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

[dyspepsic]

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

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

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

Traditionalists don’t remember that. They like to go back to the times of Henry VIII when ‘heretics’ were burned at the stake or were drawn and quartered. Such inhumane treatment makes their blood pump for vengenance.

(just being poetic)

 

[JReducation]

The problem that I see in all the discussion above is that people are getting hung up on the term “heretic”.

The term has already been defined in Canon Law and it’s meaning and application was clarified by a competent and legitimate Church organism, The Canon Law Society of America, which does have the authority to do so.

It was the Canon Law Society who said that heretic is one who defects from the Catholic Church. Anyone not born within the Catholic Church cannot defect from it.

As to heresy, it is understood that the Reformation ecclesial communities were founded upon certain heresies. However, a closer look has also revealed that not all of what they believe is heresy. They have retained many Catholic truths.

Based on these Catholic truths is that the Church says that they still retain some form of communion with the Catholic Church and that through these truths that they still retain the Holy Spirit can use these ecclesial communities as a means of salvation for their members. The Holy Spirit is not limited on how he saves.

This does not deny that the communion is less than complete. On the contrary. It calls upon Catholics to reach out to other people of faith through the truths that we share. While in dialogue regarding the truths that we share, we also discuss the areas where we disagree.

What the Church does is leave the door open for dialogue rather than debate as we are doing here.

The Church does not want to engage in debate with other faiths. She has already made it clear that this was tried in the past and did not work. She has also made it clear that charity is both the communication of truth and the recognition of value in other faith communities.

The Church calls us to recognize everything that is of value in other faith communities and learn from those values whatever we can. She is not calling us to abandon our beliefs. On the contrary, she continues to teach that the fullness of truth subsists within the Catholic Church.

This does not preclude that by grace others do not have access or believe in many of the same truths that we do. Our charity is being called into action.

The Church demands that we develop a theology of ecumenism. We must learn to recognize truth when and where we see it and give those communities credit where credit is due.

When the dialogue begins we can gradually raise questions about those things that separate us and try to understand what are the difficulties that others face in accepting the truths that we believe.

What the Cardinal is say is that one area that there is difficulty is how we define the Petrine office. He is not saying that we take anything away from the papacy. He is suggesting that we look at how we explain it and ask ourselves if there is a better way of saying the same thing that won’t be so threatening or difficult for other Christians to understand. Sometimes, just changing the language goes a long way to clearing up misunderstandings that have lasted for centuries. If we can do this, then this would be an act toward unity, which is in conformity to Christ’s will, that all may be one.

JR

 

[emeraldisle]

(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.

It was interesting to read that you searched the Scriptures to find the Truth and that your conclusion was that the Bible alone isn’t the source of Gods truth. Now that’s why you joined the Catholic Church. My statement referred to Protestants searching the Scriptures alone, any Protestant who does this will never join the Catholic Church.

As for your point about the people in your previous church being good Bible teachers, well its worth remembering that Judas Iscariot received personal instruction/teaching from the greatest Bible teacher ever the Lord Jesus and he ended up betraying Him.

The Bible teaches that Gods “whole Truth” is in Gods Word and that the Church is the body of Christ.

Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:31-32

Also where in the Bible does God instruct His children to have “interfaith” meetings? Also did Jesus Christ teach His followers to compromise their faith? I mean read what Jesus said to the Pharisees, do the following words sound like “interfaith” teaching?

“I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.” They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”
Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. You do the deeds of your father.”

Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

John 8:37-47

 

[dyspepsic]

The Church demands that we develop a theology of ecumenism. We must learn to recognize truth when and where we see it and give those communities credit where credit is due.JR

Traditionalists refuse to accept that. They will beat up on you on this thread for saying what you said. They want to return to the day when Protestants were ‘heretics’, and demand that there be no discussion, that they must join the Roman Catholic Church.

They will misquote the Holy See, Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, and anyone who suggests reproachment with those who do not believe exactly as we. It comes down to Catholic prejudice against anyone who is not one of us.

It is this kind of thing which pushed Feeney and Lefebreve over the edge.

 

[dyspepsic]

I for one would like to return to the clarity we saw in many teachings before much of what happened after Vat 2 emasculated it all.

You talk as though Vatican 2 operated in a vacuum. You may not have been aware of the discussions preceeding the calling of that Council. It all goes back to the words of Jesus, ‘that they all may be one’ - that is what Vatican 2 was trying to accomplish, the heartfelt desire of Jesus himself.

Vatican 2 did not emasculate anything!

 

[JReducation]

Traditionalists refuse to accept that. They will beat up on you on this thread for saying what you said. They want to return to the day when Protestants were ‘heretics’, and demand that there be no discussion, that they must join the Roman Catholic Church.

They will misquote the Holy See, Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, and anyone who suggests reproachment with those who do not believe exactly as we. It comes down to Catholic prejudice against anyone who is not one of us.

It is this kind of thing which pushed Feeney and Lefebreve over the edge.

You say that traditionalists won’t hear this. I say that vessels can only take as much as they have the capacity to hold.

Those who can’t take this simple truth, haven’t too much capacity.

JR

 

[bear06]

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

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

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

I think I already gave a link to this before but here is the context of the quote Stmaria gave:

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.

And here is the other quote:

It was Pope John Paul II who opened the door to future discussion on this subject. In his encyclical “Ut unum sint” (1995) he extended an invitation to a fraternal dialogue on how to exercise the Petrine ministry in a way that is more acceptable to non-Catholic Christians. It was a source of pleasure for us that among others the Anglican community officially responded to this invitation. The Pontifical Council for Christian Unity gathered the many responses, analysed the data, and sent its conclusions to the churches that had responded. We hope in this way to have initiated a second phase of a dialogue that will be decisive for the future of the ecumenical approach.

africamission-mafr.org/kaspergb.htm

 

[JReducation]

I for one would like to return to the clarity we saw in many teachings before much of what happened after Vat 2 emasculated it all.

PK

One of the beauties of the Church is that she is a living body. Like any other living organism, it grows. Just as we can never go back to childhood, the Church can’t go back to the past.

Like any living being, she remembers her past. She remembers what our anscesters taught us. She hold those teachings in high regard. When necessary, she refers back to them for guidance and for courage.

What we saw with Vatican II and today is that the Church did look back at what our anscestors taught us. She reflected on those teachings. As she reflected, she saw some things that our anscestors had not thought of.

She is not denying what they taught us. She is building on what they taught us. Daily, the Holy Spirit brings more knowledge and wisdom to the Church. But understanding everything that the Holy Spirit has revealed through Vatican II and the Church that grew after will take time.

We need time to sort through it all and to clarify much of it. It is not that Vatican II was a bad things. It was inspired to John XXIII by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will never lead us into error.

What is happening is what happens to any living organism as it transitions from one life stage to another, there is confusion and even a sense of loss.

As we pass from young adulthood to middle age and middle age to seniors, we often mourn for the good old days when we were younger, stronger, single, more energetic, etc. It’s different for all of us; but we all go through this pain of transition.

The Church is passing through a phase of transition and many things seem confusing to us, because we are the generation who is caught in the transition phase.

I would imagine that our own struggle to understand and to keep the faith is similar to that of the early Christians who had to transition from Judaism or paganism to Christianity. Look at how long it took them and how many debates and councils they went through to arrive at a resting point.

However, those periods of rest do not last long. When the Church is finally at rest and the debates are over, in comes the Holy Spirit with another wind of transition and another call to a deeper understanding of our faith and our place in the universe. The cycle of dialogue, debate and mourning begins again.

This will be the pattern until the end of time. This is probably the greatest test of faith. This is the kind of faith of which Jesus spoke to Thomas. “You have believed because you saw me and touched me. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet beleive.”

To believe that the Church is growing in the direction that Christ wants, even when individuals make mistakes, is the kind of faith that Jesus was defining for Thomas.

We have to believe that we are caught in a rift of transition between one period of the Church’s development and another. We are the ones chosen to be born at this time in history, probably because we have the strength to endure it and to believe that we can go forward, not backward, even though we can’t clearly see where we’re going.

We shouldn’t want to go back to the days when our mother walked us by the hand and told us exactly what to do and how to do it any more than we should want to go back to the days when the Church gave us a list of how to be a good Christian.

Today the Church challenges us to reflect, contemplate, think and belive. This is the recipe for the day.

God bless,

JR

 

[Contarini]

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.

Well no, the point wasn’t to “be more like” Protestants, and as a matter of fact Vatican II has led to an incredible thawing in relations between Catholics and Protestants. I will go so far as to say that Protestantism has been at least as radically transformed by Vatican II as Catholicism–perhaps more so.

This is obscured by the immense cloud of fundamentalist propaganda one can see on the Internet or hear in rural churches in the South (and other parts of the country to a lesser extent). But the reason the fundamentalists are so angry is that they have lost control even of conservative/evangelical Protestantism. Why do you think they are always ranting about apostates? It’s because most Protestants no longer buy into their vision of the world. Vatican II is not solely responsible for this, but it did a lot.

And then there are the huge changes in worship in mainline (and now increasingly also in “free-church” evangelical) Protestant churches, which are largely a response to Vatican II.

You may not see these things from where you stand, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.

Edwin

 

[stmaria]

You talk as though Vatican 2 operated in a vacuum. You may not have been aware of the discussions preceeding the calling of that Council.

It all goes back to the words of Jesus, ‘that they all may be one’

What did Jesus mean by, ‘that they may all be one’? What is his will?

 

[JReducation]

Well no, the point wasn’t to “be more like” Protestants, and as a matter of fact Vatican II has led to an incredible thawing in relations between Catholics and Protestants. I will go so far as to say that Protestantism has been at least as radically transformed by Vatican II as Catholicism–perhaps more so.

This is obscured by the immense cloud of fundamentalist propaganda one can see on the Internet or hear in rural churches in the South (and other parts of the country to a lesser extent). But the reason the fundamentalists are so angry is that they have lost control even of conservative/evangelical Protestantism. Why do you think they are always ranting about apostates? It’s because most Protestants no longer buy into their vision of the world. Vatican II is not solely responsible for this, but it did a lot.

And then there are the huge changes in worship in mainline (and now increasingly also in “free-church” evangelical) Protestant churches, which are largely a response to Vatican II.

You may not see these things from where you stand, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.

Edwin

I just want to add to what you have said that some Traditionalists say that they attended or saw a Protestant liturgy and it looks just like the NO mass. The reason is not because we copied their liturgy, but Vatican II had a great influence in many mainline Reformation communities and they also made changes to their liturgies in the same direction that we did.

Episcopalianas/Anglicans celebrated the Tridentine form. Lutherans went from a very simple Evangelical style to an eleborate Tridentine type of liturgy, depending on the congregation and the bishop.

It was Protestant liturgy that moved toward the Catholic liturgy, not the other way around.

Even the Book of Common Prayer used in the Anglican Communion now resembles more like the revised Liturgy of the Hours of the Catholics.

JR

 

[DustinsDad]

You are wonderful, Dad.

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

Well, he did invoke the “Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians” in praying for the return of these wayward souls - and asked all the faithful to join him.

In any case, my argument was never that you “had” to “call them heretics” - you are arguing against a some straw man in order to make some point…a stereotypical mythological traditionalist boogeyman that really, don’t exist all that often. In fact, I laid out this very context when using the quote from Pope Pius XI.

In closing, I would like to thank you and congratulate you at the same time - it appears you actually had the courage to read at least the portion of Moratalium Animos I posted, an encyclical written prior to Vatican II. And you didn’t grow fangs or turn in to a vampire after all . And hey - that’s more than most folks on the other side of the isle are willing to do. And I say that is a tremendous step forward! Kudos to you again!!! If you actually go back and read the whole thing, you will find the answer to much of what ails HMC these days…and you’ll get double kudos from me as an added bonus.

DustinsDad

 

[PKinsale]

A few thoughts before I sign off on this debate. Earlier I mentioned abortion and murder. To be clear, I do it consider it so; sorry for the confusion. But murder is also a legal term in U.S. courts, and abortion does not qualify there. So that is what I was trying to mean.

The problem with people who consider themselves Vatican II Catholics is they often look to the Council as the root and beginning of their theology of Church, as if it wiped away the teaching that preceded it. And yes, there is much in the Council documents that was stated ambiguously, and that is a failing. Often this was on purpose at a time when the Church needed to speak clearly.

 

[dyspepsic]

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?

I think you are huffiing and puffing about nothing. Kasper made is quite clear that he was not revisiting Apostolicae Curae of Leo XIII, nor was he re-interpreting the Primacy of Peter.

Both of these are acknowledged by him to beyond his ‘pay grade’.
Image a mere cardinal, which has not power of Order in the Church redefining the Infallibility of the Pope, or contravening the encyclical of Leo XIII on Anglican Orders.

You are well over your heads if you think that Kasper has any power or authority to redefine anything. It took an ecumenical council to define Infallibility, and Leo XIII took especial care on the definition of Anglican Orders. BTW, do you believe Leo’s determination of Anglican Orders was a defined statement of faith, that it is 'de fide definita"?

By the way, I found his address overall to be very encouraging for Christian unity.

What are you doing for Christian unity, or do you even care?

 

[dyspepsic]

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

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

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

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

You are not quoting Kasper; you are quoting yourself:
“It is beyond the scope of our present context to discuss a re-evaluation of Apostolicae curiae”. I think that means he did not discuss the issue.

As for any dogma of the Church, there is nothing to be gained by re-examining a dogma, like the Immaculate Conception - not to change it, but to dig deeper into it and its implications, for example, Mary as Co-Redeemer with Jesus Christ.

You are a very narrow and limited view of the Faith, but that is what traditionalists do.

To you, re-examination means ‘change’, or ‘lessening’ rather than expansion. That is wrong to say.

 

[DustinsDad]

…the way, I found his address overall to be very encouraging for Christian unity. What are you doing for Christian unity, or do you even care?

But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.

Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be “one.” … This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.
- Vicar of Christ, Pope Pius XI, -

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I just want to add to what you have said that some Traditionalists say that they attended or saw a Protestant liturgy and it looks just like the NO mass. The reason is not because we copied their liturgy, but Vatican II had a great influence in many mainline Reformation communities and they also made changes to their liturgies in the same direction that we did.

Episcopalianas/Anglicans celebrated the Tridentine form. Lutherans went from a very simple Evangelical style to an eleborate Tridentine type of liturgy, depending on the congregation and the bishop.

It was Protestant liturgy that moved toward the Catholic liturgy, not the other way around.

Even the Book of Common Prayer used in the Anglican Communion now resembles more like the revised Liturgy of the Hours of the Catholics.

JR

What you wrote above is exactly backwards. The Novus Ordo does not look like Protestant liturgies because the Potestants have copied us. The Novus Ordo looks like a Protestant liturgies because it implemented all of the external changes that the herertics did in the 16th century. For example…

The heretics of the 16th century began to use a vernacular liturgy, just like the Novus Ordo

The heretics implemented communion in the hand, just like the Novus Ordo.

The heretics implemented communion under both kinds, while standing, just like in the Novus Ordo.

The heretics had the minister face the people, just like in the Novus Ordo.

The heretics eliminared Gregorian chant and replaced it with secular music, just like the Novus Ordo.

You should read Michaels Davies book Cranmer’s Godly Order for a detailed look at the liturgical changes of the 16th century heretics and the exact parallel with the Novus Ordo.

 

[JReducation]

What you wrote above is exactly backwards. The Novus Ordo does not look like Protestant liturgies because the Potestants have copied us. The Novus Ordo looks like a Protestant liturgies because it implemented all of the external changes that the herertics did in the 16th century. For example…

The heretics of the 16th century began to use a vernacular liturgy, just like the Novus Ordo

The heretics implemented communion in the hand, just like the Novus Ordo.

The heretics implemented communion under both kinds, while standing, just like in the Novus Ordo.

The heretics had the minister face the people, just like in the Novus Ordo.

The heretics eliminared Gregorian chant and replaced it with secular music, just like the Novus Ordo.

You should read Michaels Davies book Cranmer’s Godly Order for a detailed look at the liturgical changes of the 16th century heretics and the exact parallel with the Novus Ordo.

Could we say that the Holy Spirit is pushing us toward unity without giving up the essential, the Eucharist?

Also, elminnation of Gregorian chant from the liturgy and replacing with with Laudas in the vernacular and plain chant was done by St. Francis for all parishes and houses where his Brothers served. This happened between 1221 and 1226. No one is sure as to the exact date. But it is traced back to the founding of the order and his death.

JR

 

[dyspepsic]

What you wrote above is exactly backwards. The Novus Ordo does not look like Protestant liturgies because the Potestants have copied us. The Novus Ordo looks like a Protestant liturgies because it implemented all of the external changes that the herertics did in the 16th century. For example…

The heretics of the 16th century began to use a vernacular liturgy, just like the Novus Ordo

The heretics implemented communion in the hand, just like the Novus Ordo.

The heretics implemented communion under both kinds, while standing, just like in the Novus Ordo.

The heretics had the minister face the people, just like in the Novus Ordo.

The heretics eliminared Gregorian chant and replaced it with secular music, just like the Novus Ordo.

You should read Michaels Davies book Cranmer’s Godly Order for a detailed look at the liturgical changes of the 16th century heretics and the exact parallel with the Novus Ordo.

I don’t know whether what you say is correct, that the changes in the Mass were initiated by the Reformers in the 16th Century.

Truth is they eliminated the Mass, and the altar, and the crucifix, and the Sacrifice, and Orders, and the Eucharist - so, how have we copied them?

If you walked into a Puritan chapel in early America, was that church like ours? And where were the images of the saints, and stained glass windows - they were all removed. And kneelers, and altar rails? Where were they? And doesn’t our Canon say,
“Memento, Domine, famulorum famularumque tuarum N. et N et omunium circumstantium…” There were no pews or seats or kneelers in the early church - people were standing around (circumstantium)?

Traditionalists come up with all this nonsense. If a thing is good, use it, even if you have to give credit to Martin Luther (although I don’t know of anything you would have to give him credit for).

If some of them had good ideas that you suggest, which I do not admit, so what? If it is a good idea, it has nothing to do with being ‘Protestant’ - it is just a good idea.

You are very narrow-minded, Pax. How about a lot more Caritas?

 

[stmaria]

=dyspepsic;3535736]You are not quoting Kasper; you are quoting yourself:
“It is beyond the scope of our present context to discuss a re-evaluation of Apostolicae curiae”. I think that means he did not discuss the issue.

As Cardinal Kasper said, " It is beyond the scope of our **present **context to discuss a re-evaluation of Apostolicae curiae"
Just a matter of time my friend.

To you, re-examination means ‘change’, or ‘lessening’ rather than expansion. That is wrong to say.

You need to re-read Cardinal Kasper

" 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. This does not at all mean that there are still not enormous problems in terms of what such a ministry of unity should look like, how it should be administered, whether and to what degree it should have jurisdiction and whether under certain circumstances it could make infallible statements in order to guarantee the unity of the Church and at the same time the legitimate plurality of local churches. …, I envision communion as participation in the same faith, and participation in the same sacraments, especially sharing at the same table of the Lord; and I envision it also through the mutual recognition of the ministry of episcope in apostolic succession and in communion with the Petrine ministry, the dogmatic understanding and practice of which is re-interpreted and re-received in the light of the whole tradition of the Church and with regard to the current needs of the Church. In this way the churches remain churches in legitimate diversity and retain the best of their traditions while yet becoming one Church, which praises God with one voice and gives unanimous witness to the world for justice, reconciliation and peace.
Ecumenism is not countersigned by loss but by mutual enrichment, the authentic understanding of which is not that we convert to the other Church **but that all convert to Christ; and in him, who is our unity and our peace, we shall truly be one. Thus we do not advocate an ecumenism of return. Ecumenism is not a way back; it is a way ahead in the future."