E
edwest2
Guest
Can you direct me to an article that states many priests see no difference between Catholicism and other religions? Can you define Ecumenism?
Peace,
Ed
- Status
Peace,
Ed
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
And we pray that never changes, but it is painful at times to see people question their faith or church because they misinterpret a phrase, sentence or section of the CCC, for example (how many such OPs have we seen on CAF?). Some, like St. Thomas Aquinas, were incredibly gifted and blessed in that they could express their faith in both word and deed. Not all of us are so gifted academically, and have to rely more on a developed sense of faith. One can study and read all as much as humanly possible, but that doesn’t guarantee at the end that one will accept what one has learned as Truth. At some point, even for the most gifted of academics, Faith has to kick in …
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
What then should we be doing with this “wonderful product”? Should we as Catholics remain alone as on a desert island? or engage with fellow Christians and members of other faiths regularly as witnesses of the Truth we profess?
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t expect a publisher to put warning labels on a book. If one reads the introduction or the preface, I can’t recall which, one of them explicitly says that this is the resource that future catechisms should use. It does not say, “Hand this over to people and you’re done.”
Some people thought that because it seemed simple enough then they read it, that it needed other complimentary book. They believed this until they started getting questions.
OH, that makes sense. Thanks.
Ecumenism actually began in the 1200s with the Franciscans and the Muslims. The Church agree to establish the Custody of the Holy Land in Jerusalem. The Franciscans were to run it. The Muslims agreed to this, because the Egyptian Muslims had a favorable encounter with St. Francis. However, the Muslims insisted that the friars not proselytize to the Muslims. The Church agreed to this.
The friars would go to the Holy Land to care for the Christian places and the Christian people. They would provide any material assistance to the Muslims and Jews as needed, but would not try to preach to them. The Franciscans were great for the job, because they were always of the belief that evangelization was best when the friars lived an exemplary life in the presence of others. They never felt the need to proselytize those who did not want to be preached at. To this day, they do not do this. If people want to hear preaching, they preach. If people don’t want to hear it, they simply preach by their presence.
The term ecumenism developed centuries later, but not the concept or the practice. The Dominicans and Jesuits would also engage in it. Though some of the Jesuits were reported to have been ruthless missionaries, which was not the idea. For the most part, they were very patient and won people over by their kindness and their effort to understand their culture and worldview. The Dominicans and Franciscans won people over by fighting for their social rights. The Dominicans and Franciscans actually challenged the European monarchs when they allowed the Catholics to abuse the local people or to threaten them with death if they did not get baptized.
Originally ecumenism was practiced by inviting people to hear you out, by living an exemplary life among non-believers, by practicing charity toward all, by defending human rights and being honorable, by backing down and waiting patiently when the other told you that he did not want to hear what you had to say. It also involved including many local customs even religious customs into daily Christian life. I’ll never forget the first Asian Nativity that I ever saw. It had the cutest Japanese Jesus.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
TimothyH
Guest
As I unerstand it, that was the whole point of Vatican II.Interesting. I don’t see what is hard about the CCC?
With the advent of the internet and not to mention the fact that a lot of people have college degrees, I think the average person is very well educated.
Now the Summa Theologica, is another matter…
For the first time in history, much of the laity in the pews were as educated and sometimes more educated than the priest giving the homily. Much of Church teaching which had formerly been reserved for educated people and theologians was made available to a public which was becoming increasingly more educated and knowledgeable. Who could have foreseen the internet?
To that point however, I tried to read the Summa once. I thought I would take it out of the library and read it. I stuck with it for about 50 pages and then brought it back. The next day I thanked my priest for having gone to seminary and having studied the Summa so that he could explain it to the rest of us. Some things are still sacred, I guess.
Maybe Vatican III will address that somehow. 
-Tim-
M
MarkThompson
Guest
That is not really the right way to think about it, though. On that reasoning one could say, “God clearly wishes that we should be happy here on earth. He put many delightful things here for our enjoyment, put the fruitful plants and delicious animals at our disposal, and so on. Therefore, the more I focus on trying to gratify myself, the more I will be pleasing God.” This is a sort of conception of love that turns in on itself, since it acknowledges that God’s love means he desires what is best for us, and concludes that the best way to show our love of God is, then, to pursue our own interests.
W
westboro
Guest
“he who loves THIS life will lose it, he who hates THIS life will gain eternal life”
M
MarkThompson
Guest
No, it is definitely “his life” (Greek αὐτοῦ, Latin suam), not “this life.” I’m not sure where you’re getting that quote from.
T
TrueLight
Guest
I’m not talking about hostility here at all. Of course hostility doesn’t work. You can still build schools, feed the poor, stand up for human rights, and preach an effective, direct Gospel while being compassionate. I don’t see them as mutually exclusive.
Ha ha. I’m getting through it little by little but not as quickly as I get through most books. It’s like a class.To that point however, I tried to read the Summa once. I thought I would take it out of the library and read it. I stuck with it for about 50 pages and then brought it back. The next day I thanked my priest for having gone to seminary and having studied the Summa so that he could explain it to the rest of us. Some things are still sacred, I guess.
-Tim-
W
westboro
Guest
I stand corrected! Thanks…
J
JReducation
Guest
Try sitting through two years of it, with very good professors. You still want to pull your hairs out one by one.As I unerstand it, that was the whole point of Vatican II.
For the first time in history, much of the laity in the pews were as educated and sometimes more educated than the priest giving the homily. Much of Church teaching which had formerly been reserved for educated people and theologians was made available to a public which was becoming increasingly more educated and knowledgeable. Who could have foreseen the internet?
To that point however, I tried to read the Summa once. I thought I would take it out of the library and read it. I stuck with it for about 50 pages and then brought it back. The next day I thanked my priest for having gone to seminary and having studied the Summa so that he could explain it to the rest of us. Some things are still sacred, I guess.
-Tim-
There were to pieces of work that I prayed I would never have to analyze again:
- The Summa - Aquinas
- Itinerarium - Bonaventure
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
Obviously, I misunderstood what you meant.
Hmmm . . . talk about language problems
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
That is too bad.Try sitting through two years of it, with very good professors. You still want to pull your hairs out one by one.
There were to pieces of work that I prayed I would never have to analyze again:
Fraternally,
- The Summa - Aquinas
- Itinerarium - Bonaventure
Br. JR, OSF
I would love nothing more than a legitimately good Catholic professor to open the Summa for me. As it is, it’s work, struggle and effort. But once I acquire understanding, that understanding is immeasurably rich and rewarding and excellently suited for defending the Faith.
P
PJM
Guest
There is no “loop-hole” except perhaps of wrong understanding.
This Doctrine has not been “changed” at id foundation: “ALL Salvation MUSt and does Flow through the CC” … is true when declared and remains true today.
But A DEEPER and FULLER understnading has now been supplied; guided by the holy Spirt: God Himself.
If my memory serves this Doctrine dates to before the Protestant Revolution.
Well now that history has changed the face of Religious beliefs; what “is” IS !" God entends salvation be possible to all.
What this “new” statement says is that ANYONE WHO NOT THROUGH THEIR OWN FAULT does not know Jesus Christ and the essentials he commads for salvation MIGHT by virtue of a common baptism and a common belief in God; STILL THROUGH THE MERITS of Christ and the Key to the Kingdome entrusted to Peter; still through the CC, MIGHT be able to merit salvation.
MIGHT like “if” is a very BIG WORD.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Offering an alternative formulation of a particular doctrine is not the same thing as changing it.
Teachers do this all the time. They try to explain something to their students. If all they see are blank faces, they try to re-word their explanation so that the students will understand it. There’s nothing wrong with that. There is often more than one way to explain something.
Our first impulse should be that the teaching has not changed. The alternative is that the recent popes have no qualms about changing doctrines willy-nilly. That’s a dangerous road to go down, my friend.
J
JReducation
Guest
I acquired the understanding; but that does not mean that studying it was fun. It was very hard work for a number of reasons.
- It’s not the only course you take. You’re taking it along with at least four other courses.
- It requires that you recall everything that you learned in philosophy as an undergraduate student. Professors don’t explain much about what Thomas says. They teach you his method. Then they watch you use it in order to explain yourself. No one sits there and says, “This is what Thomas had to say about the Immaculate Conception and this is why he was wrong.” You have to use the method to answer the question. As you go through it, you realize where Thomas made his mistake. If it’s something on which he was right, it works the other way. As you go through it, you realize how he got there. There was only one class that was an overview of Thomas.
- Even though both are Scholastic, Thomas and Bonaventure are different. The stress was that we learn Bonaventure well. We were often asked to compare and contrast Again, if you’re taking less courses, this can be very exciting. If you’re taking 96 credits just to get a Master’s degree, this becomes many long hours of work.
The exam is not on Thomas. It’s a question that has six questions and four propositions in it. You have to draw from Thomas et al to answer it. It can take from an hour to two hours to answer. You get several of these exams in one week , each with two or three of these loaded questions.
If you were a religious,you had religious formation at the same time. Theology was only four years, if you were not going beyond the M.Div. Religious formation is 6 to 10 years.
That’s what made it very challenging and you finished you day with a fried brain. I’ll tell you, most theology students get very little sleep, but when they sleep, they’re like logs.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
TimothyH
Guest
Doing lectio on a repair manual for a 1982 Ford truck would have been more productive for me.Try sitting through two years of it, with very good professors. You still want to pull your hairs out one by one.
There were to pieces of work that I prayed I would never have to analyze again:
Fraternally,
- The Summa - Aquinas
- Itinerarium - Bonaventure
Br. JR, OSF
-Tim-
E
edwest2
Guest
What was the whole point of Vatican II? I don’t think the internet makes people more educated in general.As I unerstand it, that was the whole point of Vatican II.
For the first time in history, much of the laity in the pews were as educated and sometimes more educated than the priest giving the homily. Much of Church teaching which had formerly been reserved for educated people and theologians was made available to a public which was becoming increasingly more educated and knowledgeable. Who could have foreseen the internet?
To that point however, I tried to read the Summa once. I thought I would take it out of the library and read it. I stuck with it for about 50 pages and then brought it back. The next day I thanked my priest for having gone to seminary and having studied the Summa so that he could explain it to the rest of us. Some things are still sacred, I guess.
-Tim-
Peace,
Ed
A
Albino_Luciani
Guest
“What was the whole point of Vatican II?”
The best answer by way of analogy is a computer virus. Follow that up with a New Mass and you’ve got the “rebellion” predicted by the Apostle Paul in II Thessalonians ii.
The best answer by way of analogy is a computer virus. Follow that up with a New Mass and you’ve got the “rebellion” predicted by the Apostle Paul in II Thessalonians ii.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Explain what this means, exactly.
- Status