Ecumania strikes again!!!

[DustinsDad]

Top Vatican ecumenical official reassures Protestants
CWN:

…This Vatican statement should not be taken to mean that the Catholic Church regards Protestant groups as “somehow false churches,” Cardinal Kasper told the Christian leaders gathered in Romania. Rather, he said, it shows that Catholics and Protestants “have a different understanding of what the Church is.” …

*full story at *https://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=53352

Comments anyone?

 

[Unitas]

From the article:

Pastor Jean-Arnold de Clermont, the president of the Conference of European Churches, said that the July statement from the Vatican contained “nothing new,” but merely affirmed the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church.

See? Even he gets it.

 

[RomanRevert]

so what is he NOT saying?

 

[DustinsDad]

so what is he NOT saying?

…that the Chuch doesn’t consider them false churches because She doesn’t consider them churches in the first place.

…that the “different understanding” of what a church is matters…and that they can’t both be right because they contradict each other.

…that truth isn’t relative, it is absolute.

…that there is only One True Church

…that the Catholic Church actually IS the One True Church

…and that denying or rejecting this reality puts one’s soul at risk.

DustinsDad

 

[jmcrae]

“I give thee a new Commandment: Thou shalt not hurt any heretic’s tender little feelings, yay, even if thou must tell him soothing lies, and hide from him any and all unpleasant realities, in order to keep him from jumping up and down, and shouting at thee in rage.”

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Top Vatican ecumenical official reassures Protestants

Comments anyone?

More of the same due to false ecumenism.

We know that the Church will get through the current crisis, but, unless there is a miraculous Divine intervention, it will probably happen in stages. The following is something that I have wondered about…

The crisis in the Church has been both liturgical and doctrinal. Pope Benedict is taking concrete measures to correct the liturgical mess. He has admitted that any Priest can celebrate the Old Mass, and he is in the process of correcting the mistranslation in the words of consecration in the Novus Ordo (which, if that invalidated the mass, will result restore the validity).

Pope Benedict has always been strong liturgically. He has written many things about the new mass that could have been written by a Traditionalist. Yet at the same time, he has been extremely liberal on things such as false ecumenism and religious liberty (two of the core doctrinal errors of our day).

It seems to me that possibly God is using this Pope to correct the liturgical mess, and will use the next Pope to correct the doctrinal problems that flow from false ecumenism. In my opinion, that is the order that it would need to happen - first correct the liturgical mess and then the doctrinal points.

We’ll see what happens.

 

[Dauphin]

The crisis in the Church has been both liturgical and doctrinal. Pope Benedict is taking concrete measures to correct the liturgical mess. He has admitted that any Priest can celebrate the Old Mass, and he is in the process of correcting the mistranslation in the words of consecration in the Novus Ordo (which, if that invalidated the mass, will result restore the validity).

The current words of consecration in the english NO do not invalidate the Eucharist any more than the addition of “the mystery of faith” in the TLM consecration invalidates the Eucharist.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Cardinal Kaspar never missed an opportunity to contradict Cardinal Ratzinger. Do we expect him to agree with Pope Benedict?

 

[stmaria]

The current words of consecration in the english NO do not invalidate the Eucharist any more than the addition of "the mystery of faith" in the TLM consecration invalidates the Eucharist.

What do you mean by addition of “the mystery of faith?”

 

[stmaria]

I need help on trying to understand this teaching of the Church.

Decree on Ecumenism
11.3 Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a “hierarchy” of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith. Thus the way will be opened by which through fraternal rivalry all will be stirred to a deeper understanding and a clearer presentation of the unfathomable riches of Christ.

Principle and Norms on Ecumenism
75. Moreover, the “hierarchy of truths” of Catholic doctrine should always be respected; these truths all demand due assent of faith, yet are not all equally central to the mystery revealed in Jesus Christ, since they vary in their connection with the foundation of the Christian faith."

Cardinal Avery Dulles suggested we should be able to accept converts without asking them to believe the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption [Presidential address to the Catholic Theological Society of America in 1976]
Is Cardinal Dulles right? I have read where others disagree with him, however the fact that this teaching is not part of *Lumen Gentium but is a under the Decree on Ecumenism *suggests to me that he is right.

This teaching seem to be contradicted by Pope Leo XIII
*Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae *
Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on January 22, 1899.

“The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them.”

 

[ComradeAndrei]

…that the Chuch doesn’t consider them false churches because She doesn’t consider them churches in the first place.

…that the “different understanding” of what a church is matters…and that they can’t both be right because they contradict each other.

…that truth isn’t relative, it is absolute.

…that there is only One True Church

…that the Catholic Church actually IS the One True Church

…and that denying or rejecting this reality puts one’s soul at risk.

DustinsDad

That would be nice if he actually came out and said that instead of some ambiguous nonsense that could be taken wrong. Granted, a Catholic should know what we mean without having to give a mini theology lessen every time something is uttered, but in these days-we cannot be so sure.

 

[tradcathconvert]

What do you mean by addition of “the mystery of faith?”

At the TLM, the priest says the following in Latin to consecrate the wine. Notice where the words the mystery of faith are:

FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH FOR YOU AND FOR MANY SHALL BE SHED UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.
As often as you shall do these things, you shall do them in memory of Me.

 

[DJim]

I find the word “ecumania” in the thread topic to be a bit offensive. I think it should be changed.

To call the Traditional teaching of the Church “ecumania” is overtly wrong.

Even St. Paul understood the place of gentle invitation to the fullness of the Gospel:

"Brothers, I could not talk to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ. I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able, even now, for you are still of the flesh. While there is jealousy and rivalry among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving in an ordinary human way? Whenver someone says, “I belong to Paul,” and another, “I belong to Apollos,” are you not merely human? (1 Cor 3:1-4)

Or perhaps someone on this thread wants to call Paul an “ecumaniac”???

Honestly, it should jump off the page at you–as long as there is division among Christians, it will be appropriate to adopt Paul’s quite Biblical principle of feeding with milk and not meat.

Eventually those nourished by the “milk” will come to receive solid food as well…

In the meantime, prayers for unity, not false labels like “ecumania”, should be our focus.

DJim

 

[Le_Cracquere]

I find the word “ecumania” in the thread topic to be a bit offensive. I think it should be changed.

To call the Traditional teaching of the Church “ecumania” is overtly wrong.

Even St. Paul understood the place of gentle invitation to the fullness of the Gospel:

"Brothers, I could not talk to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ. I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able, even now, for you are still of the flesh. While there is jealousy and rivalry among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving in an ordinary human way? Whenver someone says, “I belong to Paul,” and another, “I belong to Apollos,” are you not merely human? (1 Cor 3:1-4)

Or perhaps someone on this thread wants to call Paul an “ecumaniac”???

Honestly, it should jump off the page at you–as long as there is division among Christians, it will be appropriate to adopt Paul’s quite Biblical principle of feeding with milk and not meat.

Eventually those nourished by the “milk” will come to receive solid food as well…

In the meantime, prayers for unity, not false labels like “ecumania”, should be our focus.

DJim

I suppose I could go with that. Honestly, anytime I disagree with a friend on a question or issue, it’s because I think that I’m more correct than he is–i.e., my opinion is true. By definition, you could rephrase that as saying that I think his opinions false. Now, however technically true that might be, no one whose mother raised him with an ounce of manners would be tempted to put it that way, much less anyone who was more interested in winning his friend over than in squashing him in debate.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I find the word “ecumania” in the thread topic to be a bit offensive. I think it should be changed.

To call the Traditional teaching of the Church “ecumania” is overtly wrong.

Even St. Paul understood the place of gentle invitation to the fullness of the Gospel:

"Brothers, I could not talk to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ. I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able, even now, for you are still of the flesh. While there is jealousy and rivalry among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving in an ordinary human way? Whenver someone says, “I belong to Paul,” and another, “I belong to Apollos,” are you not merely human? (1 Cor 3:1-4)

Or perhaps someone on this thread wants to call Paul an “ecumaniac”???

Honestly, it should jump off the page at you–as long as there is division among Christians, it will be appropriate to adopt Paul’s quite Biblical principle of feeding with milk and not meat.

Eventually those nourished by the “milk” will come to receive solid food as well…

In the meantime, prayers for unity, not false labels like “ecumania”, should be our focus.

DJim

Have you ever read the encyclical Mortalium Animos?

There is a true form of ecumenism and a false form of ecumenism. Simply put, true ecumenism seeks to bring non-Catholics into the Catholic Church. By converting them into the Catholic Church and having them accept all of the dogmas of the Catholic faith, we arrive at true Christian unity.

False ecumenism does not seek to convert the non-Catholics; rather it seeks to “unite” with them even as they remain in their errors. The promoters of false ecumenism seek to build a “big tent” religion that encompasses Catholics as well as heretics, schismatics. Others go futher in this error by seeking to unit all religions into this “church”.

Mortalium Animos condemns the false form of ecumenism and teaches the true way to Christian unity. The encyclical is short and easy to understand. Here is a link…

fisheaters.com/mortaliumanimos.html

I’d be interested in you thoughts on this magisterial document.

 

[DJim]

I’ve read it multiple times.

It is part of the Traditional teaching to which I referred, The Traditional teaching on ecumenism is also found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council which were the foci of the comments made that started the thread.

DJim

 

[DustinsDad]

…Mortalium Animos condemns the false form of ecumenism and teaches the true way to Christian unity. The encyclical is short and easy to understand. Here is a link…

fisheaters.com/mortaliumanimos.html

Indeed.

And Cardinal Kasper (see OP, whose comments we are discussing) agrees that Mortalium Animos condemns what he is engaged in …
The Catholic Church abstained at the beginning. **The encyclical letters *Satis cognitum ***of Leo XIII (1896) and Mortalium animos of Pius XI (1928) even condemned the ecumenical dialogue which seemed to relativise the claim of the Catholic Church to be the true Church of Jesus Christ. Yet Pius XII already paved the way to a more open attitude, albeit with caution, in an Instruction of the Holy Office of 1949. However, only the initiative of Pope John XXIII (+1963) and the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) brought a shift. The conciliar Decree on Ecumenism *Unitatis Redintegratio *stated that the ecumenical movement was a sign of the work of the Holy Spirit in our time (Unitatis redintegratio, 1), opening the way for the ecumenical movement and highlighting the importance of dialogue with separated brothers and sisters and with separated churches and church communities (Unitatis redintegratio, 4; 9; 11; 14; 18; 19; 21-23).
(Nature and Purpose of Ecumenical Dialogue, I, paragraph 3, Kasper,)
Section V of his Nature and Purpose of Ecumenical Dialogue gets very, very interesting. And not a little bit troubling.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

I find the word “ecumania” in the thread topic to be a bit offensive. I think it should be changed.

It’s not meant to be offensive, it’s simply the most accurate way many folks view the current situation in regards to ecumanism. 'Tis gone too far".

To call the Traditional teaching of the Church “ecumania” is overtly wrong.

This is not the "T"raditional teaching of the Church. As Kasper even admits (see above quote from Nature and Purpose of Ecumenical Dialogue) , the Church prior to VII condemned such practices. It is precisely because it is not traditional, the fact that there has been a shift, a change, a contradiction - and as such, the current practice is not infallible and is subject to critique when the faithful see such things as harming the faith.

I welcome your attempts to defend such practices and behaviors and statements, but please don’t do so under the banner of Apostolic Tradition. It simply is not.

Even St. Paul understood the place of gentle invitation to the fullness of the Gospel:

Despite the fact that your taking St. Paul completely out of conetext here, there was NO invitation, gentle or otherwise, in the comment in the OP.

Or perhaps someone on this thread wants to call Paul an “ecumaniac”???

St. Paul wasn’t even talking to non-Christians or non-Catholics. What in the world are you talking about?

Honestly, it should jump off the page at you–as long as there is division among Christians, it will be appropriate to adopt Paul’s quite Biblical principle of feeding with milk and not meat.

Just don’t confuse water with milk.

In the meantime, prayers for unity, not false labels like “ecumania”, should be our focus.

We already have this unity in the Church Christ established. I’ll pray for those outside this unity to return to it (which means I’m gonna have to tell 'em about it). Attempts to create some sort of “new” unity are, in my opinion, a little on the futile side.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DJim]

Indeed.

And Cardinal Kasper (see OP, whose comments we are discussing) agrees that Mortalium Animos condemns what he is engaged in …
The Catholic Church abstained at the beginning. **The encyclical letters *Satis cognitum ***of Leo XIII (1896) and Mortalium animos of Pius XI (1928) even condemned the ecumenical dialogue which seemed to relativise the claim of the Catholic Church to be the true Church of Jesus Christ. Yet Pius XII already paved the way to a more open attitude, albeit with caution, in an Instruction of the Holy Office of 1949. However, only the initiative of Pope John XXIII (+1963) and the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) brought a shift. The conciliar Decree on Ecumenism *Unitatis Redintegratio *stated that the ecumenical movement was a sign of the work of the Holy Spirit in our time (Unitatis redintegratio, 1), opening the way for the ecumenical movement and highlighting the importance of dialogue with separated brothers and sisters and with separated churches and church communities (Unitatis redintegratio, 4; 9; 11; 14; 18; 19; 21-23).
(Nature and Purpose of Ecumenical Dialogue, I, paragraph 3, Kasper,)
Section V of his Nature and Purpose of Ecumenical Dialogue gets very, very interesting. And not a little bit troubling.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

The text you quote does NOT state that MA “condemns” what “he is engaged in”–here is the full(er) text:

I. A Burning Question

The 20th century, which started with a strong impulse of faith in human progress, rather difficult to imagine nowadays, came to a conclusion as one of the darkest and bloodiest centuries in the history of humankind. No other century has known as many violent deaths. But, at least, there is one glimmer of light in this dark period: the birth of the ecumenical movement and ecumenical dialogues. After centuries of growing fragmentation of the una sancta ecclesia, the one, holy Church that we profess in our common apostolic creed, into many divided churches, a new movement developed in the opposite direction.

In deep sorrow and repentance, all churches realised that their situation of division, contrary to the will of Christ, was sinful and shameful. It is significant that this new ecumenical awareness developed in the context of the missionary movement. The division of the Church was recognised as a major obstacle to world mission. The division darkens the Church’s mission as a sign and instrument of unity and peace for the world. This is why, in the 20th century, all churches engaged in ecumenical dialogues set out to re-establish the visible unity of all Christians. The foundation of the World Council of Churches in Amsterdam in 1948 represented an important milestone on this ecumenical journey.

The Catholic Church abstained at the beginning. The encyclical letters Satis cognitum of Leo XIII (1896) and Mortalium animos of Pius XI (1928) even condemned the ecumenical dialogue which seemed to relativise the claim of the Catholic Church to be the true Church of Jesus Christ. Yet Pius XII already paved the way to a more open attitude, albeit with caution, in an Instruction of the Holy Office of 1949. However, only the initiative of Pope John XXIII (+1963) and the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) brought a shift. The conciliar Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio stated that the ecumenical movement was a sign of the work of the Holy Spirit in our time (Unitatis redintegratio, 1), opening the way for the ecumenical movement and highlighting the importance of dialogue with separated brothers and sisters and with separated churches and church communities (Unitatis redintegratio, 4; 9; 11; 14; 18; 19; 21-23).

Pope Paul VI made the idea of dialogue central in his inaugural encyclical Ecclesiam suam (1963). This line was taken up in a Document of the then Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity entitled Reflections and Suggestions Concerning Ecumenical Dialogue (1970), later in the Ecumenical Directory (1993) and finally in the great, important and even prophetic ecumenical encyclical of John Paul II Ut unum sint (1995).

It is clear that the text refers to relativistic ecumenical efforts, which does NOT describe authentic ecumenical dialogue.

Why must you try to twist what he is saying here?

DJim

 

[DJim]

It’s not meant to be offensive, it’s simply the most accurate way many folks view the current situation in regards to ecumanism. 'Tis gone too far".

That’s why it’s offensive–it belies the profound error people make when trying to pit one magisterial teaching against another. Neither you nor anyone else gets to pick and choose from among magisterial teachings–there’s a reason that’s called “cafeteria” Catholicism.

So I suppose that in using the term “ecumania” you reveal yourself to be a cafeteria Catholic. I hope that’s not too offensive a term to use. It’s not meant to be…

This is not the "T"raditional teaching of the Church.

Uh–YES it is the Traditional teaching of the Church. The fact that you reject the Traditional teaching of the Church as more fully and clearly expressed and developed does not actually mean that what has developed is not Traditional.

The Dogma of the Assumption, a “development” of doctrine, is still Traditional. So too is authentic ecumenical dialogue as expressed and taught by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council.

As Kasper even admits

Falsehood. The document you cite acknowledges the legitimate condemnation of relativistic ecumenical dialogue.

the Church prior to VII condemned such practices. It is precisely because it is not traditional, the fact that there has been a shift, a change, a contradiction - and as such, the current practice is not infallible and is subject to critique when the faithful see such things as harming the faith.

Wrong. The Church prior to VII did NOT condemn authentic ecumenical dialogue. The current “practice” is NOT relativistic. In any case, “practices” are NEVER infallible. Only teaching. And the Holy Spirit has protected and guided the teaching authority of the Church in Vatican II just as He has done in prior Councils…

Besides–the “faithful” do not see “such things” as authentic ecumenism practiced according to Vatican II’s decrees as “harming the faith.” Perhaps you do. But you are not the “faithful.” Only some of the “faithful” have erroneously pitted the Magisterium against itself. Others among the “faithful” do not make this error.

I welcome your attempts to defend such practices and behaviors and statements, but please don’t do so under the banner of Apostolic Tradition. It simply is not.

Uh, YES it is part of Apostolic Tradition. Which of course I have demonstrated from First Corinthians. There is a rational basis for meeting people where they are in their understanding of the faith and encouraging them to learn more.

Despite the fact that your taking St. Paul completely out of conetext here, there was NO invitation, gentle or otherwise, in the comment in the OP.

Saying it don’t make it so. SHOW me where I’ve take Paul out of context. I can’t wait.

St. Paul wasn’t even talking to non-Christians or non-Catholics. What in the world are you talking about?

Ecumenism refers to the division AMONG Christians. Which is precisely what Paul is addressing in 1 Corinthians. He clearly attributes such division to “fleshly” (human) persons not thinking “spiritually.” Paul says such people can only handle milk and not solid food.

Just don’t confuse water with milk.

I don’t. Neither does Paul. His point is that we are called to give people precisely what they can handle–there’s no point in giving them anything else…

We already have this unity in the Church Christ established.

We have mystical unity by virtue of Baptism–unity that extends actually beyond the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ. But we most certainly do not have visible unity among all the Baptized, nor among all who profess belief in Jesus Christ. The purpose of ecumenism is to achieve this goal.

I’ll pray for those outside this unity to return to it (which means I’m gonna have to tell 'em about it). Attempts to create some sort of “new” unity are, in my opinion, a little on the futile side.

The unity being sought cannot exist apart from the Catholic Church. And no one in the Magisterium has ever said that it could.

In short, there is NO such thing as “ecumania” in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

DJim