D
DustinsDad
Guest
Could you point me to a few of the more “hate filled” posts…I’d like to see what in the world you are referring to. I could do the same for you if you like. It could be a very illuminating experience for the both of us. Feel free to PM me if you like, so as not to distract the thread.Yes, your posts have more hatred and sarcasm than anybody else’s. MULTO. MUCHO.
It was said that they existed.For example, here’s where it started:*JReducation: On Ecumenism he remembered what Bishop Fulton Sheen had preached and taught. “Ecumenism is not to bring all men to the same church, but to bring all men to Christ in whatever way Christ chooses to bring them. Ecumenism is a call to kneel together and pray for the Holy Spirit to help all of us to remember and undestand Christ’s message. Catholics and others have much to learn about Christ’s will for humanity. What happens after that, only Christ knows.” *It is true. We haven’t any statements from Sheen regarding Ecumenism. But, we don’t have any statements from him against. So what?
I think he and the brother should perhaps have heeded what the brother himself said next:JReducation: Brother said that we should not put words into Ecumenism that are not there or our own goals into it.
It looks terribly like that is exactly what was done - words put into Bishop Sheens’s mouth regarding ecumenism that no one can seem to trace…words meant to back up a particular view of what the goal of ecumenism is. All the while, Sheen’s actual words that I quoted are looked at (by you) in shock and horror - but why? He’s merely preaching what the Catholic Church preached and taught for centuries? Why is that so shocking to you?
Now if Bishop Sheen at some later date said what JR claimed, I’d like to see it. Truly I would. Unfortunately it doesn’t sound like anything I’ve ever heard come out of his mouth, especially this “Ecumenism is not to bring all men to the same church” alleged statement. The only way I wouldn’t be genuinely surprised by this statement is if it was uttered in a critique of the modern approach, rather than an enthusiastic embracing of it.
This whole angle of discussion of Bishop Sheen reminds me of the attempts to turn St. Francis into a modern day ecumenist - a peace loving hippie or some such thing more interested in “dialogueing” with the Sultan rather than someone who was zealous for Holy Mother Church, marching into the jaws of death to convert the Muslims to Holy Mother Church to save their souls (see here and here).
Is pointing this out “hate filled”? Hardly - it’s a genuine concern for historical truth. And while it’s not big “T” Truth, it’s still truth. And it’s serious business. We should not “tweak” history (or reputtions) in order to try and “win an argument.” Heed the words of Pope John XXIII:Anyone who consciously and wantonly attacks known truth, who arms himself with falsehood in his speech, his writings, or his conduct in order to attract and win over less learned men and to shape the inexperienced and impressionable minds of the young to his own way of thinking, takes advantage of the inexperience and innocence of others and engages in an altogether despicable business.
(AD PETRI CATHEDRAM, 11)
You might want to take such into consideration as well when accusing others of sedevacantism, schism, and being “hate filled.”
Now as a preemptive response to your forthcoming retort…if I see posts that look to be influenced by modernist thought, I’ll say so - but I’ll say so by pointing out where and how and why I see it, and I’ll use Church documents and such (with citations and sources) to back up my positions - and await a response. This is a discussion board after all - not a lecture circuit.
Well, I for one don’t go around quoting things someone “might” have said…especially when they are so contrary to the body of writing and speaking and preaching of the person in question…and then get so ruffled when someone asks for a source.The 1932 and the 1965 Sheen were the same human being. That has nothing to do what he believed in 1932, and 1965. They could be entirely different, especially with Vat 2 intervening.
And if I’m seem to lack a little trust in the validity of such quotations that seem so incredulous - chalk it up to the “boy who cried wolf” phenomena. I think we’re a little beyond “take my word for it.” Unfortunately no doubt.
See ya,
DustinsDad
