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.
D

Duke_of_Mantua

Guest
It’s intention was trying to unite all Christian churches by being more like them and all they do is break apart their own church while still having everyone else flip the bird at Catholicism.

Ironic.

:hmmm:
 
I’ve always looked at it like this:

They opened the doors hoping that there’d be this great surge of people coming in. But in opening the doors, they didn’t consider that it also leaves an exit point.
 
I’ve always looked at it like this:

They opened the doors hoping that there’d be this great surge of people coming in. But in opening the doors, they didn’t consider that it also leaves an exit point.
The most important thing Vatican II supported was communication among all. It is a shame that Catholics cannot even communicate among themselves. 🙂 Peace
 
It’s intention was trying to unite all Christian churches by being more like them and all they do is break apart their own church while still having everyone else flip the bird at Catholicism.

Ironic.
My take of it is similar however I think this is a more logical idea. Satan entered the Church somehow and tried to force it to commit suicide. The Church tried however it failed and sunk into a deep depression, and is being pulled away from this thanks to the efforts of FSSP and other traditionalist organizations.
 
I’ve always looked at it like this:

They opened the doors hoping that there’d be this great surge of people coming in. But in opening the doors, they didn’t consider that it also leaves an exit point.
Also true. I think Vatican II made more Catholics leave the Church and join schismatic Churches such as the SSPX and the Eastern Orthodox. 🤷
 
It’s intention was trying to unite all Christian churches by being more like them and all they do is break apart their own church while still having everyone else flip the bird at Catholicism.

Ironic.
I only see disgruntled Catholics flipping birds at Catholics. We are trying to unite all Christians, and it has nothing to do with trying to be like them. We are like ourselves. We have the same sacraments and the same Church we have always had for 2,000 years.

Your cynical remarks are not ironic either. They are anti-Catholic.
 
I only see disgruntled Catholics flipping birds at Catholics. We are trying to unite all Christians, and it has nothing to do with trying to be like them. We are like ourselves. We have the same sacraments and the same Church we have always had for 2,000 years.

Your cynical remarks are not ironic either. They are anti-Catholic.
As dyspepsic says, it is the disgruntled Catholics on both side of the fence they have created, whether it is on the Pre-Vatican II side or the Post-Vatican II side, who are breaking the Church apart. I think it is Ironic that we Catholics who have “all” the answers may be the cause of our own destruction.:banghead:
 
As dyspepsic says, it is the disgruntled Catholics on both side of the fence they have created, whether it is on the Pre-Vatican II side or the Post-Vatican II side, who are breaking the Church apart. I think it is Ironic that we Catholics who have “all” the answers may be the cause of our own destruction.:banghead:
I never said that. Nonesense that 'we are breaking the Church apart". Don’t you know the Nicene creed:

“Credo in …unam, sanctam, catholicam, apostolicam Ecclesiam…”

Do you need a translation? ‘UNAM’. Not broken up.
 
I never said that. Nonesense that 'we are breaking the Church apart". Don’t you know the Nicene creed:

“Credo in …unam, sanctam, catholicam, apostolicam Ecclesiam…”

Do you need a translation? ‘UNAM’. Not broken up.
I see you are still dyspepsic. Here I was supporting you and look how you treat me.:crying:
 
As dyspepsic says, it is the disgruntled Catholics on both side of the fence they have created, whether it is on the Pre-Vatican II side or the Post-Vatican II side, who are breaking the Church apart. I think it is Ironic that we Catholics who have “all” the answers may be the cause of our own destruction.:banghead:
Not quite. The division is a result of confusion.

It wasn’t only laity losing the faith. Some in the Hierarchy were losing it as well. When catholics are taught something century after century, and then we hear someone in the Curia telling us the opposite today, it is confusing.

“There is no salvation outside the Church.” Period. Any catholic would know that, and if anyone said anything to the contrary, they were, and are, wrong. But nowadays, a catholic may not agree. Either they simply were never taught the truth, or have heard otherwise from a member of the Clergy. We are confused. There are now two schools of thought on the matter.

In the past, some altar boys became priests. they were exposed to the doings of priests. How they prepared for Mass and so forth. They were interacting with the priests, and had the opportuinity to ask priests questions. And by serving Mass, they were given an opportunity to gain a solid understanding of the Mass. This led to vocations in some cases.

How many of our parishes today, have no altar boys, only altar girls ? Think about it. When a young boy is old enough to start realizing he’s attending a Holy Mass, and understanding a little bit about what’s going on, the thought of being an altar boy may never cross his mind. Why ? Because all he has ever seen at Mass is altar girls. He believes serving Mass is what girls do, not boys !

What about nuns ? If we have nuns who don’t wear habits sitting in the pews, they look like ordinary women. Nothing stands out about them. Even if they are grouped together in a choir, they still look like a bunch of women. How would a ten year old catholic girl describe a nun today ? A woman who promises she won’t marry and works for the Church ? There is nothing there to make a young girl curious. No wonder we have so few nuns.

My point is, all this adaptation, or whatever one wants to call it, doesn’t encourage vocations. It’s had plenty of time, and it has failed.

The loosening of the reigns so to speak, is also a problem. Priests have far to much wiggle room in regards to the NO Mass. Thus abuses creep in. Guidelines for fasting and abstinence have been relaxed, yet there are those today that say the Church is "too strict ".

Chastity is the Contrary Virtue to defeat Lust, one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Yet we have NFP. Chastity is shoved aside. We’ve found a loophole in order to satisfy Lust. It may not be the intent of the Church to offer a loophole, but it is a revolutionary change in Church teaching that presents the temptation and potential for abuse.

There is a very good reason past popes have warned against the evils of modernism and revolutionary changes. Just look at the titles and topics of the threads in this forum. It’s not hard to figure out what is tearing the Church apart.

Traditional Catholicism has nothing to do with this mess. And the catholics who are preserving it and defending it are not the ones who are confused. The ones confused are the ones buying into heresy either through the loss of the faith, or ignorance due to what they are taught in their parishes.

One of those heresys is false ecumenism.
 
Not quite. The division is a result of confusion.

It wasn’t only laity losing the faith. Some in the Hierarchy were losing it as well. When catholics are taught something century after century, and then we hear someone in the Curia telling us the opposite today, it is confusing.

“There is no salvation outside the Church.” Period. Any catholic would know that, and if anyone said anything to the contrary, they were, and are, wrong. But nowadays, a catholic may not agree. Either they simply were never taught the truth, or have heard otherwise from a member of the Clergy. We are confused. There are now two schools of thought on the matter.

In the past, some altar boys became priests. they were exposed to the doings of priests. How they prepared for Mass and so forth. They were interacting with the priests, and had the opportuinity to ask priests questions. And by serving Mass, they were given an opportunity to gain a solid understanding of the Mass. This led to vocations in some cases.

How many of our parishes today, have no altar boys, only altar girls ? Think about it. When a young boy is old enough to start realizing he’s attending a Holy Mass, and understanding a little bit about what’s going on, the thought of being an altar boy may never cross his mind. Why ? Because all he has ever seen at Mass is altar girls. He believes serving Mass is what girls do, not boys !

What about nuns ? If we have nuns who don’t wear habits sitting in the pews, they look like ordinary women. Nothing stands out about them. Even if they are grouped together in a choir, they still look like a bunch of women. How would a ten year old catholic girl describe a nun today ? A woman who promises she won’t marry and works for the Church ? There is nothing there to make a young girl curious. No wonder we have so few nuns.

My point is, all this adaptation, or whatever one wants to call it, doesn’t encourage vocations. It’s had plenty of time, and it has failed.

The loosening of the reigns so to speak, is also a problem. Priests have far to much wiggle room in regards to the NO Mass. Thus abuses creep in. Guidelines for fasting and abstinence have been relaxed, yet there are those today that say the Church is "too strict ".

Chastity is the Contrary Virtue to defeat Lust, one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Yet we have NFP. Chastity is shoved aside. We’ve found a loophole in order to satisfy Lust. It may not be the intent of the Church to offer a loophole, but it is a revolutionary change in Church teaching that presents the temptation and potential for abuse.

There is a very good reason past popes have warned against the evils of modernism and revolutionary changes. Just look at the titles and topics of the threads in this forum. It’s not hard to figure out what is tearing the Church apart.

Traditional Catholicism has nothing to do with this mess. And the catholics who are preserving it and defending it are not the ones who are confused. The ones confused are the ones buying into heresy either through the loss of the faith, or ignorance due to what they are taught in their parishes.

One of those heresys is false ecumenism.
Dear I Believe. I do agree with you on some points. The Church has lost much of its mystery and mystery is what draws many people and keeps many people a part of a church. I just don’t think converts to Catholicism can be made by brow beating. No one is going to listen to that. Expouse your beliefs, spread the word, but don’t do it so contentiously. I had considered myself a Traditional Catholic until I began reading what some of the postings on this forum say. Words of stiff necked, whitened seplechures who care more for the “law” than saving souls.
 
Dear I Believe. I do agree with you on some points. The Church has lost much of its mystery and mystery is what draws many people and keeps many people a part of a church. I just don’t think converts to Catholicism can be made by brow beating. No one is going to listen to that. Expouse your beliefs, spread the word, but don’t do it so contentiously. I had considered myself a Traditional Catholic until I began reading what some of the postings on this forum say. Words of stiff necked, whitened seplechures who care more for the “law” than saving souls.
But we are not brow beating today. We have all these interfaith services and such, and it’s not encouraging conversion, it’s sending the message that it’s ok to remain protestant. If the goal of todays version of ecumenism is having everyone get along, versus ecumenism of return, that is a rejection of Tradition. It’s had 45 years to work and it’s not working.

My job sometimes requires me to be in dorms of the Southern Baptist Theological Semenary here in Louisville. It is not uncommon to see Anti-Catholic flyers taped to the doors of dorm rooms. Quotes from Luther attacking the Church and so forth.

The post VII Church has come very close to becoming a Church of appeasement. Why on earth would Bugnini consult protestants while contriving a new liturgy ? HMC needs advice from those who reject Her ? It’s absurd.

Those ministers should have been given a grand tour of the Vatican and a crash course in catholicism. They should have been instructed in the Truth. Apostolic Succession should have been explained in no uncertain terms. And before they left, they should have been advised, as to leave no doubt, the Churches teaching on the way to Salvation, and been encouraged to discern a vocation in service of HMC. They should have walked out of the Vatican with an understanding of catholicism that they had no inkling of before they came. They would leave the Vatican knowing that their ignorance no longer relieved them from submitting to HMC now that they know Her Truth. They would know if they choose to walk away from Her, they would be walking away from the Church Christ willed his Apostles to establish in His name.

That’s not brow beating, that is ecumenism of return.

But instead, history has given us our current topic to sink our teeth into. 😛
 
I only see disgruntled Catholics flipping birds at Catholics. We are trying to unite all Christians, and it has nothing to do with trying to be like them. We are like ourselves. We have the same sacraments and the same Church we have always had for 2,000 years.

Your cynical remarks are not ironic either. They are anti-Catholic.
Calling his opinion anti catholic is ironic.

What is your definition of all Christians United ?

Same God, same Christ, same Holy Spirit is enough ?
To leave out apostolic succession and what Christ willed his apostles to do In Memory of Me , doesn’t cut it. And He said Church, not Churches.
 
But we are not brow beating today. We have all these interfaith services and such, and it’s not encouraging conversion, it’s sending the message that it’s ok to remain protestant. If the goal of todays version of ecumenism is having everyone get along, versus ecumenism of return, that is a rejection of Tradition. It’s had 45 years to work and it’s not working.

My job sometimes requires me to be in dorms of the Southern Baptist Theological Semenary here in Louisville. It is not uncommon to see Anti-Catholic flyers taped to the doors of dorm rooms. Quotes from Luther attacking the Church and so forth.

The post VII Church has come very close to becoming a Church of appeasement. Why on earth would Bugnini consult protestants while contriving a new liturgy ? HMC needs advice from those who reject Her ? It’s absurd.

Those ministers should have been given a grand tour of the Vatican and a crash course in catholicism. They should have been instructed in the Truth. Apostolic Succession should have been explained in no uncertain terms. And before they left, they should have been advised, as to leave no doubt, the Churches teaching on the way to Salvation, and been encouraged to discern a vocation in service of HMC. They should have walked out of the Vatican with an understanding of catholicism that they had no inkling of before they came. They would leave the Vatican knowing that their ignorance no longer relieved them from submitting to HMC now that they know Her Truth. They would know if they choose to walk away from Her, they would be walking away from the Church Christ willed his Apostles to establish in His name.

That’s not brow beating, that is ecumenism of return.

But instead, history has given us our current topic to sink our teeth into. 😛
(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.
 
It’s intention was trying to unite all Christian churches by being more like them and all they do is break apart their own church while still having everyone else flip the bird at Catholicism.

Ironic.

:hmmm:
I think you need to read the Second Vatican Council’s decree on ecumenism, which does not say the intention is to be more like non-Catholic churches and communities, rather for them to become more like us.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Here’s a couple excerpts (but do read the whole thing):
It is, of course, essential that the (Catholic) doctrine be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism which harms the purity of Catholic doctrine and obscures its genuine and certain meaning.
The results (of authentic ecumenical activity) will be that, little by little, as the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion are overcome, all Christians will be gathered, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, into the unity of the one and only Church, which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.
 
As for inter-faith prayer meetings, as the Second Vatican Council’s declaration one ecumenism states:
Yet worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity. There are two main principles governing the practice of such common worship: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace. Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice. The course to be adopted, with due regard to all the circumstances of time, place, and persons, is to be decided by local episcopal authority, unless otherwise provided for by the Bishops’ Conference according to its statutes, or by the Holy See.
 
My take of it is similar however I think this is a more logical idea. Satan entered the Church somehow and tried to force it to commit suicide. The Church tried however it failed and sunk into a deep depression, and is being pulled away from this thanks to the efforts of FSSP and other traditionalist organizations.
I think there is more truth to that than we realize. Have you ever read the book “Desire to Destroy”? When I first bought the book, about 8 years ago, and began to read it, I couldn’t finish it. That’s how hard hitting it was.

About 3/4 of the book consist of quotes from leading post Vatican II theologians. Their stated goal was to destroy the Church. They believed that in destroying the Church from within would result in a glorious resurrection. Therefore, they took concrete measures to destroy the Church from within.

Their “logic” for doing so was this: Just as Christ “emptied Himself” (Kenosis) so too the Church must “empty itself” (Kenosis), to be more like Christ. How does the Church practice this kenosis? By “raising the bastions” and destroying itself from within. You would probably be surprised to find out which of the post Vatican II theoogians subscribed to that theory, which no doubt originated in the mind of the devil himself.

If you want to understand what is taking place in the Church, and why it is in the condition it is, all you need to do is read Animus Delendi “Desire to Destroy”. Here’s a review: traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/G_011br_AD1_Vennari.htm

So, when you said that the devil somehow worked his way into the Church (which he did this by deceiving leading theologians who willingly obeyed him), and got the Church to attempt suicide, you were exactly right.
 
I think you need to read the Second Vatican Council’s decree on ecumenism, which does not say the intention is to be more like non-Catholic churches and communities, rather for them to become more like us.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
What Vatican II called for and what is actually happenning are two different things. Cardinal Kasper says that Ecumenism is a work of the Holy Spirit and it is binding on all catholics yet Cardinal Kasper does not follow his own words.

thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002780.html
“One of the Vatican’s most senior cardinals **has dismissed the idea **that a breakaway group of Anglicans might be received into the Catholic Church en masse – despite Benedict XVI’s personal support for such a move.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, told The Catholic Herald: “It’s not our policy to bring that many Anglicans to Rome.” The cardinal’s comments refer to the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), a rebel group which claims to represent 400,000 people. Its bishops sent a letter to Rome last month requesting “full, corporate and sacramental union.”

So why is Kasper still in his position? Is ecumenism of the return the position of the Church or not?

geocities.com/militantis/falseecumenism.html

“The decision of Vatican II, to which the Pope adheres and spreads, is absolutely clear: **Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. **Today ecumenism is considered as the common road: all should be converted to the following of Christ, and it is in Christ that we will find ourselves in the end… Even the Pope, among other things, describes ecumenism in Ut unum sint as an exchange of gifts. I think this is very well said: each Church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved and not the fact that we should become ‘Protestants’ or that the others should become ‘Catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism.” (Adista, Rome, February 26, 2001, p. 9
 
(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.
I agree with everything you say. Catholics have nothing to fear from other faiths. Dialog is very important.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top