randy,And others have repeatedly said, “So what? What exactly does that prove or suggest to your way of thinking?”
World War I was started when a single bullet was fired killing Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Can you imagine the global conflagration that would be sparked if the Pope took your approach to relations with the Muslim world?
I see things differently, and its not A-catholic, its anti-muslim. B16 had it right originally, I don’t care for the back pedalling just stating my POV.
Randy, question for you…Are you one of the few Catholics in NC/ isn’t that area mostly Baptists?
U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
With all due respect, I think the problem in our communication lies in the fact that you seem to have a misinformed idea of what ecumenism truly is. “Preaching the Truth in love” is what’s known as evangelization. The Church has been doing this since day one. Ecumenism is distinct from evangelization. That’s why the Vatican has the Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity distinct from the Office of the Evangelization of Peoples.
My problem with ecumenism, as it has been practiced for at least since JPII’s pontificate, is this: It very much downplays the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church for fear that it might offend protestants. It seems to almost always involve the Catholic Church making some kind of concession to protestantism. It also gives the impression that the Body of Christ is somehow fractioned and that we all must find unity again. In fact, the Body of Christ is the one and same thing as the Catholic Church, and it cannot be fractioned. The Church can never lose her unity. That baptized Christians exist outside of the visible confines of the Catholic Church means one thing: That they must enter the Church as soon as they become aware of their situation. It is the role of evangelization to show them their situation and bring them home to the Church. This has been the constant practice of the Church until 40 years ago. It is not heretical to disagree with ecumenism because ecumenism is not a doctrine of the faith. It is not a belief one must hold, because it is a practice. It’s a practice that was adopted at the last council in hopes that it would be fruitful. All I’m doing is rightfully expressing my opinion that ecumenism has not proven to be successful as hoped for, and that it indeed looks like it is harming the Church.
R
Redbandito
Guest
It’s fine. I appreciate your kind response. I will give you the benefit of the doubt in future posts.
As for ecumenism and the quote from Eph 4, one has everything to do with the other. For preaching the truth in love is at the heart of ecumenism. It is an appeal to the sense of reason that we all possess. It seeks to unify through building bridges, but never forsaking truth. Frankly, I really just don’t understand the point you are trying to make. If you accept that we are to preach the truth in love, how else do you suggest we do that. Bible thumping is not loving. Telling people they are going to hell is not loving. Building relationships with people, and seeking to share the Gospel as they become open to it is LOVING! Why would I “throw pearls to the swine?”
R
Redbandito
Guest
I think I undestand exactly what ecumenism is. And for the record, I rightfully disagree. I think ecumenism has had positive effects. It hasn’t been as quickly as some would like it, but we are progressing. I posted above a list of many of the positives that have come from ecumenism. You are free to disagree, but that doesn’t make you right.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I am a convert to Catholicism, but I’m not quite in the minority as much as I was 25 years ago.
North Carolina is one of the fastest growing states in the nation, and lots of Catholic Yankees have been moving down here. My parish has over 5,000 members while one nearby has over 15,000.
It’s a mixed blessing if you get my drift!
A
Anima_Christi
Guest
Actually, HE does not deny any dogma, because Vatican Council II defined no dogma. If you can name a single dogma that Vatican II proposed that I deny, then you can call me a heretic. Disparaging the Pope is not heresy. You have a very misinformed view about what exactly infallibility is and how it is practiced.
I’m glad that you admit though that one of the “nice fruits” of Vatican II is being able to spread heresy unchecked. Are there any other nice fruits of Vatican II you care to talk about?
A
Anima_Christi
Guest
Redbandito, did these conversions occur as a result of Vatican II *and ecumenical activity *and how? Do you know how many Anglican priests converted to Catholicism before Vatican II? More than 200! Do you how how many Catholics have abandoned the Church for Protestant religions since Vatican II? Thousands!
(By the way, it might not be wise to use as an example of a convert a theologian who holds some rather, shall we say, odd views concerning the nature of the third person of the blessed Trinity, amongst other things…)
- Status