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

[catharina]

Sorry, you are not clear here regarding which is the direct quote and which is not. I will look these source docs up when I can. Is it Et Unum Sint or Ut Unum Sint?

I find your definition of heretic to be simplistic. Are you saying Protestants are not, ipso facto, heretics?

Interestingly, Belloc considered Muslims to be heretics.

Protestants, for the most part, were born into their religious practices and did not, of themselves, abandon the Catholic faith. Those who established major Protestant churches (such as Luther and Henry VIII) might be held to be heretics. (Although in the case of Henry VIII, the first declaration held him to be in schism.)

Belloc? He died prior to the assembly of the Second Vatican Council, didn’t he? My point being akin to this: before Peter and Paul worked out the details, Peter held that Gentile Christians should be circumcized. After further prayer and thought, he decided otherwise.

 

[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)

Bravo. You have a better grasp of Catholic teaching than many here who are catholic.

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

Protestants, for the most part, were born into their religious practices and did not, of themselves, abandon the Catholic faith. Those who established major Protestant churches (such as Luther and Henry VIII) might be held to be heretics. (Although in the case of Henry VIII, the first declaration held him to be in schism.)

Heresy is heresy. If one believes a heretical teaching he’s a heretic. That is reality. He could be either a formal or a material heretic, depending on whether or not he knows the teaching is against the Catholic Church.

Belloc? He died prior to the assembly of the Second Vatican Council, didn’t he? My point being akin to this: before Peter and Paul worked out the details, Peter held that Gentile Christians should be circumcized. After further prayer and thought, he decided otherwise.

And in matters of faith and morals, when something is officially decided (defined infallibly) - it can never contradict itself - it never get’s “undecided”. Truth is truth - it cannot contradict itself.

And for the record, Peter is the one who settled the dispute on the necessity of circumcision for Salvation. (see Acts 15).

DD

 

[DustinsDad]

Protestants, for the most part, were born into their religious practices and did not, of themselves, abandon the Catholic faith. Those who established major Protestant churches (such as Luther and Henry VIII) might be held to be heretics. (Although in the case of Henry VIII, the first declaration held him to be in schism.)

Heresy is heresy. If one believes a heretical teaching he’s a heretic. That is reality. He could be either a formal or a material heretic, depending on whether or not he knows the teaching is against the Catholic Church.

Belloc? He died prior to the assembly of the Second Vatican Council, didn’t he? My point being akin to this: before Peter and Paul worked out the details, Peter held that Gentile Christians should be circumcized. After further prayer and thought, he decided otherwise.

And in matters of faith and morals, when something is officially decided (defined infallibly) - it can never contradict itself - it never get’s “undecided”. Truth is truth - it cannot contradict itself.

And for the record, Peter is the one who settled the dispute on the necessity of circumcision for Salvation. (see Acts 15).

DD

 

[catharina]

And for the record, Peter is the one who settled the dispute on the necessity of circumcision for Salvation. (see Acts 15).

DD

Of course. Well-known as Primacy of Peter.

 

[DustinsDad]

…1. Protestants are not to be called heretics or by any other language that is offensive to them.

This can be debated (whether or not such a broad esoteric suggestion is commanded de fide for one thing), in any case, it’s a prudential matter of “approach” - the reality is that their sects do hold to heretical teachings, thus they are heretics - either formal or material depending on whether or not they know said teachings contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church.

For another, even if such prudential “suggestions” are contained therein, it is rather impractical…for the truth can very well be offensive to them, and yet we must preach the truth anyway. For example, the truth of even moral issues - abortion, contraception, homosexual behavior - are offensive to many self-claimed “Christians” outside of Holy Mother Church, and yet no one with half an ounce of common sense says we have to stop talking about the reality of the intrinsic evils of these things. And therefore, if we don’t bend on moral issues, we should neither bend on the even more important theological issues.

…2. The Jews have a special link in the faith to the Catholic Church and are our older brothers and sisters in the faith. If they are our older brothers and sisters, they belong to our family, of which Christ is the head. Therefore, there must be something of the Church to be found in Judaism and thus they are not totally cut off from us.

They are cut off from the soul of the Church by not being incorporated in the first place through acceptance of Jesus Christ and baptism.

…3. The covenant with Israel has never been revoked. There aren’t two covenants.

Correct, and in their rejection of Christ Jesus - they revoke the covenant - not God.

…4. Ecumenism is a moral obligation of every Catholic.

Finish this sentance - Ecumenism is _____________.

…5. Ecumenism must begin through dialogue and prayer. It is a slow process, which will not be accomplished for a long time. But you have to begin somewhere.

Do you mean ecumenism or evangilization?

…6. Muslims worship the same God that we do. The Quran contains parts of revelation found in the Old Testament. Therefore, there is a connection with the Catholic Church, even if it’s a weak one.

The Quran teaches that the Holy Trinity is an abomination and that anyone who believes in the Trinity will burn in Hell for all
Eternity. Same God?

…7. The Orthodox Churches are no longer excommunicated and the Holy Father recognizes their sacramental validity and their apostolic succession.

They recognized their sacramental validity and apostolic succession even before the ceremonial gesture of removing the personal excommunications of long dead prelates. The fact is the Orthodox Churches remain in schism, cut of from communion with the Holy Father and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

…8. Conversion to Catholicism is not done en masse, but individually.

Nonsense. Both happen. Several Eastern Rites are formerly separated groups that have come back to communion with the One Holy Catholic Church.

DD

 

[catharina]

This can be debated (whether or not such a broad esoteric suggestion is commanded de fide for one thing), in any case, it’s a prudential matter of “approach” - the reality is that their sects do hold to heretical teachings, thus they are heretics - either formal or material depending on whether or not they know said teachings contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church.

For another, even if such prudential “suggestions” are contained therein, it is rather impractical…for the truth can very well be offensive to them, and yet we must preach the truth anyway. DD

When any issue arises and presents a question (shall I choose Rome’s answer or the answer of dustinsdad?), it’s a grace that I suffer no conflict in making my choice.

ALWAYS, Rome outranks dustinsdad. It’s so simple.

 

[agr4028]

This can be debated (whether or not such a broad esoteric suggestion is commanded de fide for one thing), in any case, it’s a prudential matter of “approach” - the reality is that their sects do hold to heretical teachings, thus they are heretics - either formal or material depending on whether or not they know said teachings contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church.

For another, even if such prudential “suggestions” are contained therein, it is rather impractical…for the truth can very well be offensive to them, and yet we must preach the truth anyway. For example, the truth of even moral issues - abortion, contraception, homosexual behavior - are offensive to many self-claimed “Christians” outside of Holy Mother Church, and yet no one with half an ounce of common sense says we have to stop talking about the reality of the intrinsic evils of these things. And therefore, if we don’t bend on moral issues, we should neither bend on the even more important theological issues.

They are cut off from the soul of the Church by not being incorporated in the first place through acceptance of Jesus Christ and baptism.

Correct, and in their rejection of Christ Jesus - they revoke the covenant - not God.

Finish this sentance - Ecumenism is _____________.

Do you mean ecumenism or evangilization?

The Quran teaches that the Holy Trinity is an abomination and that anyone who believes in the Trinity will burn in Hell for all
Eternity. Same God?

They recognized their sacramental validity and apostolic succession even before the ceremonial gesture of removing the personal excommunications of long dead prelates. The fact is the Orthodox Churches remain in schism, cut of from communion with the Holy Father and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Nonsense. Both happen. Several Eastern Rites are formerly separated groups that have come back to communion with the One Holy Catholic Church.

DD

Is it just me, or do certain individuals always seem to feel the need to rebut the posts of other certain individuals in a manner that speaks of “personalities” rather than issues?

 

[catharina]

Is it just me, or do certain individuals always seem to feel the need to rebut the posts of other certain individuals in a manner that speaks of “personalities” rather than issues?

I can’t even make a guess about that since it’s impossible for me to know with any certainty - but I do think that some people must feel a need to rebuke and rebut Rome at every moment.

 

[DustinsDad]

When any issue arises and presents a question (shall I choose Rome’s answer or the answer of dustinsdad?), it’s a grace that I suffer no conflict in making my choice.

ALWAYS, Rome outranks dustinsdad. It’s so simple.

Of course Rome outranks me. Take whatever I say with a grain of salt and hold it up to what the Church teaches and has taught for 2000 years.

All I can say is if you think the Church is saying “don’t preach the truth”, or if you think the Church is saying “a formerly infallibly proclaimed truth is now false”, then either your understanding of what the Church is saying is erroneus - or what you are listening to isn’t really the Church, but the personal opinion of some individual within the Church.

It’s the law of non-contradiction. And it’s one of the wonderful truths of the One True Faith.Truth doesn’t contradict Truth, and it doesn’t change.
Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
(First Vatican Council, Dogmatic constitution on the catholic faith, Chapter 4, Number 14)

If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
(First Vatican Council, Dogmatic constitution on the catholic faith, Canon 4, Number 3)
DD

 

[DustinsDad]

Is it just me, or do certain individuals always seem to feel the need to rebut the posts of other certain individuals in a manner that speaks of “personalities” rather than issues?

I can’t even make a guess about that since it’s impossible for me to know with any certainty - but I do think that some people must feel a need to rebuke and rebut Rome at every moment.

I understand the going beyond broad esoteric niceties and unoffensive platitudes and into the real heart of the matter is difficult and challenging. But if truth is on your side - if you are in fact representing the teachings of the faith - then I would think it would be a challenge much accepted. However, the reluctance of folks on the “other side” to get into the “meat and potatoes” of what such words actually mean speaks volumes.

I’m patient however, and I await the intellectal engagement from those with different perspectives. And yet will continue to challenge such personal opinions in the meantime - lest the silence toward such personal opinion posts be mistaken for traditional acceptance thereof.

DD

 

[wraithx]

ALWAYS, Rome outranks dustinsdad. It’s so simple.

Indeed - but if the Pope is wrong on an issue and DD is not - I believe the Church tells us to believe DD - because Popes can be wrong just as non-Popes can be right. I am sure you have heard it all before, but let us not forget the Arian Crisis (far less a crisis than the present one might I add!)

Oh - and to answer your rebuttal (before you make it) we are told to look to Tradition if Rome appears to not be doing so: I Corinthians 11:2.

 

[DustinsDad]

With the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus approaching, it might be well to everyone engaged in ecumenical efforts to recall the prayer, written by Pope Leo XIII, of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. And since we are all called to embrace ecumenism, let us all pray this prayer - lest we somehow twist ecumenism into something it was never intended to be:**Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus **

**Most sweet Jesus, Redeemer of the human race, look down upon us humbly prostrate before Thine altar. We are Thine, and Thine we wish to be; but, to be more surely united with Thee, behold each one of us freely consecrates himself today to Thy most Sacred Heart.****Many indeed have never known Thee; many too, despising Thy precepts, have rejected Thee. Have mercy on them all, most merciful Jesus, and draw them to Thy sacred Heart. Be Thou King, O Lord, not only of the faithful who have never forsaken Thee, but also of the prodigal children who have abandoned Thee; grant that they may quickly return to Thy Father’s house lest they die of wretchedness and hunger. ****Be Thou King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinions, or whom discord keeps aloof, and call them back to the harbor of truth and unity of faith, so that there may be but one flock and one Shepherd.****Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism, and refuse not to draw them into the light and kingdom of God. Turn Thine eyes of mercy towards the children of the race, once Thy chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may it now descend upon them a laver of redemption and of life. ****Grant, O Lord, to Thy Church assurance of freedom and immunity from harm; give peace and order to all nations, and make the earth resound from pole to pole with one cry: “Praise be to the divine Heart that wrought our salvation; to it be glory and honor for ever.” **
**Amen. **

DD

 

[PKinsale]

Belloc? He died prior to the assembly of the Second Vatican Council, didn’t he?

Yes, he did, sadly. What this means, I know not. Lotsa good and wise and smart Catholics did. But they and their truth live on in their writings.

 

[pnewton]

You are arguing over semantics.
education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/heretic
Heretic - A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

This is how the term is used in current English.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heretic

So when dealing with English speaking non-Catholics, calling them heretics is not in accord to proper usage of the word.

Yet the Catechism states:

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

The Catholic understanding of the word is not the same as the common English understanding. Therefore, using the term is not “preaching the truth”, but sowing confusion. Nothing is accomplished by using a term that means one thing to the speaker and another thing to the listener. No wonder Rome sees wisdom in not using the term for Protestants.

 

[dyspepsic]

I don’t believe I did call them names. Besides I wouldn’t as most of my friends are Jews and Protestants, it doesn’t mean I have to agree with them however.

No I’m not going to say that I do know better, because I don’t. My point was that he made some bad choices. We all know that Popes are not Impeccable. Regardless you cannot say that Vatican II did not put the Church in trouble.

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.

 

[PKinsale]

You are arguing over semantics.
education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/heretic
Heretic - A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

This is how the term is used in current English.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heretic

So when dealing with English speaking non-Catholics, calling them heretics is not in accord to proper usage of the word.

Yet the Catechism states:

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

The Catholic understanding of the word is not the same as the common English understanding. Therefore, using the term is not “preaching the truth”, but sowing confusion. Nothing is accomplished by using a term that means one thing to the speaker and another thing to the listener. No wonder Rome sees wisdom in not using the term for Protestants.

The Catholic definition is stricter, it is true, and is therefore the proper one for Catholics to use in a discussion such as this. The catechism definition matches what our Protestant friends are.

 

[dyspepsic]

You are arguing over semantics.
education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/heretic
Heretic - A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

This is how the term is used in current English.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heretic

So when dealing with English speaking non-Catholics, calling them heretics is not in accord to proper usage of the word.

Yet the Catechism states:

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

The Catholic understanding of the word is not the same as the common English understanding. Therefore, using the term is not “preaching the truth”, but sowing confusion. Nothing is accomplished by using a term that means one thing to the speaker and another thing to the listener. No wonder Rome sees wisdom in not using the term for Protestants.

WRONG. Heresy is a crime and defined in Church law. Church law applies only to Catholics. The CCC is only repeating what is in Canon Law. So, you cannot call non-Catholics heretics, since they are not under the law, and so cannot be guilty of anything under the law.

You won’t believe me, I am sure. So, go on line to Canon 751. The Code of Canon law is very specific about this. Get back to me with your apologies, please.

 

[DustinsDad]

You are arguing over semantics.
education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/heretic
Heretic - A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

This is how the term is used in current English.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heretic

So when dealing with English speaking non-Catholics, calling them heretics is not in accord to proper usage of the word.

Yet the Catechism states:

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

The Catholic understanding of the word is not the same as the common English understanding…

Yahoo Education
Heretic - A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church

Merriam-Webster
heretic
1: a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially: a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth
2: one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine

CCC 2089
Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same

How in the world do any of these definitions disagree with each other, with traditional Catholic teaching, or with the common everday understanding thereof?

The CCC merely uses the term obstinate - which goes to what I said earlier about formal heresy vs. material heresy.

Seems some folks would prefer to leave Protestants ignorant of their errors and thus remove obstinacy from the equation. Woe to anyone who holds this error.

DD

 

[dyspepsic]

Is it just me, or do certain individuals always seem to feel the need to rebut the posts of other certain individuals in a manner that speaks of “personalities” rather than issues?

Dustins Dad always attacks persons and personalities.