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

[HashemEchad]

As you know I’m not Catholic, but half my family is. And the vast majority of them walked out of the church after Vatican 2 due to all the radical changes. This is one reason why I’m especially sympathetic to the views of the traditionalists.

From talking to family members, I know that they were taught that the church is the one, true religion. And imagine what that did to so many of them, the older Catholics, when they saw the church they had been taught was holy, sacred and infallible, acting so insane. It tore many of them apart, and the liberals in the church had no sympathy for them at all, IMO.

I spoke to an aunt who broke down in tears when she explained to me how confusing and terrifying the changes were for her.

And imagine what that did to the state of their conscience when they felt forced to walk away from a church they had been taught was the true church.

This is why I am glad the traditionalist movement exists, even though in my personal experience a number of them tend to hold anti-Jewish views (which I can understand, due to the number of Jewish liberals involved in Vatican 2.)

 

[HashemEchad]

We have met quite a few converts in our parish with this exact story. Many came out of mainline churches because they were disgusted with the decisions to ordain women, gays, or justify abortion. The Catholic Church was a more appealing option for them than the evangelical, fundamental, or Pentecostal churches.

I don’t think Vatican II is the reason people left. I think people leave the Catholic Church because they don’t want to submit to the Church’s teachings on abortion, birth control, divorce, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, women priests, etc. These are hard teachings for many to accept. I know many ex-Catholics who have rejected their church for these reasons.

Up until the time of Vatican II, most Protestant churches taught the same “morals” as the Catholic Church when it came to the issues that I mentioned above, and they were even stricter when it came to such things as use of alcohol, dancing, wearing makeup, going to movies, etc.

But sometime in the 1970s, many Protestant churches started backing away from strict moral teachings. The United Church of Christ was the first to ordain women and homosexuals. Many Protestant churches followed and the time-honored moral teachings began to crumble. I grew up in the Conference Baptist churches, and birth control wasn’t even questioned, along with masturbation. These were “normal” and “healthy” activities.

Now even the evangelical churches are relaxing the moral teachings. There are very few evangelical churches that still forbid makeup, dancing, movies, and alcohol. (Although the Assemblies of God still forbids dancing.)

And the other teachings are crumbling, too. The Evangelical Free Church in America that we attended had a woman pastor (children’s pastor). And although the evangelical churches are still forbidding abortion, the stats demonstrate that about 1 out of 6 abortions are done on women who claim “evangelical Christian” as their religion.

I think that evangelicals are headed down the slippery slope and they will eventually go the way of the mainlines. Much of this will happen because evangelical churches must constantly attract new members in order to remain viable (profitable). They will eventually have to relax their moral constraints to draw in the numbers.

When this happens, look for a mass exodus of evangelicals into the Catholic Church!

It depends on which generations of Catholics we’re talking about. I’m familiar with the older generation, people who would now in in their 70s and 80s (my relatives, on one side of the family.)

Many of THEM left due to the changes of V2. I doubt they’d leave because of the church’s stand on birth control and abortion, because the church was ALWAYS against those, Humanae Vitae simply stressed what the church ALREADY had been teaching.

And its not only the RCC that Protestants will go to. I have a friend who used to be an Anglican nun. She left that church due to the ordination of women and gays. But she joined the Russian Orthodox church, and seems quite happy with her decision.

 

[HelenRose]

As you know I’m not Catholic, but half my family is. And the vast majority of them walked out of the church after Vatican 2 due to all the radical changes. This is one reason why I’m especially sympathetic to the views of the traditionalists.

…

This is why I am glad the traditionalist movement exists, even though in my personal experience a number of them tend to hold anti-Jewish views (which I can understand, due to the number of Jewish liberals involved in Vatican 2.)

I don’t like sublte anti-Catholic attacks on my Catholic beliefs and I don’t like subtle anti-Jewish attacks either. Your comment betrays your anti-semitism loud and clear.

 

[dyspepsic]

Let me rephrase it: The glorious restoration will result in the end of all of the Protestant heresies and an end to the heretical and schismatic Orthodox church. These groups, whose heresies are a mortal sin against the first commandment, will realize their error, renounce it, and return to the Catholic Church that their early leaders left, to their own perdition.

The prophecies I have been speaking of do indeed say that all heresies will cease, which means all who claim to be Christian will indeed be real Christians - Roman Catholics.

Personally, I don’t think we are there yet. And Protestants simply adding Catholic things is not enough. They must renounce all their heresies (and there are probably too many to mention), and return to the Catholic Church. They must “convert” and become Roman Catholics.

The problem is that ecumenism today does not seek the return of the heretics and schismatics to the true Church. Instead, they are seeking to unite the true Church with heretical sects - fire with water, light with darkness, Christ with Bilial.

There is already only One True Church. What I hope you mean is that the heretics will renounce their error and return to this Church. If that is what you mean, I think you do have much reason to hope.

Maybe the SSPX and the Sedevacantists will be converted too, so we don’t have to listen to them anymore.

 

[stmaria]

Now I understand. Your last reply explains your first reply. You think that the modern day ecumenism is fine.

I knew it was only a matter of time before that statement of Cardinal Kasper – which is clearly heretical and which no one even tried to defend – would become perfectly acceptable, and even “mainstream”.
I.

Pax et Caritas, I think that Pnewton is showing exactly what you read about in the book you cited,* Animus Delendi*. The "Spirit of Vatican II "is a tolerance for error. Cardinal Kasper will not be removed for his refusal to admit 400,000 Anglicans into the Church or his belief that the Jews do not need to convert.
Pnewton likewise tolerates this error by making excuses for Cardinal Kasper.

 

[dyspepsic]

Kasper: “The decision of Vatican II to which the Pope [John Paul II] adheres is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.”

Are you saying you don’t have a problem with that?

Brilliant. Can’t you quote documents to me that prove that the Church has abandoned ‘return’ by which others would be converted and return to being catholics.

You are off the wall. You just add to my acid indigestion.

 

[bear06]

Maybe the SSPX and the Sedevacantists will be converted too, so we don’t have to listen to them anymore.

Sigh! Again, please note that you’re the one bringing up the “forbidden topic”. Hopefully nobody will take the bait.

 

[bear06]

Pax et Caritas, I think that Pnewton is showing exactly what you read about in the book you cited,* Animus Delendi*. The "Spirit of Vatican II "is a tolerance for error. Cardinal Kasper will not be removed for his refusal to admit 400,000 Anglicans into the Church or his belief that the Jews do not need to convert.
Pnewton likewise tolerates this error by making excuses for Cardinal Kasper.

Cardinal Kasper is bizarre and, while I know people think we tend to give a big “hooray” to everything the Vatican does, I think it a huge mistake to keep Kasper around. I have no idea what the Holy Father is thinking in regards to Kasper but hopefully he gave him a BIG talking to after the Anglican debacle. Maybe he just misspoke but a clarification would have been very nice here.

 

[dyspepsic]

Cardinal Kasper is bizarre and, while I know people think we tend to give a big “hooray” to everything the Vatican does, I think it a huge mistake to keep Kasper around. I have no idea what the Holy Father is thinking in regards to Kasper but hopefully he gave him a BIG talking to after the Anglican debacle. Maybe he just misspoke but a clarification would have been very nice here.

I think Cardinal Kasper is brilliant. Anyone here would like to quote documents, speeches, sermons of his to prove the contrary? Conservatives don’t like him, but I think conservatives live in a box.

I have the day off, so go ahead, spew away.

 

[bear06]

Brilliant. Can’t you quote documents to me that prove that the Church has abandoned ‘return’ by which others would be converted and return to being catholics.

You are off the wall. You just add to my acid indigestion.

I think he is referring to this papal address and this quote in this address by Kasper:

rcdow.org.uk/textonly/cardinal/default.asp?content_ref=266

Pope Benedict actually addressed the same issue but in a way that more clarified the matter and probably greatly distressed Cardinal Kasper.
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_050913.asp

 

[bear06]

I think Cardinal Kasper is brilliant. Anyone here would like to quote documents, speeches, sermons of his to prove the contrary? Conservatives don’t like him, but I think conservatives live in a box.

He must be brilliant because he’s figured out how to keep his job after some pretty bizarre statements. That said, it in no way means he is correct. And btw, what are you if not conservative? And one last question - What evidence do you have to show he’s brilliant?

Anyone here would like to quote documents, speeches, sermons of his to prove the contrary?

 

[dyspepsic]

He must be brilliant because he’s figured out how to keep his job after some pretty bizarre statements. That said, it in no way means he is correct. And btw, what are you if not conservative? And one last question - What evidence do you have to show he’s brilliant?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I think Cardinal Kasper is brilliant. Anyone here would like to quote documents, speeches, sermons of his to prove the contrary? Conservatives don’t like him, but I think conservatives live in a box.

I have the day off, so go ahead, spew away.

I just have one question: Is your real name Walter Kasper? Tell the truth.

 

[bear06]

bear06;3522656:

Sources, for context please

I already gave it but here it is again:

rcdow.org.uk/textonly/car…ontent_ref=266

Also, btw, I didn’t mean papal address a few quotes ago. Mea culpa to everyone.

 

[stmaria]

I think he is referring to this papal address and this quote in this address by Kasper:

rcdow.org.uk/textonly/cardinal/default.asp?content_ref=266

Pope Benedict actually addressed the same issue but in a way that more clarified the matter and probably greatly distressed Cardinal Kasper.
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_050913.asp

From your link of Cardinal Kasper’s speech:

"To stand in the apostolic succession is not a matter of an individual historical chain but of collegial membership in a collegium, which as a whole goes back to the apostles by sharing the same apostolic faith and the same apostolic mission. The laying on of hands is under this aspect a sign of co-optation in a collegium
This has far reaching consequences for the acknowledgement of the validity of the episcopal ordination of an other Church. Such acknowledgement is not a question of an uninterrupted chain but of the uninterrupted sharing of faith and mission, and as such is a question of communion in the same faith and in the same mission.

It is beyond the scope of our present context to discuss what this means for 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. Without doubt this decision, as Cardinal Willebrands had already affirmed, must be understood in our new ecumenical context in which our communion in faith and mission has considerably grown. A final solution can only be found in the larger context of full communion in faith, sacramental life and shared apostolic mission."

So Cardinal Kapers’s vision of unity is where the Anglican priesthood is recognized as having apostolic succession, just the opposite view of Pope Leo XIII.

"

It has become evident that a new atmosphere and a new climate exist. 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. Old polemical formulas stand at odds with this urgency; fraternal relations have become the norm. Extensive research has been undertaken that has highlighted the different traditions between East and West already in the first Millennium, and has traced the development in understanding and in practice of the Petrine ministry throughout the centuries. As well, the historical conditionality of the dogma of the First Vatican Council (1869/70), which must be distinguished from its remaining obligatory content, has become clear. This historical development did not come to an end with the two Vatican Councils, but goes on, and so also in the future the Petrine ministry has to be exercised in line with the changing needs of the Church.

These insights have led to a re-interpretation of the dogma of the Roman primacy

So it is just a matter of time, according to Kasper, that the primacy of Peter will not be required so that we “may all be one”.
How is it possible to “re-intrepret” the dogma of the Roman primacy?

 

[bear06]

From your link of Cardinal Kasper’s speech:

So Cardinal Kapers’s vision of unity is where the Anglican priesthood is recognized as having apostolic succession, just the opposite view of Pope Leo XIII.

"

So it is just a matter of time, according to Kasper, that the primacy of Peter will not be required so that we “may all be one”.
How is it possible to “re-intrepret” the dogma of the Roman primacy?

He is logic is quite strange.:whacky:

 

[dyspepsic]

I just have one question: Is your real name Walter Kasper? Tell the truth.

Do you have any documents, speeches, excerpts, etc. to support the hatred of Walter Cardinal Kasper, or is this some right wing nut talking - talking but not walking.

Oh, right, it’s you Pax.

 

[HashemEchad]

I don’t like sublte anti-Catholic attacks on my Catholic beliefs and I don’t like subtle anti-Jewish attacks either. Your comment betrays your anti-semitism loud and clear.

I think you misunderstood me. I am a religious Jew. But I recognize that there were liberal Jewish and Protestant theologians in attendance at the 2nd Vatican Council, and they did give (name removed by moderator)ut as to some of the changes that were made regarding their own faiths (which is how Protestants went from being “heretics” to “separated brethren”, for example.)

I understand that some traditionalists feel outsiders changed their church…I just don’t feel they should blame ALL Jews, or ALL Protestants for it.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I think you misunderstood me. I am a religious Jew. But I recognize that there were liberal Jewish and Protestant theologians in attendance at the 2nd Vatican Council, and they did give (name removed by moderator)ut as to some of the changes that were made regarding their own faiths (which is how Protestants went from being “heretics” to “separated brethren”, for example.)

Protestants are heretics. There is no exception to this. They teach and follow all the heretical followings that people did for many times, that were always condemned. Why the hell would Jews and Protestants get to attend Vatican II. There not Catholic, why should they care what goes on in our faith. Shame on Pope Paul VI.

 

[HashemEchad]

Protestants are heretics. There is no exception to this. They teach and follow all the heretical followings that people did for many times, that were always condemned. Why the hell would Jews and Protestants get to attend Vatican II. There not Catholic, why should they care what goes on in our faith. Shame on Pope Paul VI.

I thought informed Catholics knew all of this? That nonCatholics were involved in V2? Surely the traditionalists (and people like me) are not the only ones to have known this??

I would agree, that by traditional Catholic standards, Protestants are still heretics. Just as by the standards of traditional Judaism, reform Judaism is heresy as well.

Here is one link I found about the Second Vatican Council which mentions the non-Catholic observers:

mb-soft.com/believe/txs/secondvc.htm

The only ones with voting rights were the Cardinals; but non-Catholic clergy were sent as observers, and I’m sure they offered (name removed by moderator)ut. But remember too, that the church had a number of leftist/liberal theologians within its own boundary, such as Hans Kung. I think the real damage came from that ilk, who were trying to modernize the church even without any (name removed by moderator)ut from non-Catholics.