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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duke_of_Mantua
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That subscript is from the Concilum (ED).

Maybe Belloc does, but the Church does not. Canon 751 makes it clear that it’s only after Baptism.

JR 🙂
Perhaps infidels is a more accurate description than* heretics*. Although I don’t think it’s any less offensive.

DD
 
Nothing in Canon Law applies to those outside the Catholic Church. And yet the CCC states:
You should be slower to speak and quidker to listen or you would no that it was not me you shouted “WRONG” at but the CCC.
Hi Newton

The CCC is quoting Canon Law. However, the Canon Law Society of America did clarify that the canon only applies to baptized Catholics.

The Canon Law Society of America has been chartered by the Holy See for a very long time to serve as the “Catholic Barr (sp?) Association.” They are the only ones who can validate an ecclesiastical degreee in Canon Law in the USA. They operate out of the Catholic University of America, which is one of the two Pontifical Schools in the USA. The other is the Josephinum in Ohio. But the Josephinum does not have a Law School. They only grant theology degrees. You must be a at least an MA in theology, before you can study Canon Law. These folks in the Society are very well educated and have a lot of experience.

I also remember being in grad school in Spain and referring to the Canon Law Society of America for clarifications on some points of law. I don’t know if it’s that Spain doesn’t have such an organism or if the Society covers more than just the USA. Canon Law is not my area of expertise. I had the necessary courses to get through the core curriculum in my degree program and that was it.

The point is, if the Canon Law Society interprets something, you should go with it until you hear differently from the Vatican. These folks are very good at what they do and very respected in the Vatican. I would go with their commentary before following any lay person’s interpretatoin of canon law.

JR 🙂
 
Hi Newton

The CCC is quoting Canon Law. However, the Canon Law Society of America did clarify that the canon only applies to baptized Catholics.
That might well be. It is something that might be corrected in the next revision since baptism is valid in all Christians. The thing about the CCC is that it does not always distinguish the audience of each quote. There is a companion to the CCC, but I did not check it.
 
Perhaps infidels is a more accurate description than* heretics*. Although I don’t think it’s any less offensive.

DD
You could always use the term separated brethren. There is no need to hold back in defending any truth of the Catholic faith just because we do so respectfully. As in all things, there is a time to everything.
 
That might well be. It is something that might be corrected in the next revision since baptism is valid in all Christians. The thing about the CCC is that it does not always distinguish the audience of each quote. There is a companion to the CCC, but I did not check it.
There is a companion to the CCC and it may be online. If I find it, I’ll send the link for anyone who wants it.

Also, there is the commentary for the Code of Canon Law.

As to the Baptism question, the logic behind it, as I understood it, is that those born into other faiths have not abandoned the Catholic faith.

It would make sense to say that Luther was a heretic, but Lutherans in the 21st century are not Luther.

In Et Unum Sint the Pope John Paul remembers his experience at a Lutheran liturgy and recalls with great love the zeal and reverence in the liturgy and he identified the Catholic elements of that liturgy and how it kept the Lutherans connected to the Church. He also comments on how sad he felt at communion time, because the unity of the sacrament was not there.

It’s very edifying to read how he describes the experience through the eyes of a mystic who sees the Church present in a Lutheran liturgy and also sees the missing pieces. There is such honesty and balance in his vision that so many of us do not have, maybe because we’re not mystics and cannot see beyond the physical.

I believe this is what made this man a very special person. He saw the Church beyond the physical, because he saw her through the eyes of contemplative prayer. In this regard, he is very Carmelite and very consistent with Teresa of Avila who describes the Divine Mansion as having many rooms, but only one room has the fullness of Christ, yet all are connected to the Divine mansion.

If we look at these things through the eyes of mystical prayer and contemplation, we can see truths that are not easily observable. Maybe that’s why the Holy Father was comfortable with the rescript of canon law regarding heresy. He saw a truth that is invisible, except to the contemplative soul, because he was a mystic himself.

Remember, the companion to the CCC is going to give you a theological explanation of heresy, not the legal explanation. For that you need to go to the commentary on Canon Law.

Canon Law is not theology and theology is not Canon Law. Canon Law is based on theology. It tells you how to apply the theology. The theology explains the faith, but does not tell you the law of the Church as to the day to day application of certain topics in the faith. Some topics of faith are self-explanatory and don’t need law.
JR 🙂
 
Keep in mind that when Belloc was alive (and I have read his excellent book, The Great Heresies), Islam was pretty much confined to a few nations. The Muslims were not a world power, and they weren’t sawing off heads with butcher knives (except in their own nations). Belloc probably wasn’t very worried about Al-Quaida and getting himself or his loved ones put on their “hit list.”

I guess I just don’t think it’s a real smart idea to call insulting names out to a group of people who have been known to behead with butcher knives. Ouch. A little discretion here. Not smart at all.

Muslims are everywhere in the world now, unlike during Belloc’s time. There are many, MANY Muslim doctors and other health professionals in the hospital where I work. My kids attended school with dozens of Muslims (it was a private secular school). Many businesses are owned and operated by Muslims.

Our purpose in living on this earth is to glorify God and bring people to Him, as St. Andrew did. Does calling Muslims and their religion by insulting names really help accomplish this? Wouldn’t this be more likely to slam the doors between us and close them off from ever being interested in Jesus?

Won’t we be held accountable for their souls? I would not want to have the Lord Jesus tell me at my judgement, “You caused a Muslim to turn away from me by your harsh words and judgemental actions.”

Lord have mercy on me and stop me from turning others away from You!

When St. Paul went to Mars Hill, he didn’t condemn all the audience as pagans and idol-worshippers and call them heretics.

Instead, he pointed out strengths of their beliefs, and showed them how they already had a lot in common with Christians. It was a brilliant sermon, and many people came to believe in Jesus after the sermon.

Wouldn’t it be better to make friends and show Christian charity without expecting anything in return, to our Muslim work associates, classmates, and neighbors, and thus be a light to them that will hopefully point the way to Jesus?

I’m not saying that we should accept their religion and call it equal to ours. But it seems to me that we need to proceed with caution and charity. After earning the friendship and trust of your Muslim neighbor, then perhaps in a discussion about religion, you might be able to discuss some of the differences between Christianity and Islam, and point out the evidence for the truth of Christianity.
 
And this just goes back to what I said in post 144 -

They cannot be “charged” with heresy under the Code of Canon Law, simply because they are cut off from the visible bonds of Holy Mother Church. The reality that they cling to and hold heretical teachings makes them heretics nonetheless - at the very least materially.

To say otherwise is to say truth is relative. Hello modernism, and goodbye sanity.


In how the Code is applied to Catholics, sure. One couldn’t bring a protestant before ArchBishop Burke in St. Louis and excommunicate him/her for heresy - that is reserved for wayward catholics.

But the underlying reality that Protestants are at least mateial heretics and oftentimes formal heretics stands by the mere fact …the reality … that they hold as true hereitcal teachings that have been condemned by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Facts is facts.

DD
No. Protestants are not “at least material heretics”. “Material heretics” is not a term found in Canon Law. You cannot apply a term not found in the law of the Church to Moral Theology or Dogmatic Theology, whereby they are not under the Law. The term “material heretic” doesn’t exist relative to Protestants. Period.

No. They are not “formal heretics”. This has already been demonstrated that they cannot be under the law of the Catholic Church, cause they are outside the Catholic Church. You are trying to link them up to heresy by way of ‘guilt by association’. They are not material heretics, not formal heretics - they are not heretics. Period.

The facts don’t fit; you must acquit.

The sign of an honest man is to concede when they are wrong. I don’t expect you to concede - it is not in your make-up.
 
Keep in mind that when Belloc was alive (and I have read his excellent book, The Great Heresies), Islam was pretty much confined to a few nations. The Muslims were not a world power, and they weren’t sawing off heads with butcher knives (except in their own nations). Belloc probably wasn’t very worried about Al-Quaida and getting himself or his loved ones put on their “hit list.”

I guess I just don’t think it’s a real smart idea to call insulting names out to a group of people who have been known to behead with butcher knives. Ouch. A little discretion here. Not smart at all.
I suppose my problem isn’t so much that I want to call Muslims or Protestants names, but I get a little tired of the way some Catholics bend over backward to imply the differences between our Church and their faith communities don’t matter.

My Belloc reference was simply because I in my ignorance did not realize that Mohammedism was a heresy strictly speaking (a faith with Catholic roots in history). I find that interesting.
 
(See bolded part).

This is NOT true. I was evangelical Protestant for over 40 years before converting to Catholicism. I have seen very few interfaith services, but I remember very clearly that whenever Catholics did and do come out from behind their doors and associate with the Protestants, the message was not “You’re OK.” The message was, “We are Christians, too.”

Many Protestants consider Catholics non-Christians and they think that the Catholic Church is a cult. Many Protestants meet or know very few Catholics, and so it is easy to keep believing that Catholics are non-Christians. When you are an evangelical Protestant, you spend 5-6 evenings/days a week in your church, doing “church” stuff. You don’t get out much and you don’t meet or get to know Catholics.

Even if you work in a secular setting, you don’t spend a lot of time talking “religion” with Catholics, other than to try to convert them. And sadly, if you did get into a discussion with Catholics, most of the Catholics know NOTHING about their Church and their faith, and just feed the Protestant’s belief that Catholics are non-Christians and their Church is a cult.

So when the Catholics “come out” and associate with Protestants, Protestants see that Catholics really ARE Christians, that they believe in Jesus and worship Him as Savior and Lord.

This does not teach Protestants that it is OK to remain Protestants. It merely gives them the message that it’s OK to be Catholic. And that plants a seed that may take years to germinate. But eventually, the Holy Spirit brings the Protestant into touch with other situations and people who help the Protestant to break away from the “invincible ignorance” that keeps them away from the True Church.

IMO, many Protestants become seriously interested in Catholicism through working in the pro-life movement. This movement is heavily populated by Catholics who work alongside of Protestants. Protestants get to know Catholics and appreciate their deep faith in Jesus.

Once the Protestant is able to admit that Catholics are Christians, too, the doors (or should I say, windows?) are OPEN, and the Protestant is “free” to take a look at Catholicism.

But until the Protestant is convinced that Catholicism isn’t a dangerous cult (Protestants are taught to STAY AWAY from any cults!!!), then the Protestant will never consider Catholicism.

If an “interfaith service” exposes ignorant Protestants to Catholicism and gets them started on the Road to Rome, then it is a good thing, not a bad thing.
As a young in the faith Christian I went to interfaith “Protestant” & “Catholic” meetings. However as I matured in the faith by Gods grace in the teaching of God’s Word, I became aware that the Bible teaches Christians to only fellowship with true Christians. A lot of the Catholic Churches teachings are not in the Scriptures so I stopped going to these “interfaith meetings”.

My point is that Protestants who are ignorant of the Truth in Gods Word could get drawn to the Catholic Church. However Protestants who search the Scriptures will never get drawn into the catholic Church.

The true challenge is to search the Scriptures to find the truth.

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Matt 7:13-14
 
=JReducation;3526866]It’s very edifying to read how he describes the experience through the eyes of a mystic who sees the Church present in a Lutheran liturgy and also sees the missing pieces. There is such honesty and balance in his vision that so many of us do not have, maybe because we’re not mystics and cannot see beyond the physical.
I
Could you give some concrete examples of why Pope John Paul is called a “mystic”.
 
it is clear that the offenses of heresy, apostacy and schism are no longer used of those born and baptised outside the visible communion of the Catholic Church. The offenses can be applied only to Roman Catholics. (New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pg 915)
I have protestant friends. I would never call them heretics. They are innocently ignorant and not guilty of heresy. However I do call someone like Reverend John Hagee a heretic. He has studied the Catholic Church. He is not invincibily ignorant He refuses to believe. Here is what he calls the Church founded by Christ.

‘The Great Whore,’ an ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ,’ and a ‘false cult system"
youtube.com/watch?v=uViQ0hVV57Q

dyspepsic, am I wrong to call him a heretic?
 
I think as to ecumenism and Vatican II, what it advocates is against Divine Positive Law. That Rev Hagee is not the only man that fits the bill as a heretic. I recommend you read the following
Code:
    [
I recommend you pray to the Holy Ghost before reading and as for the graces to guide you to understand what God expects of us and how to understand the current situation. Please, read the paper carefully, thinking about how it spuares with the perennial teaching of the Church, and don’t let the author of the piece be a reason not to read it or give little regard to what has been written just because you and he may not see eye to eye on this matter.christorchaos.com/AlwaysDefyingGod.htmlolrl.org/doctrine/ecumenism_hay.shtml](http://chirstorchaos.com Without a Clue or a Care April 4)
 
I
Could you give some concrete examples of why Pope John Paul is called a “mystic”.
Hopefully, all popes pray. But those who knew John Paul II say that he prayed 7-8 hours per day. This is over and above the mass and the Divine Office which all clerics must pray five times a day.

They could not shake him out of it. It was almost a state of rapture. Sometimes they would be eight-hours without interruption and sometimes it would be several times a day that would last up to two hours each time, even through the night.

John Paul’s apartment had the chapel between the living room and the dining room. He had to pass the chapel to go eat. His staff always commented that he would stop in the chapel before going to lunch and would forget to eat or that they were waiting for him. Time would pass as if it didn’t exist.

His prayer was always the same, which is consistent with mysticism. He would never begin a mass or the Divine Office or private prayer without his list of a particular part of the Church that needed God’s attention. His prayer always began with the same sentence, “Today I ask for a lot.” Then he would be heard to murmur as if in conversation with someone whom no one else could see. He would say his part and wait as if for a response and they respond. His staff and friends said it was like watching someone on the telephone. He wasn’t just praying, he was chatting. He did this at home in his apartment, on trains, planes in the car or walking through the countryside.

His staff often found him lying on the floor of his chapel, face down with his arms wide open, like Christ on the cross. He would be in that position for hours.

When asked how he prayed, he responded, “The Pope prays as the Holy Spirit prays.” He was known to enter an interior world of prayer, much like St. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross or John the Evangelist and he would come back from that inner world of prayer saying what he saw of the Church. His friends and colleagues knew that it had to be true, because it made sense, but it was all new to them at the same time. It tied in with what they knew about the Church, but at the same time, it was also a new perspective and always one that pointed to something good in the Church or in a person or a nation. This is anohter sign of mysticism. Mystics always see the good, even those who have seen hell, have also seen Heaven in their prayers. They never come out of their prayer life with just the bad, but always with some kind of charitable mission or word of encouragement for the world.

In a private conversation with Cardinal O’Connor of NY he said, “When I wake up in the morning I pray that I will go to bed without discouraging any impulse of the Holy Spirit.”

This is a mystic. One whose prayer life guides his decisions. A mystic is one who seeks to see the world through the eyes of the Holy Spirit and who enters into prayer without preconceived notions of what is right or wrong or what he or she is going to hear in prayer.

They present themselves to God with their concerns and their personality, but they just let go and listen. Sometimes they see things that God shows them. It could be visions or just in the mind’s eye.

John Paul’s friends, including Benedict XVI said they believed that he would enter prayer and become united with Christ so profoundly, that he did not feel his surroundings or those around him. These are the same experiences that St. John the Evangelist, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Francis of Assisi and St. John of the Cross had in prayer.

John Paul’s prayer life was very different from other holy men around him. His was a complete surrender to let the Spirit talk. Often he did not understand why the Holy Spirit made certain requests, but it was not up to man to question, but to obey. It ties in with his motto regarding Mary, “All yours”. This way of praying and thinking fits the definition of mystic: “one whose ultimate goal is the union of his soul with the Divinity itself.”

John Paul II was not asking God to do something for the Church or for him. He was looking for union with the Divinity and he left the door open for God to work through him, even when he didn’t understand or he disagreed.

Mystics often disagree with God, but they obey. Read the autobiography of St. Teresa. She always argued with God.

Peggy Noonan gives an excellent portrayal of his mystical life in her book John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father. There is another one out by his secretary, but I have not read that one.

I hope this helps those who may be interested in the spirit of Joh Paul II and will also help people understand why he made some choices that may seem extraordinary to many of us.

As St. Teresa once said, “I would rather live with a scholar than a saint. Saints don’t make sense.” Look who was talking. LOL 🤷

JR 🙂
 
I have protestant friends. I would never call them heretics. They are innocently ignorant and not guilty of heresy. However I do call someone like Reverend John Hagee a heretic. He has studied the Catholic Church. He is not invincibily ignorant He refuses to believe. Here is what he calls the Church founded by Christ.

‘The Great Whore,’ an ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ,’ and a ‘false cult system"
youtube.com/watch?v=uViQ0hVV57Q

dyspepsic, am I wrong to call him a heretic?
Yes, you are wrong. He is not a heretic. A heretic can only be a Catholic, baptised at birth, or came into the Church by Conversion.

Is it so difficult to give up the term for non-Catholics?
 
As a young in the faith Christian I went to interfaith “Protestant” & “Catholic” meetings. However as I matured in the faith by Gods grace in the teaching of God’s Word, I became aware that the Bible teaches Christians to only fellowship with true Christians. A lot of the Catholic Churches teachings are not in the Scriptures so I stopped going to these “interfaith meetings”.

My point is that Protestants who are ignorant of the Truth in Gods Word could get drawn to the Catholic Church. However Protestants who search the Scriptures will never get drawn into the catholic Church.

The true challenge is to search the Scriptures to find the truth.

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Matt 7:13-14
(Boldface mine.) No, this isn’t true. It is because we diligently and prayerfully searched the Scriptures that I, my husband, and four years later, my older daughter, were drawn into the Catholic faith.

We found that in all respects, the Catholic Church lined up with the Bible.

My husband and I were enthusiastic, active evangelical Protestants. I grew up in a church where Evelyn Christenson was my pastor’s wife, Gary Smalley was my associate pastor, and John Ortberg was in my youth group. (Many times, I accompanied him on the piano while he sang.) The current president of Campus Crusade for Christ was a member of my church. Erwin Lutzer was a regular speaker at my church.

So you can see that I grew up in a great church with solid Biblical teaching. I knew my Bible well. I had read the entire Bible several times by the time I graduated from high school. And I was a member of the last Sunday School class that actually studied the Old Testament all the way through from grade school through 8th grade; my last Sunday School class in 8th grade before graduating to high school was a lesson from the book of Malachi.

I am very grateful for all this Bible background, because it helped me to recognize the truth of the Catholic Church when I finally studied Catholicism.

I agree with you that it is definitely a true challenge to search the Scriptures to find the truth. As a Protestant, I and the people in my various churches (we moved several times) searched and discovered many truths in the Bible, and many of those truths disagreed with the truths that other “Christians” were discovering in the Bible…

…even though we all claimed that the Holy Spirit was leading us into all truth! For some reason, the Holy Spirit was leading us all into different truths!

So then certain Protestants came up with the explanation that it’s OK for Christians to believe different things, even about salvation, as long as we all believe in Jesus. Fluffy faith! Do what you wish and just trust God.

(BTW, that expression–Do what thou wilt–was Aleister Crowley’s motto.)

Eventually, before I ever entered the doors of the Catholic Church, I did discover one truth–that the Bible alone is not the source of truth. Even with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, sincere Christians fall into error by relying on the Bible alone, because that’s NOT what Jesus meant for His children to do. He left us a Church, not a book. And in that Church can be found the Whole Truth.
 
“Material heretics” is not a term found in Canon Law.
I’m not arguing a case in an ecclesiastical court of law. And as the folks in question aren’t catholic, they wouldn’t be there anyway. So how the term is used in catholic ecclesiastical law is irrelevant to whether we can “call” a protestant a heretic or not because a protestant by their very nature has been cut off from catholic ecclesiastical law.

But they have not been cut off from Divine Law. Truth still matters. And the truth is, the fact is, that a protestant, by the very nature of their being protestant, holds to heretical teachings already condemned by HMC.

And a person who holds as true a heretical teaching is, sorry, a heretic. You can debate (or speculate) material or formal, but you can’t say what has been infallibly condemned as heretical (false/against the infallible deposit of faith) is no longer heretical.

Now I know there is no ecumenism without ambeguity, but this is one area where the Protestants are just looking at you like you are nuts. They know - more than us sometimes - exactly what the Church teaches. And they know that much of what they hold as true, the Catholic Church condemns as heresy.

Try to “spin it” for then so as to be not offensive, and I condend that they’ll suspect, and perhaps rightfully so, that you are being disingenuous. Either that or they’ll think the Catholic Church flip-flopped on infallible dogmas - which pretty much negates the reason for entering Her in the first place.

DustinsDad
 
From my understanding of traditional Catholic belief, the categories are as such:

Heretic: One who claims to be a Christian, yet denies a cardinal tenet of faith (Protestant, etc)

Apostate: a baptized Christian who totally gives up the Christian faith (just about any ex-Catholic)

Infidel: An unbaptized person (Jews, Muslims, etc)

Schismatic: One who claims to be Christian but refuses to be in authority to the Pope of Rome (Eastern Orthodox, etc)
Yes, you have this quite correct.
 
To say that Protestants are not heretics would contradict the Infallible doctrine defined at the Council of Trent. Thus it is inaccurate and heretical to say otherwise.
 
To say that Protestants are not heretics would contradict the Infallible doctrine defined at the Council of Trent. Thus it is inaccurate and heretical to say otherwise.
Not really. If you look at the people that Trent was dealing with it make sense. Trent was dealing with people who were Catholic and were rebelling against the Church. They were throwing their Catholic faith out the window, figuratively speaking. This is heresy and they were heretics. This definition still stands.

Vatican II and John Paul II and Benedict XVI are talking about those who are born into Protestantism 500 years later. They have never been part of the physical Catholic Church. They have not absconded from the Church.

In fact, even though their anscestors did commit heresy, these folks have actually preserved some of their Catholic roots, such as scripture, faith in Jesus Christ, faith in the mysteries of the incarnation, redemption and their belief that only Jesus can save. They have been martyrs, often giving their lives for the Gospel just like many Catholics. Look at the many who died during the Holocaust for protecting the Jews. They did so moved by a Christian compassion and mercy. They went to their death believing and trusting that Jesus would be there to receive them after death.

These are all very Catholic beliefs. They are part of our mystical theology. They have retained much of it.

You see, both council are right and they are not in conflict.

Trent is speaking about those who abandon the faith for falsehood. Vatican II is speaking about the victims of those who did so 500 or more years ago. What today’s Church says is that you can’t be a heretic by association. Even if what you have been taught is heresy, it was not your teaching or your concoction. It’s your heritage.

The goal is to repair the damage that was done in the past. This is the goal of ecumenism.

The Church calls Catholics to an ecumenical conversion. We have to convert too. We have to change the way that we look at non Catholics. We can’t look at them with a lack of charity or with disdain or with condescension. He have to accept that our anscestors also drove some people away from the Church through great acts of cruelty and mixing politics with faith.

Both sides must change the way that we view each other. We have to show our Christian side to Protestants, because many of them doubt that we are Christians. They have to reconsider what they have been taught and see the gaps that they need to fill. We cant’ attack them and tell them that they have no truth or validity, because we know that is fale.

If a Protestant says that Jesus Christ is Lord. That is truth. That must be acknowledged by us. Just as we want them to acknowledge when we say that the Eucharist is truth.

The idea is to stop pointing fingers at each other for the sins of our forefathers and to find common ground and work up from there.

This is going to be a long process. It took more than 5 centuries to get to this state of separation. It’s not going to disappear because we wish it to go away. Both sides have to work at it.

Like St. Dominic said, we have to preach through word and kindness, but our kindness has to speak louder than our words.

JR 🙂
 
How could the Holy Spirit put the Church in trouble? There must be a heresy in there somewhere.

You just want the Church to be static, stand-still, not to bring all Christians together, while at the same time, keeping doctrine pure. The Holy Spirit goes where he will, and you cannot stop him from breathing the Truth.
Would you like to corrupt doctrine. I can see that you are one of those people who thinks that everything that the Church does is Infallible. Read Vatican II, which is Infallible and you will understand that 90% of the people who claim to be following it, do not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top