Ecumania strikes again!!!

[DustinsDad]

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

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

Who’s twisting?

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).

Kasper says nothing about a “different sort of ecumenical dialogue” (one that was condemned and one that wasn’t). He merely and pretty plainly says that the Church accepts it and once condemned it. You’re trying to read more into this because you have to because you can’t admit that a contradiction exists. Why? Because you’ve raised the new “ecumenical movenent” to the level of infallible dogma.

Funny thing is the Cardinal admits that previous popes condemned such ecumenical dialogue because it “*seemed *seemed to relativise the claim of the Catholic Church to be the true Church of Jesus Christ” - and his comment we are discussing is the following…
…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.” …
A statement which seems to ***relativise the claim of the Catholic Church to be the true Church of Jesus Christ. ***

---

Hmmmmmm…

---

---

 

[DJim]

Who’s twisting?

You are.

[/INDENT]Kasper says nothing about a “different sort of ecumenical dialogue” (one that was condemned and one that wasn’t). He merely and pretty plainly says that the Church accepts it and once condemned it.

That is false. You appear to misundrestand the text, which reads:

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…

Basic grammar–“the ecumenical dialogue” is modified by what follows it. He is saying that the kind of dialogue condemned was that which relativised the unique claim of the Church to be the true Church…

You seem to want it to say that all ecumenical dialogue is “relativistic” which is clearly NOT what he is saying and wouldn’t make any sense in context.

You’re trying to read more into this because you have to because you can’t admit that a contradiction exists. Why? Because you’ve raised the new “ecumenical movenent” to the level of infallible dogma.

Actually, I’ve just chosen to accept the full universal teaching of the Magisterium on faith and morals, while you are only accepting partial teaching.

Funny thing is the Cardinal admits that previous popes condemned such ecumenical dialogue because

What’s “funny” about that is that it’s not true. His statement does NOT refer to the kind of ecumenical dialogue that is not relativistic…

and his comment we are discussing is the following…

…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.” …
A statement which seems to ***relativise the claim of the Catholic Church to be the true Church of Jesus Christ. ***

---

Flatly false. It actually asserts that doctrine–it doesn’t “relativize” it. He’s asserting that the Catholic view of THE Church is different from the Protestant view.

There’s nothing indifferent or relativistic about that.

And, just in case you think the Cardinal is being “ambiguous”:

07 September 2007, 14:00
Cardinal Kasper compares modern Europe with “dancing on a powder keg”

Sibiu (Romania), September 7, Interfax - With the loss of fundamental values based on Christianity, Europe risks losing its own future, said Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

“Today, Europe is in danger of not only betraying but also - in a banal way - simply forgetting her ideals,” the Cardinal said at the 3rd European Ecumenical Assembly at Sibiu, Romania.

The primary danger is forgetting God and promoting individualism and indifference, he said. “It is almost as if we are dancing on a volcano or on a powder keg,” Kasper said.

DJim

PS–I am still patiently waiting for your explanation of how I took Paul and 1 Cor out of context…

 

[Genesis315]

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.”

I’d have to see Cardinal Dulles’ actual statement, but the general teaching of the Church on the hiearchy of truths is not about getting rid of certian truths or toning down their meaning.

It has to do with how faith is taught–some truths illuminate others and therefore when teaching or explaining the faith, one should begin with certain central truths and then move to other truths which are illuminated by those central truths.

For example, before teaching about indulgences, one must explain the differences between eternal and temporal punishment and justice and how the Church is the Body of Christ and how all the members are united. To do these, one must first explain certain truths concerning the personhood of Jesus Christ, about the effects of the sacraments, and about certain attributes of God.

Obviously this example is too brief and vague, but hopefully you will get the point.

This is important to ecumenism because we often hold many of the central truths in common with those communities who are separated from the Church. If one understands how the hierarchy of truth works, one can more easily show separated brethren how the central truths they hold necessarily illuminate the truths they reject.

Here is a good article on this topic for further reading:

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/dbushman_hiertruths_sept05.asp

I hope that helped you to understand!

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

PS–I am still patiently waiting for your explanation of how I took Paul and 1 Cor out of context…

I’ll tell you what I thought you mean by quoting St. Paul. You didn’t provide an interpretation, so I certainly could have misunderstood your intent, but this is what I thought you were implying.

In the quote, St. Paul says that some say they are of Apollo, while some say that are St. Paul, etc. He implies that division over such things is not good, since they all belong to Jesus Christ.

What I thought you meant by quoting this is that today some say that are of Luther, some of Calvin, some Eastern Orthodox, some this or that denomination, and some say they are Catholics, but we should not argue over such things because, in reality, we are all of Jesus Christ.

If this is what you were implying, you are gravely mistaken since there is a eternal difference between those of the true faith (Catholics) arguing over indifferent points (“I am from St. Martin’s Parish, I am from Queen of Angel’s parish”, which is similar to saying “I am of Apollo”, or “I am of St. Paul” etc), and Catholics being divided with heretics and schismatics.

What Parish Catholics belong to (similar to who baptized them in the days of the apostles - Apollo or Paul) is an indifferent point since they are all one in the true Church. On the contrary, those today who reject the true Church or any of its dogmas (Protestants, Orthodox, etc.) are not united to the Catholics: they are either heretics, schismatics or both, and this separates them from the Church.

To these would apply the words of St. John:

2 John 1:10: “If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house not way to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him God speek you, communicateth with his wicked works”.

The rejection of Catholic dogmas (which are truths that have been revealed by God) are “wicked works”, and thus we should not welcome into our house any of those who do such things.

Catholics, on the other hand, who are divided over minor points (such as who what Church they belong to), or mere opinions, should refrain from such things. That is what St. Paul was saying.

 

[DustinsDad]

…Wrong. The Church prior to VII did NOT condemn authentic ecumenical dialogue…

Kasper never says this, and never distinguishes “authentic” ecumenical dialogue with “unauthentic” ecumenical dialogue.

From his letter we see that the ecumenical movement started in the 20th century…(notice that this “movement” is singular, it’s the same as throughout the letter)
“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.”
and…
“This is why, in the 20th century, all churches engaged in ecumenical dialogues set out to re-establish the visible unity of all Christians.”

But wait,not all churches embraced this “glimmer of light”. The Church "abstained at first, and then some…
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.

The Church abstained and condemned THE ecumenical dialogue (again, in the singular - the same ecumenism and dialogue is being discussed here as in the preceding paragraph, there is nothing to indicate they are two different things. He’s discussing the same “glimmer of light”), and Kasper even gives the reason why…because it seemed to “relativise” Church dogma regarding the nature of the Church itself. It is apparent he disagrees with the previous pontiffs…as He never says this is “separate” or “unauthentic” ecumanism. In fact, he is saying the Church simply had to become more “open” to it, which began to happen with Pius XII…
Yet Pius XII already paved the way to a more open attitude, albeit with caution, in an Instruction of the Holy Office of 1949.
…and then really took hold and "shifted" the attitude of the Church (the attitude changed, not the ecumenical movement) with VII…
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),…
And this shift, this change* in attitude* opened the way for what? For a “new” ecumenical movement somehow different than the previous “glimmer of light” one he spoke of? No, the same one he previously described two pargraphs previous. An ecumenical movement that the Church just had to finally accept…
…opening the way for the (singular again) ecumenical movement and highlighting the importance of dialogue with separated brothers and sisters and with separated churches and church communities
(Continued below…)

 

[DustinsDad]

(Continued from above…)

…The current “practice” is NOT relativistic.

Do you know what relativistic means?

…In any case, “practices” are NEVER infallible. Only teaching.

What about teaching on practices? Here it seems you leave open the possibility that this new ecumenical movement can be going to far (ecumania), while still claiming it’s “unfaithful” to even suggest such a thing.

…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…

Protected it from fomally teaching error in faith and morals - yes. But does this new “ecumenical movement” fall under this category? Or is it a practice whose teachings - even by the Magistarium - fall under the guise of “pastoral” and “prudential” judements that don’t have such a guarantee? If your answer is yes, it is infallible, then what then to make of it’s previous condemnation by the Church, specifically under Leo XII and Pius XI? Either they were wrong then, or we are wrong now.

…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.”

Are you suggesting the Church was thinking “fleshly” prior to VII, and only now is thinking “spiritually”. Further, Paul is talking to folks* within* the One Holy Catholic Church - not to schismatic or heretical groups that popped up in later centuries and millenia.

…We have mystical unity by virtue of Baptism–unity that extends actually beyond the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Kasper makes no distinction between baptized Protestants and non-baptized Protestants. And you would still have to reconcile your statement with this from Dominus Iesus…The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection - divided, yet in some way one - of Churches and ecclesial communities; (Dominus Iesus, cf IV, 17)

And besides that, the Mystical body of Christ is defined by Pope Pius XII also contradicts your statement above - which leaves out that crucial aspect of not rejecting the One True Church of Christ as a precondition to being included in the Mystical Body…As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Mystici Corporis Christi, 22)

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

Not explicitly. But there are ambiguous statements such as this one from Kasper…Since the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church has understood this visible unity not as uniformity but as unity in plurality and as communion of Churches. The term communion, in the tradition of the patristic age and as the central ecclesiological concept of the Second Vatican Council, has increasingly substituted the term unity; or, better, unity is increasingly interpreted as communion. According to a famous formula of the then professor Joseph Ratzinger: the Churches must become one Church while at the same time remaining Churches.

And from the same document, we have these fuzzy and borderline (or perhaps not so borderline) modernist statement…statements that clearly go beyond the mere “practice” of the Church and into the very heart of the Faith……My second remark is immediately related to the concept of development of dogmas and pertains to the concept of reception of dogmas. In this situation reception - an important concept of the ancient church - once again becomes an important theme. Yves Congar in particular affirmed with renewed clarity that reception is not a merely passive and obedient act of acceptance of a given doctrine, it is not a one-way-process involving a mechanical take-over. It is a dynamic creative process which implies interpretation, criticism and enrichment by new aspects as well. (compare this statement and concept with what Pius X condemns as “Vital Immanence” in Pascendi - numbers 7 and 8 in that document.)
…with regard to Vatican II we find ourselves at present in the midst of such a reception process. **The dogmas on papal primacy and infallibility, in particular, need re-reception and a re-interpretation **with regard to the Oriental tradition…
…In his encyclical Ut unum sint (95 s), Pope John Paul II himself issues the invitation to seek fraternal dialogue on the exercise of papal primacy in the new ecumenical situation in the light of the first millennium.

And compare this with what was stated in Vatican I…Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter IV, #14)
My oh my…where is this ecumania taking us?

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

You are free to hold that opinion. And I am free to disagree. The facts are what they are.

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

 

[DJim]

What I thought you meant is that today some say that are of Luther, some of Calvin, some Eastern Orthodox, and some Catholics, but that in reality we are all of Jesus Christ.

If this is what you were implying, you are gravely mistaken since there is a eternal difference between those of the true faith (Catholics) arguing over indifferent points (“I am from St. Martin’s Parish, I am from Queen of Angel’s parish”, which is similar to saying “I am of Apollo”, or “I am of St. Paul” etc), and Catholics being divided with heretics and schismatics.

Well, that wasn’t what I meant or implied. Let me first point out that you have no way of knowing the nature of the factionalism that was dividing the originally unified Corinth community of Christians. You overtly suggest that it was merely cosmetic, but that is not supported by the text.

Paul is claiming that Corinth was factionalized precisely because members’ thinking was “natural” and not “spiritual”. The quarrels and divisions are results of “fleshly” or worldly thinking–spiritual weakness.

Paul further states that those who are divided and are possessing this “worldly” perspective are not yet ready for solid food.

THAT was my point–complaints against ecumenical dialogue involve the fact that such dialogue does not always focus on telling our Protestant brothers and sisters the full truth but rather are merely “watering down” the full truth.

I was pointing out that Paul asserts that milk–and not solid food–is the appropriate “nourishment” for those who still struggle with division.

This is not just a reference to “parochial” turf battles–there are deep factions in Corinth that Paul says are attributable to non-spiritual thinking, and folks in that frame of mind won’t tolerate “solid food.”

That’s the truth of ecumencial dialogue…milk, not solid food, depending upon what the recipient can best be nourished by…

DJim

 

[DJim]

Kasper never says this, and never distinguishes “authentic” ecumenical dialogue with “unauthentic” ecumenical dialogue.

Kasper correctly identifies why the Catholic Church did at the time “abstain” from the beginning of this movement–because in its earliest form this movement seemed relativistic–a by-product of pan-Christianity and indifferentism.

This statement simply does NOT suggest that todays dialogue or movement is itself relativistic–which is the error you (not Kasper) are making.

From his letter we see that the ecumenical movement started in the 20th century…(notice that this “movement” is singular, it’s the same as throughout the letter)

Yes–the “movement” is spoken of as a continuous development through recent history. But this is not some kind of admission that what was once condemned is now approved. Rather, the continuous development has made it possible for the Catholic Church to enter into ecumenical dialogue without sacrificing its Tradition and timeless truths. At the inception of this movement, this did not seem to be–and really wasn’t–possible. But times have indeed changed. The Catholic Church does not have to embrace pan-Christianity or indifferentism in order to enter the dialogue…or should I say “dialogues” as the Cardinal does…

Further, you continue to gloss over the fact that the Cardinal is acknowledging that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ…

The Church abstained and condemned THE ecumenical dialogue (again, in the singular - the same ecumenism and dialogue is being discussed here as in the preceding paragraph, there is nothing to indicate they are two different things.

Look again–Kasper refers to plural “dialogues” at least seven times in the text!

That’s the whole point–and the source of your misunderstanding–he’s not saying there’s only one stream of ecumenical dialogue and that all such dialogue is relativistic! He’s saying that the Church once condemned the form of dialogue that seemed relativistic. He’s NOT saying all dialogues are relativistic!

In fact, he is saying the Church simply had to become more “open” to it, which began to happen with Pius XII…

He said the way was paved to a more open attitude, but a cautionary attitude nonetheless.

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),…
And this shift, this change* in attitude* opened the way for what? For a “new” ecumenical movement somehow different than the previous “glimmer of light” one he spoke of? No, the same one he previously described two pargraphs previous. An ecumenical movement that the Church just had to finally accept…

WRONG–the “movement” was a continuous development, but again you have mistakenly implied that the dialogues within this movement are necessarily all relativistic…

The “attitude” shifted in order to enable a genuine participating in dialogues that would not compromise the identity of the Catholic Church. The condemnation of relativistic dialogue remains, but an attitude of openness now exists that permits proper dialogue…

DJim

 

[DJim]

Do you know what relativistic means?

Well, gee, of course not–I’m one of those idiots who uses words I can’t possibly define…so tell me what it means and then I’ll know…

What about teaching on practices? Here it seems you leave open the possibility that this new ecumenical movement can be going to far (ecumania), while still claiming it’s “unfaithful” to even suggest such a thing.

My claim is very narrow and precise–rejecting the teaching of the Magisterium in this area is indeed a mark of infidelity. If someone rejects that teaching, then, yes, the label “cafeteria Catholic” applies to him or her…

One cannot “practice” ecumenical dialogue in a manner contrary to the teaching of the Church without also being described in a similar fashion. I would definitely claim that anyone who does pursue ecumenical dialogue in a manner that is not consistent with the identity of the Church is “practicing” in a manner contrary to Vatican II and all prior teaching…

Protected it from fomally teaching error in faith and morals - yes. But does this new “ecumenical movement” fall under this category? Or is it a practice whose teachings - even by the Magistarium - fall under the guise of “pastoral” and “prudential” judements that don’t have such a guarantee?

The term “movement” is an abstraction–the reality is that the “movement” is not some cohesive and organic thing. The Magisterium can only control its teaching and practice. Regarding the teaching, it’s as authentic and Spirit-guided as any other earlier teaching on the subject. Regarding practice based upon that teaching, it’s supposed to be faithful to the teaching but isn’t itself safeguarded in quite the same way.

But the Magisterium has not “practiced” anything deserving of criticism in this area. Nor has it taught anything deserving of criticism.

If your answer is yes, it is infallible, then what then to make of it’s previous condemnation by the Church, specifically under Leo XII and Pius XI? Either they were wrong then, or we are wrong now.

The teaching is in complete harmony. The “attitude” is quite prudential, and based largely upon the “times” as well as the “teaching”.

Are you suggesting the Church was thinking “fleshly” prior to VII, and only now is thinking “spiritually”. Further, Paul is talking to folks* within* the One Holy Catholic Church - not to schismatic or heretical groups that popped up in later centuries and millenia.

And how do you which of the “factions” in Corinth were in “union” with the “One Holy Catholic Church”? What was the “doctrine” of Apollos? Of others? We don’t know.

What we do know is that Paul offers the “lens” still used by the Church today–those who are factionalized may indeed need to be fed with milk first and not solid food. Both are truly nourishing but according to what is tolerable.

And I’m not suggesting anything about the Church relative to “flesh” and “spirit”–I’m saying that division belies the same “fleshly” thinking that caused Paul to say that milk and not solid food is okay for those who can’t handle the solid food yet.

Likewise, it’s OKAY for the Catholic Church to offer “milk” to our separated brothers and sisters, in hopes of being able to feed them solid food–the fullness of faith and truth–in the future.

Your label of “ecumania” (since you criticize the Magisterium for its giving of “milk” so to speak) therefore seems to apply to St. Paul.

Or to no one…

And besides that, the Mystical body of Christ is defined by Pope Pius XII also contradicts your statement above - which leaves out that crucial aspect of not rejecting the One True Church of Christ as a precondition to being included in the Mystical Body…

Yet another misunderstanding you seem to have! A pre-condition??? You continue to misinterpret Pius XII in such a way that you would have him contradict the Council of Florence! Pius does NOT say that “not rejecting the One True Church of Christ” is a pre-condition. Merely being baptized as a Protestant does not keep one from being part of the Mystical Body–Florence makes that crystal clear. Valid Baptism alone (no preconditions) makes one a member of that Mystical Body.

Pius is referring to conscious and willful rejection of that reality by the one baptized…NOT to the issue of whether one is Protestant or not…

Not explicitly. But there are ambiguous statements such as this one from Kasper…

There is a difference between “ambiguity” and nuance. These types of discussions are full of nuance–that doesn’t make them ambiguous, that is, unless/until one stops trying to clearly understand what the author is trying to convey.

And from the same document, we have these fuzzy and borderline (or perhaps not so borderline) modernist statement…statements that clearly go beyond the mere “practice” of the Church and into the very heart of the Faith…

Really. Tell me exactly what makes this statement “modernist.” In your own words. All too often you and others are simply placing two quoted texts side by side as though they are self-contradictory, when they are NOT. Let me see it in your own words where the supposed “contradiction” really is.

My oh my…where is this ecumania taking us?

I think the term you really seek is ecuphobia, and it’s leading you directly into dissent and cafeteria Catholicism…

DJim

 

[DustinsDad]

Kasper correctly identifies why the Catholic Church did at the time “abstain” from the beginning of this movement–because in its earliest form this movement seemed relativistic–a by-product of pan-Christianity and indifferentism.

Yep.

This statement simply does NOT suggest that todays dialogue or movement is itself relativistic–which is the error you (not Kasper) are making.

Kasper merely says that it no longer “seems” relativistic…not that anything changed about the movement. Therefore, the attitude of the Church changed - not the movement itself.

Yes–the “movement” is spoken of as a continuous development through recent history. But this is not some kind of admission that what was once condemned is now approved.

Nonsense! That is EXACTLY what Kasper is saying. Word for word almost.

Rather, the continuous development has made it possible for the Catholic Church to enter into ecumenical dialogue without sacrificing its Tradition and timeless truths. At the inception of this movement, this did not seem to be–and really wasn’t–possible. But times have indeed changed.

And what, may I ask, besides the “attitude” of the Church, has changed?

The Catholic Church does not have to embrace pan-Christianity or indifferentism in order to enter the dialogue…or should I say “dialogues” as the Cardinal does…

Of course it does not “have” to, but by muffling or silencing the call to conversion, it does exactly that - and exactly that which was condemned by the Church previous to the Council.

Even merely suggesting that the Church really is the Church established by Christ causes, what the Cardinal calls, an “ecumenical crisis”. This is in regards to the publication of Dominus Jesus - a document the Cardinal believes “should have used less harsh and more friendly language”
The question arose: Is real dialogue possible for a Church and with a Church which claims to have the absolute truth in an infallible way? *(notice, not that it really does have this, but that it “claims” to have it) *For dialogue presupposes openness towards other positions and encounter of equals. “Par cum pari,” states the conciliar Decree on Ecumenism. So the question was and for many still is: Is this document not a sign that the Catholic Church withdraws from the precepts of the Second Vatican Council and relinquishes the concept of dialogue? **An ecumenical cooling, an *aporia ***and - as many see it - an ecumenical crisis ensued. (Nature and Purpose of Ecumenical Dialogue, I, paragraph 6)

Here, Kasper admits a certain conflict is present - he wavers around trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, and in the end gives the way in which to accomplish this. Not by converting others, but by changing the way we look at, teach, and receive dogmas. And remember, this isn’t just an act of receiving divinely revealed Truth - it’s a “creative process” where the faithful interpret, critique and enrich by new aspects these divinely revealed truths!.
“It is a dynamic creative process which implies interpretation, criticism and enrichment by new aspects as well” (Nature and Purpose of Ecumenical Dialogue, cf V, paragraph 4)

Further, you continue to gloss over the fact that the Cardinal is acknowledging that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ…

In a reletavistic sense…here’s the comment…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.” (CWN)So don’t mind the statement so much my Protestant friends, and please don’t be offended…it’s “just” the “Catholic understanding” we are describing. Relative to your own understanding, you do have churches, so relax. We each have our own “truth” relative to where we are! Can’t we just all get along?

Look again–Kasper refers to plural “dialogues” at least seven times in the text!

As a part of the whole singular ecumenical movement of the 20th century - not as differing parts, some seeming to be relativistic and others not. He never contrasts anything other than their acceptance now and their rejection then.

He’s saying that the Church once condemned the form of dialogue that seemed relativistic. He’s NOT saying all dialogues are relativistic!

Obviously, he clearly does not belive such dialogues and the movement is relativistic. And all the “good intentions” of the participants will outweigh whatever relativistic elemnts might pop up here and there. It’s obvious to him that such perceptions was were overbloan. His eyes have been “opened” to the wonders of ecumenism. Despite the empty pews, the closing churches, the silencing of the call to “conversion” to the One True Church - he simply believes otherwise.

In fact, he may even desribe the previous attitude of the Church as “sectarian fundamentalistic uncommunicativeness” - but I don’t want to put words in his mouth (*see *section III, paragraph 7)

The “attitude” shifted in order to enable a genuine participating in dialogues that would not compromise the identity of the Catholic Church.

What came first, the shifting in attitude or the “genuine” participation?

And how is this new “genuine” dialogue different than dialogues that did compromise the identity of the Catholic Church? Besides the “attitude” toward them, what specifically is different about these new “genuine” dialogues from previously “false” dialogues? Examples of each please.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

…My claim is very narrow and precise–rejecting the teaching of the Magisterium in this area is indeed a mark of infidelity. If someone rejects that teaching, then, yes, the label “cafeteria Catholic” applies to him or her…

Okay - at least you admit it. Practices and prudential decisions are no longer up for discussion.

…I would definitely claim that anyone who does pursue ecumenical dialogue in a manner that is not consistent with the identity of the Church is “practicing” in a manner contrary to Vatican II and all prior teaching…

I think the sad thing is, as you aptly demonstrate without even knowing it, is that there is now an “identity crisis” within the Church. Your confusing notion of what is and is not the Church is an example. That’s what happens when the “nuances” become the “norm”. When the “exceptions” become the “rule”.

…But the Magisterium has not “practiced” anything deserving of criticism in this area. Nor has it taught anything deserving of criticism.

How many churches have to close, seminaries have to empty, etc. before the criticism becomes deserved - in your lay opinon? How many Assisi’s and how many “Happy Diwali’s” are we to endure before the faithful can speak out?

Yet another misunderstanding you seem to have! A pre-condition??? You continue to misinterpret Pius XII in such a way that you would have him contradict the Council of Florence! Pius does NOT say that “not rejecting the One True Church of Christ” is a pre-condition. Merely being baptized as a Protestant does not keep one from being part of the Mystical Body–Florence makes that crystal clear. Valid Baptism alone (no preconditions) makes one a member of that Mystical Body.

Which is in complete conformity with everything I’ve been saying.

You’re attempt to separate the Protestant from Protestantism without really separating them from Protestantism (i.e. conversion) is strange. Are you saying that the Protestants do not reject the One True Church of Christ? Whatever are they protesting against?

And you suggest this even when the mere mention that such a thing as a One True Church actually exists (only relative to the Catholic understanding of course - sarcasm intended) causes the whole Ecumenical movement to go into a state of crisis! Puuu-leeze!

I guess the only way to let them in without converting them and without them culpably rejecting the One True Church is to relativise the whole concept of Church - without calling it relativisation of course.

Big tent anyone?

Really. Tell me exactly what makes this statement “modernist.” In your own words.

It’s treatment of dogma.

I said specifically, “we have these fuzzy and borderline (or perhaps not so borderline) modernist statement…statements that clearly go beyond the mere “practice” of the Church and into the very heart of the Faith…” Nowthen, compare these statements regarding dogma by Kasper and compare them with what Pius X condemns as “Vital Immanence” in Pascendi - numbers 7 and 8 in that document - then you tell me what ya think. I don’t think I can do a better job of explaining Vital Immanence that Pope St. Pius X - better to read him first.

Really. And do so objectively - and not falsely attributing an infallible charism to Cardinal Kasper. It demonstrates quite clearly, in my humble opinion, that Kasper has been heavily influenced by modernist thinking and philosophy. Such evidence permeates his writing and especially his treatment of dogma here.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[MMLJ]

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

You may have read it but it is possible, as can be seen from some of your other posts within this thread that you did not understand it. For example, your quote below:

Well, gee, of course not–I’m one of those idiots who uses words I can’t possibly define…so tell me what it means and then I’ll know…

Please refer to Mortalium Animos in the Vatican Website itself before your start revising and putting forth your own meanings (something akin to the multiple verisons of the Bible )
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

You are.

Come on now, you know you are the Sinister Twister.:whacky:

My claim is very narrow

by your own admission.

That is false. You appear to misundrestand the text

Why is it that you imagine that you understand everything and everybody else is misunderstanding? Man, you are better than Einstein! :hypno:

Wait I know, it is all relativistic or maybe you have bettered The theory of Relativity (General, Special, or both) and Quantum Physics!!!

I think the term you really seek is ecuphobia, and it’s leading you directly into dissent and cafeteria Catholicism…

I am not sure, but are you now creating/revising/altering words now as well? Wow. Anyway, Would it not be ‘ecumenical phobia’ and not ‘ecuphobia’, since the derivations of your word creation are not correct(just curious) ?

It would be wise for you to revise the definition of ecumenism and of its protestant origin. I have some questions for you:
Did the Second Vatican Council define ecumenism? If so what is it, and if not, why not? Also, was the Second Vatican Council a doctrinal council or pastoral, if not doctrinal but pastoral, elaborate for us on this thread what this means, and How It then Applies to ecumenism? Thank you and God Bless.

I pray for you

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please don’t make personal comments, people. Just discuss the topic. Thank you.

 

[DJim]

I think the sad thing is, as you aptly demonstrate without even knowing it, is that there is now an “identity crisis” within the Church. Your confusing notion of what is and is not the Church is an example. That’s what happens when the “nuances” become the “norm”. When the “exceptions” become the “rule”.

There is nothing confusing about my “notion” of the Church. The Church’s dogma makes it clear that the baptized are all part of the Mystical Body of Christ until such time as such a member consciously and willfully separates from that Body.

How many churches have to close, seminaries have to empty, etc. before the criticism becomes deserved - in your lay opinon? How many Assisi’s and how many “Happy Diwali’s” are we to endure before the faithful can speak out?

Exactly who are the “faithful”? The people who dissent from some magisterial teaching, or the people who are obedient to all of it?

You’re attempt to separate the Protestant from Protestantism without really separating them from Protestantism (i.e. conversion) is strange. Are you saying that the Protestants do not reject the One True Church of Christ? Whatever are they protesting against?

I say what the Church says–UNTIL an individual consciously and willfully separates himself from the Body of Christ, the “One True Church of Christ,” that person–Protestant or not–remains IN the Body of Christ.

I guess the only way to let them in without converting them and without them culpably rejecting the One True Church is to relativise the whole concept of Church - without calling it relativisation of course.

And exactly where does the Magisterium teach something this ridiculous?

…yes, that’s right–nowhere. Straw man.

It’s treatment of dogma.

For someone who has elsewhere claimed that modernism itself is practically amorphous, you sure seem to think you can sniff it out with amazing accuracy…

Nowthen, compare these statements regarding dogma by Kasper and compare them with what Pius X condemns as “Vital Immanence” in Pascendi - numbers 7 and 8 in that document - then you tell me what ya think. I don’t think I can do a better job of explaining Vital Immanence that Pope St. Pius X - better to read him first.

All I asked of you is to–in your own words–articulate the exact “modernist” streak you find in the cited matierial.

And you are refusing to do so?

I am occasionally reminded of the sublime irony present when ambiguities and innuendos are used by those criticizing the Magisterium for its supposed inability to rise above ambiguities and innuendos.

You fault Cardinal Kasper personally for his conclusions and his manner of presentation. Yet you cannot articulate in your own words the precise nature of your accusation of “modernism” in his text?

A perfect opportunity for you–show me how it’s done, with clarity, precision, integrity, and without any ambiguity. Show me the “style” which the Cardinal should have used or should be using.

Give it to me in your own words, please…

DJim

 

[DustinsDad]

There is nothing confusing about my “notion” of the Church. The Church’s dogma makes it clear that the baptized are all part of the Mystical Body of Christ until such time as such a member consciously and willfully separates from that Body.

Are we “dialoguing” with infants and children below the age of reason? Or are we dolaoguing with adults? Adults right? Good.

So, since we are talking to adults here in our new ecumenical efforts - are we to cease preaching the whole gospel for fear they will reject it? Sort of keep them ignorant so as to prevent them from “consiously” and “willfully” rejecting it? This is insane.

Further, you*** assume*** the vast majority (or whatever “large number” you want to put on the stats) aren’t “consiously” and “willfully” rejecting the Church. You are putting the “exception to the rule” and making it the rule! That in and of itself is remarkable since God only knows this. But the correct term is “culpably”. And again, God only knows this, and we cannot assume to know what only God knows.

**We go by what we do know - what the Church has defined and defended since day one. Until recently - this was clear and concise and not drowned in the ocean of ecumanistic platitudes. We can look at the situation and recognize that, objectively speaking, for those outside the visible bonds of Holy Mother Church, their eternal souls are in serious jeopardy. The best remedy, indeed the only objective remedy, is to bring them home - and yet you approve of delaying the invitation until such time as what? We build a perfect pluralistic utopia? **When since Vatican II has any “ecumenical” Magistarial document or letter invited any members of any false religion to convert to the Catholic Church to save their souls? **

---

---

Exactly who are the “faithful”? The people who dissent from some magisterial teaching, or the people who are obedient to all of it?

Summa Theologica - Second Part of the Second Part
Question 33. Fraternal correction
Article 4. Whether a man is bound to correct his prelate?
newadvent.org/summa/3033.htm

Reply to Objection 2. To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the faith. But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle in writing to the Colossians (4:17) tells them to admonish their prelate: “Say to Archippus: Fulfil thy ministry [Vulgate: ‘Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.’ Cf. 2 Timothy 4:5.”** It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.”
Reply to Objection 3. To presume oneself to be simply better than one’s prelate, would seem to savor of presumptuous pride; but there is no presumption in thinking oneself better in some respect, because, in this life, no man is without some fault. We must also remember that when a man reproves his prelate charitably, it does not follow that he thinks himself any better, but merely that he offers his help to one who, “being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger,” as Augustine observes in his Rule quoted above.
Maybe that’ll help. Gotta finish the rest of this later tonight. Gotta run.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Hearing from some folks who actually work in the ecumenical dialogs at a more basic level-they work on the “Mortalium Animos” and “Dominus Iesus” model. The problem is that, while the backroom nuts-n-bolts stuff of ecumenical dialog is solid, what people see is this flowery, ambiguous fluff like Cardinal Kaspar says.

“Dominus Iesus” did not create any sort of “ecumenical crisis”. Anyone who knows how to read can see past the sugar coating and realize that the Catholic Church, which does not change, has always been rather firm in its insistance that all of those separated from Her must return to Her in order for their to be unity and communion between the two groups.

This is Roman ecumenism-swim the Tiber. There is no compromise on Rome’s side. Let our “yes” mean “yes” and our “no” mean “no”.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Hearing from some folks who actually work in the ecumenical dialogs at a more basic level-they work on the “Mortalium Animos” and “Dominus Iesus” model. The problem is that, while the backroom nuts-n-bolts stuff of ecumenical dialog is solid, what people see is this flowery, ambiguous fluff like Cardinal Kaspar says.

“Dominus Iesus” did not create any sort of “ecumenical crisis”. Anyone who knows how to read can see past the sugar coating and realize that the Catholic Church, which does not change, has always been rather firm in its insistance that all of those separated from Her must return to Her in order for their to be unity and communion between the two groups.

This is Roman ecumenism-swim the Tiber. There is no compromise on Rome’s side. Let our “yes” mean “yes” and our “no” mean “no”.

Cardinal Kasper: "“The decision of Vatican II, to which the Pope [John Paul II] adheres and spreads, is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. Today ecumenism is considered as the common road: all should be converted to the following of Christ, and it is in Christ that we will find ourselves in the end… Even the Pope, among other things, describes ecumenism in Ut unum sint as an exchange of gifts. I think this is very well said: each Church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved and not the fact that we should become ‘Protestants’ or that the others should become ‘Catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism.” (Adista, Rome, February 26, 2001, p. 9 - Emphasis mine)

I’d like to see someone reconcile that with the Catholic faith. It can’t be done. And anyone who tries will end in confusion.

The following is taken from the “Balamand Statement”, which was signed by John Paul II:

"Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church. Within these perspectives, so that there will no longer be room for mistrust and suspicion, it is necessary that there be reciprocal exchanges of information about various pastoral projects and that thus cooperation between bishops and all those with responsibilities in our Churches can be set in motion and develop." (Emphasis mine)

John Paul II signed a document saying it was no longer the aim of the Catholic Church to seek the conversion of the schismatic Orthodox. That is interesting, since the Catholic Church has defined infallibly that all schismatics will go to hell. What are we to conclude from that? Either John Paul II did not believe an infallble dogma of the faith, or he had no concern for the eternal salvation of the Orthodox.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Cardinal Kasper: "“The decision of Vatican II, to which the Pope [John Paul II] adheres and spreads, is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. Today ecumenism is considered as the common road: all should be converted to the following of Christ, and it is in Christ that we will find ourselves in the end… Even the Pope, among other things, describes ecumenism in Ut unum sint as an exchange of gifts. I think this is very well said: each Church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved and not the fact that we should become ‘Protestants’ or that the others should become ‘Catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism.” (Adista, Rome, February 26, 2001, p. 9 - Emphasis mine)

I’d like to see someone reconcile that with the Catholic faith. It can’t be done. And anyone who tries will end in confusion.

You are certainly right-that comment cannot be reconciled with the Faith taught consistently through the past ~2000 years of the true Church of Christ. Unfortunately, it is nonsense and (dare I say) outright heresy spouted off by someone whom we should be able to trust to be a staunch defender of orthodoxy. After all, I thought the red was meant to symbolize the cardinal’s willingness to die for the Church. Does it look like are our cardinalatial prelature are willing to shed their own blood for Holy Mother Church when they can’t even muster a defense of Her in writing?

What kind of nonsense “unity” is brought about when the Holy Catholic Church reduces Herself to a “fellow traveler” amongst material (and formal) heretics and schismatics, not to mention infidels and apostates? That is no unity at all. Furthermore, what does “converted to following Christ” mean if not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church-the absolute and ONLY one that Christ founded for the salvation of mankind?

Also, he must not have read “Ut Unum Sint” worth a damn anyway.

"18. Taking up an idea expressed by Pope John XXIII at the opening of the Council, the Decree on Ecumenism mentions the way of formulating doctrine as one of the elements of a continuing reform. Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truth to the preferences of a particular age, or suppressing certain articles of the Creed under the false pretext that they are no longer understood today. The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth? The Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae attributes to human dignity the quest for truth, “especially in what concerns God and his Church” and adherence to truth’s demands. A “being together” which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart."

 

[ComradeAndrei]

John Paul II signed a document saying it was no longer the aim of the Catholic Church to seek the conversion of the schismatic Orthodox. That is interesting, since the Catholic Church has defined infallibly that all schismatics will go to hell. What are we to conclude from that? Either John Paul II did not believe an infallble dogma of the faith, or he had no concern for the eternal salvation of the Orthodox.

This statement is still weak, but not necessarily wrong. I think the point of Pope John Paul II’s statement about “proselytizing” was that it causes the Orthodox to mistrust us and hampers institutional reunion with the Orthodox (namely, the Russians) because they think we are trying to “pick them off” one by one.

I would certainly disagree, as, while we shouldn’t try to twist arms or try to win converts with a “free lunch” approach, neither should we stop preaching the truth about the Catholic faith. The Catholic Church is the true Church and while the Orthodox Churches have valid sacraments and can rightly be refered to as “Churches” (as they are schismatics, not outright heretics) they still need to be in union with Rome. I think it is right to approach them with a little more sensitivity than most as they (historically) tend to get rather offensive and stand-offish at Roman overtures for unity.

However, we see more and more progress being made with a slow but steady progression towards tradition within the Catholic Church. Patriarch Alexy II even issued a statement that the return (or, wider application) of the Mass of St. Gregory the Great is a welcome sign from the Roman Church and one that gives the Russian Orthodox Church hopes of greater progress in dialogs.

With the Protestants, that’s largely a lost cause. Our best work there is helping them stay minimally Christian (i.e. in convincing the Presbyterians that ‘baptism’ in the name of various non-Trinitarian formulas was a bad idea) and helping those who see the light across the Tiber. Some Protestants, like the Anglicans are a somewhat special case in that they can be the most “Catholic” of the Protestants and their ecclesial communities truly to point towards a Catholic unity. We should be making more effort at establishing “Anglican Use” parishes of traditionally minded Anglicans who wish to convert en masse or who have converted individually but would like to maintain that sort of identity and continue to be most solicitous in making the Catholic Church a Church that practices what it preaches. When Protestants find Catholic truth through their studies of Tradition, Scripture, Patristics, etc. and want to convert, every parish should be a place where anyone can find Catholic orthodoxy, orthopraxy, reverence etc. and not feel-good nonsense.

What fence-sitting Anglo-Catholic is going to be edified by going from “Catholic” Protestantism to “Protestant” Catholicism?

 

[ComradeAndrei]

From Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI-

1. Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,” not with the intention and the hope that “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, “Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be “careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

I do not see how any true son of the Church could not see this as a perfect example of Christian charity expressed in great concern by our universal “Papa” who only wants what is good and right for his children-the whole world.

The wishy-washy “Let’s find Jesus together! We know no better than you do since Vatican II…” is anything but charity. Instead of warning people not to drink the koolaid, why would we join in drinking it with them? Vade retro Satana! Nunquam suade mihi vana! Sunt mala quae libas. Ipse venena bibas!