Anyone Else Find Vatican II's Efforts for Ecumenism Ironic?

[holdencaulfield]

That would be me http://www.fisheaters.com/forumpix/tiphat2.gif.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Oh hi.

 

[JReducation]

I was reading some of the posts here, and I think I see some similarities.

In traditional Judaism, only a Jew who was once Orthodox, and THEN gave up some of the traditional beliefs while continuing to call themselves an observant Jew, can be called a heretic. This is why the Lubavitcher Rebbe says there are hardly any true Jewish heretics today (because the vast majority of Jews in modern times who are non-observant were never raised observant in the first place.)

The first Protestants were originally baptized CATHOLICS, and so they can be rightly termed heretics by Catholic doctrine.

But what about people born into Protestantism nowadays, who were NEVER Catholics first?

They are not heretics. You can’t be a heretic by associaton. You don’t inherit the label. Canon law follows the same rules on this as does Judaism. Trust me, I was born Jewish and converted to Catholicism. I am a true heretic. I was born and raised orthodox.

JR

 

[DustinsDad]

Just, because one is born outside of the Church does not mean that they are not heretics or schismatics. A heretic is someone who follows heretical beliefs, so thus a Protestant fits into this category. …

My point exactly. Once a* heretical teaching*, always a heretical teaching. Is such the common everyday usage of the term - yep. Is it the techincal ecclesiastical legal usage - nope, I guess not. But guess which kind the protestants use. That’s right, the common everday usage. So when the Catholic fella starts saying that Protestantism used to be heresy but* now* it’s not - the protestants roll there eyes and say, “So much for unchanging truth of the Catholic faith!”

The modern approach is a bit tricky. The attempt is to somehow, someway separate the heretical teachings from the folks who hold the heretical teachings because they didn’t “start” the teachings. This of course ignores the fact that they still hold the heretical teachings (and it ignores the millions of souls leaving HMC for said protestant sects).

But then of course, we devolve to the point where the teachings themselves can’t be called heretical because that would imply that those who hold them are (gasp) heretics. So, truth has become relative to “where you’re at.”

And I dare say, despite all the good intentions in the world, the result has been, as the OP stated, the opposite of what was intended. Just in sheer numbers, it is obvious - in addition to common sense, and to the lived out everyday experience of us all. If anyone is being converted in such efforts and approaches, it’s been many more souls converted out of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church than have been brought in.

At the very least, folks should consider this effect of this novel approach. (But then don’t think for a second that there are not some here, and some in the Church, that don’t really give a hoot about who’s converting where as long as we’re all “getting along.”)

(continued…)

 

[DustinsDad]

(continued from above…)

Some folks here would have you believe that traditional folks (and ipso facto, the Catholic Church between Trent and VII) walk around shouting “heretic!” at every protestant we know. Nonsense. The Church has always treated Protestant individuals with much charity - as do traditional folks…as do I.

Telling folks the truth is not uncharitable. And as such, real concern for the eternal salvation of souls unfortunate enough to have been ensared - one way or the other - in the heresy of Protestantism - IS charity. True Charity.

Consider the words of Pope Pius XI - written long after Trent - that is not mean “name calling”, but is a heartfelt call to those outside the One True Church to come home for their eternal salvation: 11. …Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful”?[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.”[26] 12. Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,”[27] not with the intention and the hope that “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth”[28] will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, “Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,”[29] would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be “careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”[30] 13. You, Venerable Brethren, understand how much this question is in Our mind, and We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us: if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity. While awaiting this event, and as a pledge of Our paternal good will, We impart most lovingly to you, Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people, the apostolic benediction.
*(Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI, 1928) *

And last I heard, the Church hasn’t rescinded Mortalium Animos. Truth, after all, doesn’t change.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

It deals more with interreligious dialogue than ecumenism per se, but it may be an interesting read that relates to this discussion…the title of the article is Dialogued to Death. Here’s an excerpt - For forty years they’ve been gabbing about this ill-defined “dialogue” and yet things have only gone from bad to worse. After all, unearthing fundamental religious differences isn’t exactly rocket science: He says Christ was merely a rabbi; she says Christ was only a prophet; they say He is whatever they want Him to be; and we say He is the Son of God. How is a lot of inter-faith palaver going to cause any of these contradictory beliefs to suddenly gel, unless, of course, “divisive” dogma is deep-sixed. And once that happens how is a “better understanding” of anything ever going to be achieved? It would be like trying to understand what’s wrong with a car while refusing to open its hood. But such contradictions no longer register with the enlightened dialoguers. They remind me of those lunatical sex “educators” in public schools calling for still more sex education after veritable epidemics of sexually transmitted diseases began spreading among vigorously sex-educated teenagers. “Just because it isn’t working doesn’t mean we need to stop using it!”
Madness, they say, is manifested by those who repeat the same action over and over again but expect different results. It would seem that ecumeniacs and sex “educators” have something in common.
Bottom line: Inter-faith dialogue hasn’t worked. Tensions between the religions are getting worse every day. Why? Because inter-faith dialogue doesn’t serve truth—it buries it! And a world without truth quickly descends into barbarism.
Dialogue seems to be premised on a certain unspoken willingness on the part of the Catholic Church to downplay her own doctrine, if not actually renege on her claim to be the one true Church. If there was ever any doubt of this before, there isn’t any now. The Pope revised one prayer to be said once per annum by a minority of Catholics and what did his “dialogue partners” do? As the Bible puts it, they rent their garments. Why? Because the fundamental rule of dialogue was violated by 9 words written by the pope: “acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Savior of all mankind.” Anathema sit! He has blasphemed! Dialogue be damned!
Clearly, this sort of dialogue isn’t really about achieving a "better understanding” of anything; our “dialogue partners” understand perfectly well the theological differences the abound. What they evidently want is for the Church to modify her teachings to say that Christ is Savior but only for Catholics and those who believe in Him–not for all men! Evidently, this has been the ultimate goal of inter-faith dialogue all along.
Enjoy. :coffeeread:

And Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[wraithx]

DustinsDad; thanks for posting that remnant link - I hadn’t read that article and it is all so true! We need to end false ecumenism now!

 

[PKinsale]

This is really an interesting discussion.

I wonder at the statement that those who are “born into” a Protestant faith are exempt from the responsibility to seek out the truth avidly. Once one hits the age of reason, one is responsible for one’s beliefs. For the most part, any honest and prayerful inquiry would lead to Rome.

And is one really “born into” a faith? I thought that’s what baptism was all about … which most Protestants receive as thinking adults.

 

[pnewton]

And is one really “born into” a faith? I thought that’s what baptism was all about … which most Protestants receive as thinking adults.

Most are adolescent or pre-adolescent, age 6-12, and do not have a lot of freedom of exploration of different faiths.

 

[stmaria]

[IAnd last I heard, the Church hasn’t rescinded *Mortalium Animos

. Truth, after all, doesn’t change.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
I am not so sure,
“…it is indisputable that the Council consciously went beyond the defensive and prohibitive assertions of Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (1928) and, in this sense, made a qualitative leap.”-Cardinal Walter Kasper President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

 

[DustinsDad]

I am not so sure,
“…it is indisputable that the Council consciously went beyond the defensive and prohibitive assertions of Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (1928) and, in this sense, made a qualitative leap.”-Cardinal Walter Kasper President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

Don’t let your heart be troubled. Christ’s promise is that the Church will always be here until the end of time, and that it will never bind error for truth in matters of faith and morals. That there would never be internal struggles? Eh…not so much.

The saga continues! Pray for Kasper - and all other leaders of the Church. If we don’t, who will?

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

This is really an interesting discussion.

I wonder at the statement that those who are “born into” a Protestant faith are exempt from the responsibility to seek out the truth avidly. Once one hits the age of reason, one is responsible for one’s beliefs. For the most part, any honest and prayerful inquiry would lead to Rome.

I agree - at some point in time one does become responsible for their faith and responsible for seeking the Truth. Folks nowadays seem to think that being born outside of HMC automatically makes one inculpable or invincibly ignorant - as if the supernatural free gift of faith and conversion can’t overcome this human obstacle! Kind of puts a whole new (and sad) spin on the Great Commission. I’m glad the Apostles weren’t so doubtful of the power of the Truth and of the ability of God’s grace to permeate and overcome errors.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[dyspepsic]

Just, because one is born outside of the Church does not mean that they are not heretics or schismatics. A heretic is someone who follows heretical beliefs, so thus a Protestant fits into this category. An Orthodox Christian is one who follows schismatic beliefs and is thus a schismatic. Although they are not subject to the law their beliefs still label them as they are. Unless one is faithful to the Magisterium of the the Church they are liable to be called a heretic.

You are not listening, Holden. Just because one is born outside the Catholic Church specifically it means that they cannot be called heretics.

Heresty is a legal definition. Canon 751, Canon 11. Do you have ANY proof for your assertion after all this? Or are you making it up as you go?

 

[dyspepsic]

I meant by Protestant standards. So in your opinion the Orthodox Church is not in schism.

No, the Orthodox Church is outside the Church. They are not in schism, since schism is a legal term in Canon Law, and they don’t fit into that term.

I don’t know why you are arguing about schism. It would have been more logical for you to say they are heretics since Vatican I which defined Papal Infallibility.

But, again, they are not apostates, schismatics or heretics per the Law of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[dyspepsic]

You are wonderful, Dad.

No where does Pius call them heretics. Thanks for that. It only proves my point.*

 

[dyspepsic]

Dialogued to Death.

 

[stmaria]

I’m still waitin on those documents of Cardinal Kasper.

You are all words and no action. Still waiting…oh hum…

I hate to put you on the spot, dyspepsic, but do you agree with Cardinal Kasper that there needs to be " a re–evaluation of *Apostolicae curae *(1896) of Pope Leo XIII, who declared Anglican orders null and void, a decision which still stands between our Churches"?

Should the Anglican orders be declared valid for the sake of unity?

Cardinal Kasper also said that we need,“a fraternal dialogue on how to exercise the Petrine ministry in a way that is more acceptable to non–Catholic Christians… . In our globalised world situation the biblical testimonies on Peter and the Petrine tradition of Rome** are read with new eyes because in this new context the question of a ministry of universal unity, a common reference point and a common voice of the universal church, becomes urgent. …These insights have led to a re-interpretation of the dogma of the Roman primacy**”

Does the Church need to re-interpret the Dogma of the Roman primacy for the sake of unity?

 

[PKinsale]

You are not listening, Holden. Just because one is born outside the Catholic Church specifically it means that they cannot be called heretics.

Heresty is a legal definition. Canon 751, Canon 11. Do you have ANY proof for your assertion after all this? Or are you making it up as you go?

I wonder if perhaps we are arguing different definitions of heresy still. Early on in this discussion, some used too broad a definition; now it seems to be getting too strict. Heresy is used in the CIC as a legal term, but it also has other definitions, too. Just like we say “Abortion is Murder” and then wonder whether it is not because murder has specific legal meanings that do not apply to abortion.

Perhaps we are getting too bogged down in semantics here and ignoring the reality that underlies what we are all hoping to agree on.

There are two opposite points of view here. One side wants to point out the separate-ness of our Separated Brethren, the other side wants to emphasize the brethren-ness of our Separated Brethren. I for one would like to return to the clarity we saw in many teachings before much of what happened after Vat 2 emasculated it all.

 

[dyspepsic]

I hate to put you on the spot, dyspepsic, but do you agree with Cardinal Kasper that there needs to be " a re–evaluation of *Apostolicae curae *(1896) of Pope Leo XIII, who declared Anglican orders null and void, a decision which still stands between our Churches"?

Should the Anglican orders be declared valid for the sake of unity?

Cardinal Kasper also said that we need,“a fraternal dialogue on how to exercise the Petrine ministry in a way that is more acceptable to non–Catholic Christians… . In our globalised world situation the biblical testimonies on Peter and the Petrine tradition of Rome** are read with new eyes because in this new context the question of a ministry of universal unity, a common reference point and a common voice of the universal church, becomes urgent. …These insights have led to a re-interpretation of the dogma of the Roman primacy**”

Does the Church need to re-interpret the Dogma of the Roman primacy for the sake of unity?

Heresay, Maria. Where are the documents? You are paraphrasing, and just like the traditionalists on this thread who refuse to accept the Code of Canon Law, and that Protestants are not heretics, you persist in your error.

I mean, we can’t have all these people being accused of being stupid. No, instead what we call them is traditionalists, who cannot accept anything changing in the Church since the Council of Trent. I have to equate Traditionalists with unthinking of servants of Lefebreve.

Give me the documents, and the sources, please, and stop paraphrasing.

 

[catharina]

I wonder if perhaps we are arguing different definitions of heresy still. Early on in this discussion, some used too broad a definition; now it seems to be getting too strict. Heresy is used in the CIC as a legal term, but it also has other definitions, too. Just like we say “Abortion is Murder” and then wonder whether it is not because murder has specific legal meanings that do not apply to abortion.

Perhaps we are getting too bogged down in semantics here and ignoring the reality that underlies what we are all hoping to agree on.

There are two opposite points of view here. One side wants to point out the separate-ness of our Separated Brethren, the other side wants to emphasize the brethren-ness of our Separated Brethren. I for one would like to return to the clarity we saw in many teachings before much of what happened after Vat 2 emasculated it all.

Feel like I just landed in a time warp. Vatican II emasculated the teachings of the Church? That’s a new one for me. I grew to adulthood in the pre-Vatican II Church. I haven’t noticed the Church becoming feminized in any way, to any degree by V-II.

We’re still to follow Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who said of Himself: “Learn from Me for I am meek and humble of heart and you shall find rest for your soul.” We’re still to learn from the parable of the Good Samaritan, who came upon a stranger in need and treated the stranger as a brother.

I can’t imagine (now or then) HM Church recommending that we call people to her with the greeting: “Hey! Heretic! Listen to me.” I grew up in a typical American neighborhood, side-by-side with families that were Catholic, Proetestant and Jewish. The words “heretic” and “infidel” were never uttered. People loved one another. Everyone knew of the faith of each other, with no words of offense and rebuke cast at each other. Go figure.

 

[dyspepsic]

I Just like we say “Abortion is Murder” and then wonder whether it is not because murder has specific legal meanings that do not apply to abortion…

You are talking through your hat. Abortion is murder.

Definition of Murder: Murder is the voluntary and unjust killing of a human being. (Balt Cat #3, pg 147)

Heresy applies to Roman Catholics only. Tradtitionalists refuse to accept this definition because it means that we can’t burn these people at the stake for their ‘crime’. Those outside the Roman Catholic Church cannot be referred to as heretics. CIC 751and 11.