V
VivaCristoRey27
Guest
What does this topic have to do with the SSPX?
Eh?So truth changed? So a grave sin suddenly became no longer a sin?
The point being?
What does that mean?
Or, in other words, in error or heresy.
- Status
Eh?
W
Walking_Home
Guest
So how far from the protestants is a Catholic to be. What would be joining prayers.
V
VivaCristoRey27
Guest
Which doesn’t mean that Catholics – whether Latin or Eastern – can attend Orthodox Divine Liturgies.
V
VivaCristoRey27
Guest
Attending a Protestant service or meeting, for instance.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
What Sirach was saying that there were no other Christians during the 400’s. Thus praying with others would mean praying with pagans. Nowadays we have folks like the Anglicans who have valid Baptisms, which wasn’t around in the 400’s.
Using that logic, there is no contradiction between V2 and the 400’s. The 400’s were talking about pagans, V2 was talking about those who share Baptism.
Also, saying V2 “was wrong” is a dangerous line to cross. You can say “people took V2 the wrong way”, but to outright say “V2 is wrong, the documents are wrong” is slippery ground that is best left for others to tread.
Using that logic, there is no contradiction between V2 and the 400’s. The 400’s were talking about pagans, V2 was talking about those who share Baptism.
Also, saying V2 “was wrong” is a dangerous line to cross. You can say “people took V2 the wrong way”, but to outright say “V2 is wrong, the documents are wrong” is slippery ground that is best left for others to tread.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
You mean I can’t pray with my mother-in-law (she’s non-denominational)? My wife can’t pray with her mother?
My mother-in-law can’t attend Mass with us when she visits? Or even better; my mother-in-law goes to Mass and I’m the one that has to go to Confession?
My mother-in-law can’t attend Mass with us when she visits? Or even better; my mother-in-law goes to Mass and I’m the one that has to go to Confession?
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Walking_Home:
Attending a Protestant service or meeting, for instance.
I was asking about praying in front of an abortion clinic.
V
VivaCristoRey27
Guest
So all these heretical sects that existed in the early Church didn’t really exist? This was the age of St. Athanasius +373], St. Cyril +386], St. Augustine +430] and all the great theological battles! These canons were forbidding praying with people that didn’t exist? What are you talking about?
Sorry, but the Church Fathers knew what they were talking about. Heretics are heretics, even if they have a valid baptism.
We must not treat Vatican II with more authority than it has. Why do you say it is a dangerous line to cross to say that Vatican II was wrong?
It was the consistent teaching of the whole Church, popes, Councils, the Church Fathers, the classic theologians and the Holy Office that communicatio in sacris is forbidden by Natural and Divine Positive Law. Vatican II says that it simply must not be used “indiscriminately”, sorry but sin should never be used and not just “indiscriminately”. The Modernists tried to say this wasn’t really Divine Positive Law but only a man-made ecclesiastical law and could be dispensed or changed, but this is false – it is directly contrary to Catholic teaching on this subject.
The ecumenical movement was condemned along with its underlying philosophies and ecclesiology. Then certain people within this and related movements gained power in the Church. Simply because they were able to gain power in the Church doesn’t make them now right and the first 1960 years of the Church wrong.
The Catholic teaching remains the same, the modern errors are simply errors that have already been long-condemned.
V
VivaCristoRey27
Guest
The Protestants can have their own prayer circles and we can pray our Rosaries or other prayers. But if a Protestant were to presume to lead everyone in prayer, a Catholic should not join his prayer to the Protestant one. This blurs the lines between the true religion and the false religions and leads to religious indifference.
V
VivaCristoRey27
Guest
Assuming the prayer in question is orthodox, it most likely falls under the principle of de minimis non curat lex (Wikipedia: De minimis). I believe I already mentioned this to Monica. I said there’s probably nothing wrong with saying Grace before meals with her non-Catholic family but she should not attend an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy.
Non-Catholics are free to go to Mass, indeed they should be encouraged because it may help them in their conversion. The Mass is divided into the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful because in the early Church non-Catholics, catechumens and public penitents were not allowed to stay for the Mass of the Faithful (that is, the Eucharistic Sacrifice) because it is preeminently holy. The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom still maintains an explicit mention of this when the priest dismisses the catechumens, saying,
However, this practice was abandoned several centuries ago and everyone is permitted to stay for the Mass of the Faithful. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with a non-Catholic staying for the whole of the Mass, as long as they are respectful (and, of course, do not receive Communion).
A Catholic cannot attend a non-Catholic service, at least not actively participate in one. There have been certain fuzzy lines with regards to the Eastern Orthodox but that should not give people the impression that it’s a free-for-all even with regard to their Liturgies and certainly not with regard to Protestants. A Protestant public prayer meeting, whether it is held in front of an abortuary or in a “church” building, is the same thing. But short, simple, orthodox, private prayers, especially with the members of one’s own family, is something rather different.
A
At_Trent
Guest
Not saying, eh? The Church is not only speaking through this one paragraph #8, but has spoken clearly in numerous other documents and encyclicals. If anyone chooses to misinterpret Her teaching, then rest with your error. Bishops and priests all over the US and the world are engaging in ecumenical prayer. Obviously some are not listening.
So no error in my post. I’m not looking to argue either, but when someone states I’m in error, others see it (the accusation).At Trent, from past experience, no reply means I’m not looking forward to an argument, nor am I willing to repost the citations that have been all over this forum for years and months, all of which you have assuredly seen.
So, no, you keep your own opinion - I’ll keep mine.
So can you just admit there is no error in my post in question ? I may be wrong at times, but not now. Unless you want to explain something I’m missing here
V
VivaCristoRey27
Guest
To reiterate, my point with regards to Vatican II was not to say “Vatican II is an evil, heretical robber council!” like the sedevacantists do. My intent was simply to say that one should not treat every sentence in every document of Vatican II like a verse from Sacred Scripture, certainly it cannot overturn previous infallibly-defined dogmas of the Faith. We must neither treat it excessively harshly nor as something sacrosanct but simply as it was intended and understand it only in light of Tradition.
“Unitatis Redintegratio” seems to be in blatant contradiction to perennial Church teaching and to papal encyclicals issued only a few years earlier, like Pope Pius XI’s “Mortalium Animos”.
The Catholic religion is the true religion, revealed by God. All other religions – Christian or non-Christian – are false religions. We cannot participate in the rites or prayers of false religions, that is sacrilege and a grave sin. Saying that communicatio in sacris should not be used “indiscriminately” implies that it may be used in certain cases. The document in question states, “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.” Sorry, but there is no grace to be had for a Catholic to participate in the sacrilegious rites of false religions. If you want grace, go to the font of grace – the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is through offering Mass for the conversion of sinners, heretics and schismatics to the true faith that you will find Christian unity, not through humanistic ecumenical meetings.
Pope Pius XI said:
S
Sirach2
Guest
At Trent:
Incidentally, if you are open some day, today’s search pulled 883 posts on ecumenism. I would simply be repeating what others have already shared, with absolutely no avail, since you are presently closed.
Whenever someone posts a strong statement that they “will take to their deathbed,” do you believe I should attempt to debate with any hope whatsoever of a change of mind and heart?So can you just admit there is no error in my post in question ? I may be wrong at times, but not now. Unless you want to explain something I’m missing here
When the Jews could not accept Jesus’s teaching in John Chapter 6 on the Eucharist and walked away, He did not run after them. Nor does the Church run after any who do not accept Her solemn teachings. Jesus reminds us, “He who hears YOU, hears ME.” Enough said. You are free to walk away.
Incidentally, if you are open some day, today’s search pulled 883 posts on ecumenism. I would simply be repeating what others have already shared, with absolutely no avail, since you are presently closed.
S
Sirach2
Guest
VivaCristoRey,
You are back only a couple days, and it’s *business as usual, *disagreeing with the Church.
You are back only a couple days, and it’s *business as usual, *disagreeing with the Church.
I have a question for you. If a banned member attempts to by-pass forum’s discipline and returns repeatedly under a false identity, does that indicate a person of integrity who walks in the Spirit, to whom I should listen?
T
TrueLight
Guest
Well, my kids are Protestant, so I attend church with them once a month or so. I sort of feel like I abandoned them even though they say they don’t care whether I come to church with them or not.
Also, I do sing with the choir that same once a month in the Fall through Spring. The weird thing is I said I would not quit that choir under any circumstance and lately I have been having second thoughts.
I’m confident God will show me which course I should take.
Also, I do sing with the choir that same once a month in the Fall through Spring. The weird thing is I said I would not quit that choir under any circumstance and lately I have been having second thoughts.
I’m confident God will show me which course I should take.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
“Sorry, but the Tradition is right, Vatican II is wrong”>
Whoever said this; Vatican II is a part of the Tradition. Please try again.
Whoever said this; Vatican II is a part of the Tradition. Please try again.
C
cephas161619
Guest
This is an interesting discussion, but doesn’t seem to be discussing communicatio in sacra anymore. Maybe we could start a different thread to discuss what constitutes a legitimate Church Council and what are the different types of Church Councils.
S
Sirach2
Guest
It has been keeping on topic, but it went astray with private interpretations of this lawful document from Vatican II, which deals with “communicatio in sacris” and also teaches that inter-faith prayer is “allowable” and “desirable.” Some have taken this off topic to project their disagreement with Church teaching, sorry to say.
*8. This change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name, “spiritual ecumenism.” *
In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers “for unity,” and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren. “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”.
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.
D
Derek_Ellery
Guest
Why don’t you?
*Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: *
The Holy Roman Church has declared “communicatio in sacris” is, and always has been, forbidden. Vatican 2 didn’t seek to redefine, nor could it have, this timelessly infallible teaching.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Vatican II, a legit Council, is also infallible. No different than any other Council. You cannot reject a council. To reject Vatican II as invalid and filled with errors is no different than rejecting Trent.
You can reject what some may have made the Council out to be, but the documents in their purest form are the teachings of the Catholic Church. If you reject them, you reject the Church.
- Status