"communicatio in sacris"

[cephas161619]

Do you have a link for the bolded portion? If yes, could you please post it or PM me with it…

I admit it is hearsay. I have searched but not been able to find backing. I have heard [much better! I am not saying it is true] that Luther considered himself a reformer rather than a break-er away-er. In my basic 10 minute research, it does appear that he had quite a reputation for rudeness and uncharity.

 

[Sirach2]

Address the post in which you stated that I stated an error. You can’t, can you ?

At Trent,

You have been trying to bait me repeatedly. I have said, no reply - you have your opinion (that you will take to your grave) and I have mine. Nevertheless, ruthless persistence pays sometimes.

1. You have misread my post completely. Read it again:

If anyone (never said YOU are in error, but I spoke rhetorically including the general public) 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 (not specifically addressing YOU with this pronoun) are not listening

1. Your words were:
   Not saying the Church has erred, but just pointing out that it can be fairly argued there is an obvious contradiction. What have I stated that is not true ?

Ok, the error is that the Church is in an “obvious contradiction.” The contradiction is that lay people are not capable of knowing in depth the Mind of the Church, but only those few phrases that they pull from documents which makes it “seem” to them like a contradiction. If you or I had the time to sit with the hundreds of Cardinals and Bishops who labored over the document wording and teaching, maybe the understanding of them would NOT be an APPARENT contradiction. These documents were not written for the laity, but for those Shepherds who would be responsible to take the teachings to their flock.

The error is in your proclaiming, using the word “obvious”, that the Church IS in contradiction, without comprehending the underlying understanding within the document, formed under the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

This is most likely going to fall on deaf ears, which is why you had no reply - NOT that I couldn’t answer it.

 

[Bigcat71]

Not going to argue with you Derek. SSPX also promotes the same error. Obviously, it is not the Church that is wrong, but you need to do some homework to understand the ecumenical documents and teaching of Vatican II.

Do you realize that in quoting the Council in 418 A.D. there was no other religion but Catholic? In stating that one should not pray with heretics, the Church was speaking truth. That is not the situation today, with thousands of denominations, who have valid baptism and are considered by the Church to be brothers in the Spirit, though not in fullness of Truth.

You are not entirely correct in this one. During the earlyThe early years of the Church there were hundreds of heretical groups roaming about. Pelagianists, Montanists, Donatists, Ebionites, Euchites, Marcionites etc etc ad nauseum. All of these groups, except posssibly the Ebionites and maybe them too, were validly baptized, in the Catholic Church, but separated themselves from the Church in order to pursue their own agendas in exactly the same fashion that the protestants have done. In fact, I would think if you look closely enough you will see that all of these heresies are still around in some fshion lurking within the various protestant sects and in some cases within the Catholic Church herself. .

 

[Sirach2]

Bigcat:

You are not entirely correct in this one. During the earlyThe early years of the Church there were hundreds of heretical groups roaming about. Pelagianists, Montanists, Donatists, Ebionites, Euchites, Marcionites etc etc ad nauseum. …but separated themselves from the Church

Notwithstanding the heretics who deliberatly separated themselves from the church, you do not have the same situation today. These unfortunate children of today’s culture did not choose their lot, i.e., to separate from Catholicism. The CCC teaches that one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities. They are validly baptized, received the indwelling Holy Spirit at their baptism, and are rightly called brethren, albeit not in fullness of truth.

God wishes to bring these unfortunate ones into the fold, and we cannot isolate ourselves from that mission under the false idea that dialog and common prayer are forbidden. This is a new circumstance unlike the Reformation where the choice to separate was made in a full conscious decision. As such, it needs a different pastoral approach, since these baptized separated brethren do truly love God and through no fault of their own, have not been born cradle Catholics. We are so blessed!!! I praise God very often for allowing me to be born in the faith.

We are not excused, my friend, from catechising, dialoging, teaching in full measure as the Lord leads us.

 

[At_Trent]

Let’s not leave out the specifics

1. 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. **

Also,
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."

So it’s clear that this new ecumenism isn’t the same as the traditional ecumenism of return.

Not saying the Church has erred, but just pointing out that it can be fairly argued there is an obvious contradiction.

At Trent,

You have been trying to bait me repeatedly. I have said, no reply - you have your opinion (that you will take to your grave) and I have mine. Nevertheless, ruthless persistence pays sometimes.

1. You have misread my post completely. Read it again:

If anyone (never said YOU are in error, but I spoke rhetorically including the general public) 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 (not specifically addressing YOU with this pronoun) are not listening

1. Your words were:
   Not saying the Church has erred, but just pointing out that it can be fairly argued there is an obvious contradiction. What have I stated that is not true ?

Ok, the error is that the Church is in an “obvious contradiction.” The contradiction is that lay people are not capable of knowing in depth the Mind of the Church, but only those few phrases that they pull from documents which makes it “seem” to them like a contradiction. If you or I had the time to sit with the hundreds of Cardinals and Bishops who labored over the document wording and teaching, maybe the understanding of them would NOT be an APPARENT contradiction. These documents were not written for the laity, but for those Shepherds who would be responsible to take the teachings to their flock.

The error is in your proclaiming, using the word “obvious”, that the Church IS in contradiction, without comprehending the underlying understanding within the document, formed under the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

This is most likely going to fall on deaf ears, which is why you had no reply - NOT that I couldn’t answer it.

Sorry, but copying and pasting parts of my separate post doesn’t cut it. And the bait accusation is silly.

 

[Sirach2]

Ah, my prophecy came true - it DID fall on deaf ears. Bait was a mild word. I really want to say “taunt” which was more like it.

Good day, At Trent.

Edit: For the record, the part I did NOT copy and paste as shown in your last post, was my own post #40. There was no need to copy/paste my own words again. I only addressed YOUR words in reply.

 

[At_Trent]

Ah, my prophecy came true - it DID fall on deaf ears. Bait was a mild word. I really want to say “taunt” which was more like it.

Good day, At Trent.

Edit: For the record, the part I did NOT copy and paste as shown in your last post, was my own post #40. There was no need to copy/paste my own words again. I only addressed YOUR words in reply.

well, if me asking you to explain an accusation is baiting and taunting to you, I don’t know what to say other than we just have different Catholic mindsets

yours is contemporary, mine is traditional

pax

 

[At_Trent]

Exactly, you’re looking to reject Church teaching in favor of whatever happens to be in vogue at the time. This is not Catholic. We have to consider the whole of Church teaching, not just whatever happens to be said most recently. Certainly, we cannot think that infallible Church teachings can be changed.

even the pope said as much

. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.
blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/12/official-text-of-popes-letter-to-bishops-on-williamson-affair/

 

[TrueLight]

Notwithstanding the heretics who deliberatly separated themselves from the church, you do not have the same situation today. These unfortunate children of today’s culture did not choose their lot, i.e., to separate from Catholicism. The CCC teaches that one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities. They are validly baptized, received the indwelling Holy Spirit at their baptism, and are rightly called brethren, albeit not in fullness of truth.

God wishes to bring these unfortunate ones into the fold, and we cannot isolate ourselves from that mission under the false idea that dialog and common prayer are forbidden. This is a new circumstance unlike the Reformation where the choice to separate was made in a full conscious decision. As such, it needs a different pastoral approach, since these baptized separated brethren do truly love God and through no fault of their own, have not been born cradle Catholics. We are so blessed!!! I praise God very often for allowing me to be born in the faith.

We are not excused, my friend, from catechising, dialoging, teaching in full measure as the Lord leads us.

I’m going to agree with everything you said here. There are a lot of Protestants who love God with all their heart and live to serve him.

The only issue I have with ecumenism is that it seems that some people are not willing to preach to these Protestants. I think Catholics should actively seek to share their faith with them.

I also differentiate between Protestants and other religions like Islam. I do not believe we should be saying Islam, Hindu, etc are A-okay.

 

[Sirach2]

Pope Benedict's address as quoted by At Trent:

[Omitted from quote] The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society.

But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.

The context of the last paragraph must flow from the sentence that was omitted, wherein the Holy Father clearly states the Church’s authority did not stop in 1962 prior to the Vatican Council II.

The key words are “reminded that VATICAN II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church.” Some erroneously refuse to believe that the Council documents embrace doctrinal history, and they do an ala-carte selectivity of that which they will believe and what they will denounce.

I note that the document under discussion in this topic, Unitatis Redintegratio, has 42 footnotes. When a layman peruses the document without being present for the many discussions on the footnotes that were discussed in formulating this document, he misses the context entirely and ravages the teaching of the Church, usurping it with his own opinion.

 

[Sirach2]

True Light:

The only issue I have with ecumenism is that it seems that some people are not willing to preach to these Protestants. I think Catholics should actively seek to share their faith with them.

It takes a lot of prayer, asking the Lord to prepare the soil for our seed. Sometimes, as I have learned the hard way, there are bad seeds that will not germinate, no matter how well all the preparations have been made. As St. Paul wrote, “I planted, Apollos watered, but it is God who gives the growth.” Discerning readiness, the timing, and sometimes entering into the labors of others will be a process that we need to learn, with God’s help. But yes, we need to share our faith with enthusiasm, sometimes using words.

 

[At_Trent]

The key words are “reminded that VATICAN II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church.” Some erroneously refuse to believe that the Council documents embrace doctrinal history, and they do an ala-carte selectivity of that which they will believe and what they will denounce.

And that “some” can refer to both extreme liberals or radical trads

 

[TrueLight]

It takes a lot of prayer, asking the Lord to prepare the soil for our seed. Sometimes, as I have learned the hard way, there are bad seeds that will not germinate, no matter how well all the preparations have been made. As St. Paul wrote, “I planted, Apollos watered, but it is God who gives the growth.” Discerning readiness, the timing, and sometimes entering into the labors of others will be a process that we need to learn, with God’s help. But yes, we need to share our faith with enthusiasm, sometimes using words.

I appreciate you responding to me. I had given up saying anything in this thread as the conversation seemed to be between you, Melchior, VivaCristoRey and At Trent.

 

[Bigcat71]

Notwithstanding the heretics who deliberatly separated themselves from the church, you do not have the same situation today. These unfortunate children of today’s culture did not choose their lot, i.e., to separate from Catholicism. The CCC teaches that one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities. They are validly baptized, received the indwelling Holy Spirit at their baptism, and are rightly called brethren, albeit not in fullness of truth.

God wishes to bring these unfortunate ones into the fold, and we cannot isolate ourselves from that mission under the false idea that dialog and common prayer are forbidden. This is a new circumstance unlike the Reformation where the choice to separate was made in a full conscious decision. As such, it needs a different pastoral approach, since these baptized separated brethren do truly love God and through no fault of their own, have not been born cradle Catholics. We are so blessed!!! I praise God very often for allowing me to be born in the faith.

We are not excused, my friend, from catechising, dialoging, teaching in full measure as the Lord leads us.

Actually my friend,it is very close to being exactly the same thing. What about the children of the people in the groups I mentioned? Those groups lasted,in some cases for hundreds of years. The Church never allowed common worship with them.Never, but now it does.To me signifies there has been a radical departure from what the Church historically taught and what is taught now.

I am not saying or implying the Church is wrong, but she does teach something very different now. As as far as joint prayer and worship, I do have a problem with it, because when you associate with people on a regular basis thre is the danger of falling into their belief system, which is exactly the reason that the Church advises caution in attending SSPX Masses.

 

[Sirach2]

I am not saying or implying the Church is wrong, but she does teach something very different now. As as far as joint prayer and worship, I do have a problem with it, because when you associate with people on a regular basis thre is the danger of falling into their belief system, which is exactly the reason that the Church advises caution in attending SSPX Masses.

Are you not equating prayer in common with prayer in liturgical worship? Praying the universal “Our Father” with a brother in Christ is not going to be problematic. It is good to read that you heed the Church’s caution with regard to worship.

I cannot speak for why the Church did not address the problem of children born in those ancient communities. These were “movements” rather than entire religions as they exist today after the Reformation, and many of them died out. Not so in our global culture with millions of souls living in these other faiths. I don’t see any numerical or comparative significance of children in these movements to warrant the Church’s intervention of the magnitude in today’s societies. Nor were there over 2,000 bishops/cardinals gathered, such as in this Council, providing their collective spiritual insight to grapple with this problem.

Dei Verbum, a very important V-II document had this to say:

1. This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth.** For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.**

Sunday’s gospel (OF) speaks rather timely to us now:
"Do you understand all these things?”
They answered, “Yes.”
And he replied,
“Then every scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven
is like the head of a household who brings from his storeroom both the new and the old.”

 

[TrueLight]

Actually my friend,it is very close to being exactly the same thing. What about the children of the people in the groups I mentioned? Those groups lasted,in some cases for hundreds of years.

That’s very interesting. One can only hope that over time. the majority of the misguided Protestant children of God (Jesus’ other sheep), will flock back to Catholicism.

Five hundred years from now, we’ll be discussing how our ancestors dealt with the Protestant heresy, on what passes for the internet, or maybe we will be able to connect to the internet with out minds.

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

Notwithstanding the heretics who deliberatly separated themselves from the church, you do not have the same situation today. These unfortunate children of today’s culture did not choose their lot, i.e., to separate from Catholicism. The CCC teaches that one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities.

The fact that the vast majority of Protestants are probably only material and not formal heretics, doesn’t make their false religions any less heretical and therefore a Catholic cannot participate in their rites.

They are validly baptized, received the indwelling Holy Spirit at their baptism

This is not a true statement. While it is true for a Catholic, it is not true for a Protestant. Baptism outside the Church confers the character but not the effect of the Sacrament. Baptism outside the Church does not confer sanctifying grace and therefore those who receive it do not receive the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.

Our Lord said,
Mk 16:16:

He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

Those who are baptized but do not have right faith are not saved because they do not receive sanctifying grace due to their lack of right faith.
St. Augustine:

The comparison of the Church with Paradise shows us that men may indeed receive her baptism outside her pale, but that no one outside can either receive or retain the salvation of eternal happiness.

St. Augustine:

But to heretics we do not change their baptism. Why? Because they have baptism in the same way as a deserter has the soldier’s mark: just so these also have Baptism; they have it, but to be condemned thereby, not crowned. And yet if the deserter himself, being amended, begin to do duty as a soldier, does any man dare to change his mark?

Summa:

The Church’s intention in Baptizing men is that they may be cleansed from sin, according to Isaiah 27:9: “This is all the fruit, that the sin . . . should be taken away.” And therefore, as far as she is concerned, she does not intend to give Baptism save to those who have right faith, without which there is no remission of sins. And for this reason she asks those who come to be baptized whether they believe. If, on the contrary, anyone, without right faith, receive Baptism outside the Church, he does not receive it unto salvation.

(Now, this does not refer to the baptism of infants to whom the Church lends Her Faith when the baptism takes place outside the Church just as much as She does to those children baptized within the Church. Thus infants who are baptized but die apparently outside the Church actually die within the Church and go to Heaven rather than Limbo.)

This was the Church’s conclusion to the debate in the early Church whether or not baptism outside the Church is valid – it is valid but without effect. Thus we do not re-baptize converts but only when they convert do they receive the Holy Ghost and the remission of their sins.

What you are suggesting is that there is no substantial difference between baptism in the Church and baptism by heretics, which is simply not true. A sincere non-Catholic may be saved through membership in voto in the Catholic Church (“the soul of the Church”) but is not saved simply by the fact of being baptized – it is on a case-by-case basis. It is certainly false to suggest that the entire non-Catholic world or even all Protestants are members in voto of the Catholic Church. Their baptism is ineffective, though they may receive sanctifying grace in another way (perfect contrition and love) in the infinite mercy and justice of God.

 

[Melchior_1]

There could be a middle ground here which could explain things.

The initial documents speak about a prohibition in actively participating within the liturgy in other faiths, whereas Vatican II’s documents essentially authorizes public prayer with other Christians (such as praying in front of an abortion “clinic” together) yet doesn’t speak about going to/attending others liturgical events. These two aren’t contradictory, and therefore can be reconciled.

The real question I suppose is what is considered “liturgy” versus something like a prayer meeting or Bible study.

 

[TrueLight]

This is not a true statement. While it is true for a Catholic, it is not true for a Protestant. Baptism outside the Church confers the character but not the effect of the Sacrament. Baptism outside the Church does not confer sanctifying grace and therefore those who receive it do not receive the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.

Our Lord said,

So I should get baptized again? I think not.

Even an SSPX priest told me that most Protestants are validly baptized.

 

[Sirach2]

The fact that the vast majority of Protestants are probably only material and not formal heretics, doesn’t make their false religions any less heretical and therefore a Catholic cannot participate in their rites.

Is it asking too much to read the posts before injecting comments that have already been acceded to? It has been said a few times that we recognize that we cannot participate in their rites. Permission is granted only for common prayer. Maybe you don’t understand the difference.

VivaCristoRey:

This was the Church’s conclusion to the debate in the early Church whether or not baptism outside the Church is valid – it is valid but without effect.

There it is again - the early Church, frozen in time before 1962. You are not accepting of V-II’s documents, so it is probably useless for me to quote the Church’s teaching, but for the sake of others who are misguided by your post, I share Lumen Gentium:

1. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*)

They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits.

Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*)

Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

Is this from the annals of VivaCristoRey?

It is certainly false to suggest that the entire non-Catholic world or even all Protestants are members in voto of the Catholic Church.

Again, Article 7 from LG teaches:

1. By communicating His Spirit

, Christ made His brothers, called together from all nations, mystically the components of His own Body.

In that Body the life of Christ is poured into the believers who, through the sacraments, [which includes baptism, by which they receive “His Spirit”] are united in a hidden and real way to Christ who suffered and was glorified.(6*) Through Baptism we are formed in the likeness of Christ: “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body”.

As I mentioned earlier, the Church does not speak in a vacuum or isolation, but in many other teaching documents.

Mystici Corporis: He also determined that through Baptism [27] those who should believe would be incorporated in the Body of the Church. [That includes believing, baptized Protestants]

Ut Unum Sint: 42. It happens for example that, in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, Christians of one confession no longer consider other Christians as enemies or strangers but see them as brothers and sisters. Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions.

These are off the top of my head, and there are doubtless many others, but I’m not going to do the research for you. Furthermore, your placing the words of Saints above the Magisterium does not override the Church’s teachings. They were saintly men, but not endowed with Jesus’s Keys to Peter.