Debating Ecumenism

[palmas85]

So what’s the goal of ecumenism?

I doubt that you will receive a good answer to this question, particulary from those who throw their full weight behind it.

 

[thecoach]

So what’s the goal of ecumenism?

To bring unity to the Body of Christ.

 

[I_Believe]

What are some of the earliest documents on ecumenism ?

The 1928 one is the earliest one I’ve found so far.

 

[I_Believe]

" But the Only-begotten Son of God, when He commanded His representatives to teach all nations, obliged all men to give credence to whatever was made known to them by "witnesses preordained by God “…” His Holiness Pope Pius XI 1928

newadvent.org/library/docs_pi11ma.htm

Isn’t this saying we are to submit ourselves to the teachings of the Apostles and their successors ? I believe it is very clear.

To say all Christian denominations are part of The Church Of Christ, is to infer the Roman Catholic Church is but one of these parts. Going further, would we not also have to say that there are not, and never really have been any protestant churches ? Or no true schisms ?

 

[RomanRevert]

To bring unity to the Body of Christ.

Sounds like church speak. PC Dribble drabble… blah blah blah …

The goal of ecumenism is one of return to the True Church, the Holy Mother Church. Anything else is false. The big tent is false. The Church is here, has always been here, will always be here. The ONLY reason that I would have any desire to “understand” a heretic’s position is so that I could find a way to bring him back to the church. Period. End of discussion. If you demean that position, you essentially subscribe to the position that the Catholic Church is nothing more than another denomination… which is heresy.

Now, if this is what you actually meant and I misunderstood, apologies.

 

[DustinsDad]

You are right on the money RR. Let’s take a look at the exchange you refer to…
Pax et Caritas: So, in your opinion, is the goal of ecumenism to convert the Protestants, Orthodox, and others into the Roman Catholic Church?

thecoach: nope, and I think you know better than to think it does.

Pax et Caritas: What is the goal of ecumenism?

thecoach: To bring unity to the Body of Christ.
Unity without conversion? Unity without the same faith? Unity with different and contradictory versions of Truth?

Nuts.

DustinsDad

Sounds like church speak. PC Dribble drabble… blah blah blah …

The goal of ecumenism is one of return to the True Church, the Holy Mother Church. Anything else is false. The big tent is false. The Church is here, has always been here, will always be here. The ONLY reason that I would have any desire to “understand” a heretic’s position is so that I could find a way to bring him back to the church. Period. End of discussion. If you demean that position, you essentially subscribe to the position that the Catholic Church is nothing more than another denomination… which is heresy.

Now, if this is what you actually meant and I misunderstood, apologies.

 

[latinmasslover]

To bring unity to the Body of Christ.

JMJ

A very true answer, but incomplete. Please define, as you see it, “unity” and “Body of Christ.”

Let me ask this, would you marry somebody who had no love for your mother, your siblings, or respect for what you said? Somebody who said they loved you, but undermined you on most points, focusing only on the three or four things you had in common? I think this is the point the others are trying to get you to see (no offense meant in that statement ). If we truly love our neighbor we *want *them to come into the Church and benefit from the many gifts that God has given His Bride. There’s so much certaintly and comfort to be found in our Holy Mother (the Church…and in the Mother of God, or course, but here I mean The Church) that it would be selfish not to want to share it with others.

The main problem with ecumenism today is that doctrine isn’t really a focus, but just being buddy-buddy with everybody and being satisfied with the mediocre. Vatican II emphasizes dialogue between Catholics and non, but *only *when they are “properly prepared for this study…Such meetings require that those who take part in them under authoritative guidance be truly competent.” (Decree on Ecumenism Ch. 2, para. 9…bold is mine). The sad fact is that the average Catholic is very ignorant of the teachings of the Church and therefore have no business going to these “ecumenical gatherings,” as the loss of their faith is more likely to happen.

God Bless.

 

[thecoach]

Sounds like church speak. PC Dribble drabble… blah blah blah …

The goal of ecumenism is one of return to the True Church, the Holy Mother Church. Anything else is false. The big tent is false. The Church is here, has always been here, will always be here. The ONLY reason that I would have any desire to “understand” a heretic’s position is so that I could find a way to bring him back to the church. Period. End of discussion. If you demean that position, you essentially subscribe to the position that the Catholic Church is nothing more than another denomination… which is heresy.

Now, if this is what you actually meant and I misunderstood, apologies.

Then answer this, for I have asked twice an no on has been able to reply. If the primacy is Peter’s (and thus his successors) the why was James the head of the Church at Jerusalem? Why wasnt it Peter, if the primacy is his? Your narrow view of what is heresy is skewed. You are putting the vehicle ahead of the destination. Heresy, first and foremost, are untruths about God. I saw more of a defense of the Church than any defense of the relationship with Christ, which is the Church’s ONLY function.

 

[thecoach]

JMJ

A very true answer, but incomplete. Please define, as you see it, “unity” and “Body of Christ.”

Let me ask this, would you marry somebody who had no love for your mother, your siblings, or respect for what you said? Somebody who said they loved you, but undermined you on most points, focusing only on the three or four things you had in common? I think this is the point the others are trying to get you to see (no offense meant in that statement ). If we truly love our neighbor we *want *them to come into the Church and benefit from the many gifts that God has given His Bride. There’s so much certaintly and comfort to be found in our Holy Mother (the Church…and in the Mother of God, or course, but here I mean The Church) that it would be selfish not to want to share it with others.

The main problem with ecumenism today is that doctrine isn’t really a focus, but just being buddy-buddy with everybody and being satisfied with the mediocre. Vatican II emphasizes dialogue between Catholics and non, but *only *when they are “properly prepared for this study…Such meetings require that those who take part in them under authoritative guidance be truly competent.” (Decree on Ecumenism Ch. 2, para. 9…bold is mine). The sad fact is that the average Catholic is very ignorant of the teachings of the Church and therefore have no business going to these “ecumenical gatherings,” as the loss of their faith is more likely to happen.

God Bless.

Folks, you are losing site of the purpose of the CHurch itself. What is truth? WHat did Paul preach? You are putting the Church before CHrist Himself. There is no loss of faith. What is YOUR faith? If it is not in Christ, it is misplaced. The CHurch is to poreach salvation through Christ, not just by belonging to the club.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Then answer this, for I have asked twice an no on has been able to reply. If the primacy is Peter’s (and thus his successors) the why was James the head of the Church at Jerusalem?

Because James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, while Peter was the Bishop of Antioch, and then later Rome. As we know, there are numerous Bishops throughout the world, but Peter holds the Primacy over the others. This is necessary to preserve unity. If you have 100 chiefs, unity will quickly break down.

St. Cyprian of Carthage 251AD: “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ (Mt 16:18-19)… ‘On him (Peter) he builds his Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep’ (Jn 21:17), and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was (ie. apostles), but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all (the apostles) are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he (should) desert the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian of Carthage, 251 AD)

Catechism of the Council of Trent

*"The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father ‘hath made head over all the Church, which is his body’ [Eph. 1:22-23], the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair.

"It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church. This St. Jerome clearly perceived and clearly expressed when, in his work against Jovinian, he wrote: ‘One is elected that, by the appointment of a head, all occasion of schism may be removed’. In his letter to Pope Damasus the same holy Doctor writes: 'Away with envy, let the ambition of Roman grandeur cease! I speak to the successor of the fisherman, and to the disciple of the cross. Following no chief but Christ, I am united to communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house is profane; whosoever is not in the ark of Noah [an Old Testament type of the Catholic Church] shall perish in the flood.

"The same doctrine was long before established by Saint Irenaeus, and Cyprian. …Again, Optatus of Milevi says: ‘You cannot be excused on the score of ignorance, knowing as you do that in the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, who occupied it as head of the Apostles; in order that in that one chair the unity of the Church might be preserved by all, and that the other Apostles might not claim each a chair for himself; so that now he who erects another in opposition to this single chair is a schismatic and a prevaricator’.

" Later on St. Basil wrote: 'Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou are Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock . For Jesus bestows His dignities on others; He is a priest, and He makes priests; a rock, and He makes a rock; what belongs to Himself, He bestows on His servants’. “Lastly, St. Ambrose says: ‘Because he alone of all of them professed (Christ) he was placed above all’.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent pgs. 102 - 104).*

 

[thecoach]

Because James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, while Peter was the Bishop of Antioch, and then later Rome. As we know, there are numerous Bishops throughout the world, but Peter holds the Primacy over the others. This is necessary to preserve unity. If you have 100 chiefs, unity will quickly break down.

St. Cyprian of Carthage 251AD: “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ (Mt 16:18-19)… ‘On him (Peter) he builds his Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep’ (Jn 21:17), and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was (ie. apostles), but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all (the apostles) are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he (should) desert the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian of Carthage, 251 AD)

Catechism of the Council of Trent

*"The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father ‘hath made head over all the Church, which is his body’ [Eph. 1:22-23], the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair.

"It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church. This St. Jerome clearly perceived and clearly expressed when, in his work against Jovinian, he wrote: ‘One is elected that, by the appointment of a head, all occasion of schism may be removed’. In his letter to Pope Damasus the same holy Doctor writes: 'Away with envy, let the ambition of Roman grandeur cease! I speak to the successor of the fisherman, and to the disciple of the cross. Following no chief but Christ, I am united to communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house is profane; whosoever is not in the ark of Noah [an Old Testament type of the Catholic Church] shall perish in the flood.

"The same doctrine was long before established by Saint Irenaeus, and Cyprian. …Again, Optatus of Milevi says: ‘You cannot be excused on the score of ignorance, knowing as you do that in the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, who occupied it as head of the Apostles; in order that in that one chair the unity of the Church might be preserved by all, and that the other Apostles might not claim each a chair for himself; so that now he who erects another in opposition to this single chair is a schismatic and a prevaricator’.

" Later on St. Basil wrote: 'Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou are Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock . For Jesus bestows His dignities on others; He is a priest, and He makes priests; a rock, and He makes a rock; what belongs to Himself, He bestows on His servants’. “Lastly, St. Ambrose says: ‘Because he alone of all of them professed (Christ) he was placed above all’.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent pgs. 102 - 104).*

I know of any evidence to support your claim that Peter was BIshop of Antioch, though I may be showing ignorance. But by your reasoning, then the Eastern churches should have primacy, yes? ALso, that still doesnt make sense, still Jerusalem was the primary church at the time.

 

[DustinsDad]

Again coach, this post is not to chat with you (by your request), but to chat with others regarding your post.

Then answer this, for I have asked twice an no on has been able to reply. If the primacy is Peter’s (and thus his successors) the why was James the head of the Church at Jerusalem? Why wasnt it Peter, if the primacy is his? Your narrow view of what is heresy is skewed. You are putting the vehicle ahead of the destination. Heresy, first and foremost, are untruths about God. I saw more of a defense of the Church than any defense of the relationship with Christ, which is the Church’s ONLY function.

Looks like modern ecumenism may produce conversions after all…just not conversions to the One True Church. It more often produces conversions in the opposite direction - as is indicated by any and all objective studies on the factual statistics of the last 40 years or so. And as indicated in the post quoted above.

Never mind that the answer to the above question is simple:

Q: If the primacy is Peter’s (and thus his successors) the why was James the head of the Church at Jerusalem?

A: James was Bishop of Jerusalem. This didn’t mean he had supremacy over Peter. As indicated in Acts Chapter -
Acts 15: 7-12
And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also. And all the multitude held their peace…
Peter settled the dispute, and the disputing ended with his words. Paul and Barnabas and finally James then testified and confirmed their unity with Peter’s declaration. That’s the One True Church in action - Catholic teaching and understanding demonstrated at its infancy right there in Sacred Scripture.

And also this…

“I saw more of a defense of the Church than any defense of the relationship with Christ, which is the Church’s ONLY function.”

If the Church’s “only function” is to provide and foster a true relationship with Christ, then defending that Church is defending the true relationship with Christ. One can’t seperate the two.

Further, if the true teachings of Christ foster a true relationship with Christ, then heresies sever that true relationship with Christ. Hence, the One True Church, in condemning heresies and preaching the truth indeed do foster the true relationship with Christ (i.e. save souls) and are fulfilling one of the roles for which Christ established Her.

Ignoring heresies, therefore, amount to “looking the other way” while souls are lost without warning as they go down the path of false teachings. When the human side of the Church take this “approach” and follow this “practice”, then people in the Church put their own souls in jeopardy. One way this happens is that they will be held responsible for that which they do not preach. Such as indicated in the other Scripture passage I brought up earlier…
*(Ezekiel 3:18-19) *"If I say to the wicked, `You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you will have saved your life.
Another way is that the faithful, in becoming ignorant of the heretical nature of the already condemned heretical teachings because of the lack of vocal preaching against them, are more readily apt to adopt said heresies. As demonstrated by the post I quoted.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[latinmasslover]

Folks, you are losing site of the purpose of the CHurch itself. What is truth? WHat did Paul preach? You are putting the Church before CHrist Himself. There is no loss of faith. What is YOUR faith? If it is not in Christ, it is misplaced. The CHurch is to poreach salvation through Christ, not just by belonging to the club.

JMJ

Jesus Christ and the Church are one, and those who deviate from the Church deviate from Jesus Christ. That is why we defend the Church. Jesus established a Church, one Church, to teach in His Name, which is why He sent us the Holy Ghost, to keep the Church from teaching error (and this refers to the infallible teachings, not custom changes). The Church always preaches Jesus Christ, unlike the Protestants, who preach “the Bible” a book not written by Jesus, nor commanded by Jesus to be written. " But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My Name, He will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you…I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will teach you all truth." No Church has this promise but the one the Jesus Christ established." "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I* have prayed for thee*, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren…: It is the job of Peter and his successors to keep the Church (or in modern language, the People of God) together as ONE. You can’t serve God and choose which of His truths you’ll follow and which you won’t. Jesus is fully God or He’s not; Jesus was born of a virgin or He wasn’t; Mary is either honored by Jesus or she’s not; Jesus established a Church or He didn’t…He either inspired the Church, which He established, to put the inspired letters together into the Bible, or He didn’t, and if He didn’t, who’s to say what else is missing, or is in there incorrectly. If there’s no Church to guarantee such things, Christianity falls completely.

Hypothetical question, how would you feel if:

You have to leave for a month on business. You tell your children to obey their mother as they obey you. You all talk on the phone once a week. Mother says to “Bobby:” Clean your room. Bob responds: I don’t have to; Dad didn’t tell me to do it. Mom: Your father told you to listen to what I said. Bobby: So what, *he *didn’t tell *me *to do it. I listen to my father.

Would you be pleased with your son? St. Augustine, respected (for some reason) among Protestants refers to the Church as our Mother and (I think it was St. Augustine) that he who will not have the Church for his Mother will not have God as their Father.

Back to my question, how would you feel about your son’s behavior to your spouse?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I know of any evidence to support your claim that Peter was BIshop of Antioch, though I may be showing ignorance.

I think you meant to say you know of no evidence that supports my statement that Peter was the Bishop of Antioch before proceeding to Rome. Here’s a quote from St. Jerome that confirms it.

St. Jerome: “Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord” (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

But by your reasoning, then the Eastern churches should have primacy, yes?

Why would the Eastern Churches have the primacy? The Primacy was given to Peter, and his successors, not to a particular church. Peter moved to Rome and his successors in Rome have carried on his primacy.

Also, that still doesnt make sense, still Jerusalem was the primary church at the time.

You said that Jerusalem was the primary Church. 1.) I don’t know why you make that claim, and 2.) Jesus did not establish the Papacy on a particular church. He established it in a particular person (Peter) and his successors. It just so happens that, through Divine Providence, Peter ended his life as the Bishop of Rome and as such that is where his successors remained.

I’m curious, where did you get the idea that the Pope is not the visible head of the Church? Do you believe the office of the Pope as head of the Bishops is an “invention” of the Catholic Church, or do you believe that the Papacy was established as such by Jesus Himself (which is what the Church teaches)?

 

[Catholic2008]

Pope Leo XIII condemned ecumenism in Satis Cognitum

Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence said " The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or Heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life…"

 

[thecoach]

JMJ

Jesus Christ and the Church are one, and those who deviate from the Church deviate from Jesus Christ. That is why we defend the Church. Jesus established a Church, one Church, to teach in His Name, which is why He sent us the Holy Ghost, to keep the Church from teaching error (and this refers to the infallible teachings, not custom changes). The Church always preaches Jesus Christ, unlike the Protestants, who preach “the Bible” a book not written by Jesus, nor commanded by Jesus to be written. " But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My Name, He will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you…I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will teach you all truth." No Church has this promise but the one the Jesus Christ established." "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I* have prayed for thee*, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren…: It is the job of Peter and his successors to keep the Church (or in modern language, the People of God) together as ONE. You can’t serve God and choose which of His truths you’ll follow and which you won’t. Jesus is fully God or He’s not; Jesus was born of a virgin or He wasn’t; Mary is either honored by Jesus or she’s not; Jesus established a Church or He didn’t…He either inspired the Church, which He established, to put the inspired letters together into the Bible, or He didn’t, and if He didn’t, who’s to say what else is missing, or is in there incorrectly. If there’s no Church to guarantee such things, Christianity falls completely.

Hypothetical question, how would you feel if:

You have to leave for a month on business. You tell your children to obey their mother as they obey you. You all talk on the phone once a week. Mother says to “Bobby:” Clean your room. Bob responds: I don’t have to; Dad didn’t tell me to do it. Mom: Your father told you to listen to what I said. Bobby: So what, *he *didn’t tell *me *to do it. I listen to my father.

Would you be pleased with your son? St. Augustine, respected (for some reason) among Protestants refers to the Church as our Mother and (I think it was St. Augustine) that he who will not have the Church for his Mother will not have God as their Father.

Back to my question, how would you feel about your son’s behavior to your spouse?

I must disagree. From what I have seen here, the Church preaches itself, for I see nothing but a defense of the CHurch and/or doctrine, in a place of more importance than Christ Himself. You may call upon semantics to try to say differently, but the words posted here do not.The very fact that you take papal words over Christ’s is proof enough, for Our Lord admonished His disciples for the same behavior that has been exhibited here, when He told them “Whoever is not against you is for you”, when His disciples wanted to admonish someone who wasnt"of their company". The posts in this thread have shown the same behavior. And by the way, Protestants, many anyway, preach Christ much more than what I have seen here.

Here is a loaded question. If one isnt traditionalist, can they be Catholic at all?

 

[latinmasslover]

I must disagree. From what I have seen here, the Church preaches itself, for I see nothing but a defense of the CHurch and/or doctrine, in a place of more importance than Christ Himself. You may call upon semantics to try to say differently, but the words posted here do not.The very fact that you take papal words over Christ’s is proof enough, for Our Lord admonished His disciples for the same behavior that has been exhibited here, when He told them “Whoever is not against you is for you”, when His disciples wanted to admonish someone who wasnt"of their company". The posts in this thread have shown the same behavior. And by the way, Protestants, many anyway, preach Christ much more than what I have seen here.

Here is a loaded question. If one isnt traditionalist, can they be Catholic at all?

They preach a watered down Christianity. **What alleged truth does Jesus Christ teach that His Bride, the Church, does not? What truth do these Protestants teach that the Church doesn’t? **We make a defense of the Church simply because Jesus Christ Himself told us to; Christ and the Church are one, and to leave One is to leave the Other.

You still didn’t answer my comparative question.

As to yours regarding being a traditionalist, a Catholic holds to the teachings of Jesus as spoken through His Church, to deviate from the Truth is to cease being Catholic. There really is no such thing as a traditionalist as far as Catholicism goes; there are Catholics and heretics. My preference is obviously the Traditional Latin Mass, but my spiritual directors/confessors are “novus ordo priests,” as in they are “in full communion” with Rome and our bishop; they’re very holy men. I don’t agree with everything they say, but they’ve always held to the truths of the Church, which are the truths of Jesus Christ. The two are not separate.

 

[thecoach]

They preach a watered down Christianity. **What alleged truth does Jesus Christ teach that His Bride, the Church, does not? What truth do these Protestants teach that the Church doesn’t? **We make a defense of the Church simply because Jesus Christ Himself told us to; Christ and the Church are one, and to leave One is to leave the Other.

You still didn’t answer my comparative question.

As to yours regarding being a traditionalist, a Catholic holds to the teachings of Jesus as spoken through His Church, to deviate from the Truth is to cease being Catholic. There really is no such thing as a traditionalist as far as Catholicism goes; there are Catholics and heretics. My preference is obviously the Traditional Latin Mass, but my spiritual directors/confessors are “novus ordo priests,” as in they are “in full communion” with Rome and our bishop; they’re very holy men. I don’t agree with everything they say, but they’ve always held to the truths of the Church, which are the truths of Jesus Christ. The two are not separate.

soo basically, if people dont see Catholicism as you do, they are not really Catholics? wow

 

[latinmasslover]

soo basically, if people dont see Catholicism as you do, they are not really Catholics? wow

You’re still avoiding my question which leads me, and others no doubt, to believe that you know what you’re saying is personal opinion in opposition to the truth.

In answer to the age-old accusation people make when they know they’re wrong, Catholicism is Catholicism; Catholics aren’t Catholic because they’re in league with me, they are because they’re united to the Jesus Christ in truth (which is taught through the Church, HIS Bride). If you want to go hippie and do your own thing then there are plenty of Protestant communities to choose from…heck, you could start your own if you’re so sure that the Holy Ghost was promised to guarantee your opinions from error.

Before you throw out another accusation, would you be kind enough to address the issues you’ve skirted in my previous post?

 

[jco2004]

Now, these quotes clearly teach the contrary of Mortalium Animos, which was written in the late 1920’s, and which perfectly reflects the position of the Catholic Church from the beginning.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: “… the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it…”
I would like to see Mr. Golle explain how the current position is not the exact opposite of what the Church has always taught, as expressed in Mortalium Animos.

The quotes are in contradiction to Mortalium Animos, and they are right to be so. Joe