Ecumania strikes again!!!

[DJim]

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.

So St. Paul was “insane” to use “milk” when he had the “solid food” of the whole gospel?

It is not insanity to share the gospel with someone according to a person’s capacity to receive it. Doing so does not “keep them ignorant” but rather permits them to grow organically into the fullness of faith.

You don’t, for example, feed Augustine’s treatise on the Trinity to someone who can’t be “fed” by it. You find different ways of expressing the truth of the Trinity to such a person. With ecumenical dialogue, one similarly must use appropriate means to best express the truth of the whole gospel. And we also must distinguish between the simple efforts of people of different denominations and the organized efforts of the leaders of those denominations. At a leadership level, the dialogue would be much different than it would be at any form of ecumencial outreach happening at a “grass roots” level.

We are supposed to serve the Gospel–and noone can begin dialogue with anyone by simply engaging someone with the whole Gospel all at once. There has to be a selected starting point and a sense of direction and continuity that has the potential to move the dialogue deeper into the truth.

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.

If GOD only knows this, then quite telling me that I’m making the exception the rule. YOU can’t know for sure that you have properly identified what is numerically “exceptional.”

All you and I can do is admit–with the Church–that there is significant potential for the Mystical Body of Christ to include a host of baptized Protestants who have not willfully and consciously rejected the true Church.

***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.

It’s drowned in nothing. There are some who merely prefer to dissent from the complete teaching of the Magisterium, claiming they know better than those ordained to serve the Gospel as its teachers.

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.

So are the souls of many INSIDE those visible bonds.

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?

False religion? I thought we were talking about Christianity since that’s the subject of ecumenism–there are many erroneous forms of the Christian faith to contend with, but I don’t know that the term “false religion” is sufficient to describe that reality.

In any case, the Church constantly calls Christians to unity in the one true Church. That call is unceasing, and represented in numerous teaching documents of the last 50 years.

(regarding your Aquinas quote) Citing Aquinas to justify a perspective that embraces dissent from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church???

I don’t think you’ll find real support in Aquinas for magisterial dissent. Rather, the quote you cited does not address issues regarding the official teaching of the Church, but personal rebuke that may indeed touch on the faith or cause scandal.

What you wish to do is justify actual rejection of universal magisterial teaching. And Aquinas won’t help you there…

DJim

 

[DJim]

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.

Unfortunately, your statement is false–the Pope signed a document (apparently, though I haven’t investigated your source material yet) in which it stated:

“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.”

This addresses the pastoral activity of both the Latin and Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. Proselytizing is VERY different from evangelizing. Proselytizing has many negative connotations for people of all faiths.

What is being said here is simply that the Catholic Church does not include proselytization among its pastoral activities. Pastoral activity does NOT equal “ecumenical dialogue.”

NOWHERE does the text state that the Catholic Church has given up trying to repair the schism with the Orthodox.

Pope John Paul II got it right. You, however, did not assess his words carefully enough.

DJim

 

[DJim]

From Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI-

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.

And many subsequent “Papas” have said it just as eloquently (and just as authoritatively) in their own words.

Pope John Paul II, for example, said it just as well in his own words, for his own time.

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!

Condescension has no place in authentic ecumenical dialogue. Because the starting point for both sides of such dialogue is a deep and abiding and profound faith that their “side” of the truth is the “right” side of it, both sides must be willing to approach the table of dialogue with equal respect for the other. This necessitates a level starting point for the dialogue. But this does NOT in any way suggest that either side engaging in dialogue has somehow “forfeited” their profound faith in what they each hold to be true.

There is no “koolaid” to drink. Only a genuine desire to build relationship with those long separated by falsehood and human failure.

DJim

 

[DJim]

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.

I’ll try anyway–since Pope Benedict apparently echoed the concept “ecumenism of the (or a) return.”

Are you familiar with the many different “rites” of the Church, now in union with Rome, but once in schism? (e.g., the Byzantine Rite, Maronite Rite, etc.).

Are you familiar with the term “Anglican Use”? It applies to entire Anglican communities that have been reunited with the Catholic Church, but were permitted to retain as much of their identity and history as could be itself reconciled with the Catholic faith.

I’m pretty sure that is the concept being applied here and is being contrasted with the concept of simple and complete abandonment of one’s collective “denominational” history and identity.

It certainly was that way when different Eastern Churches returned to unity with Rome. My thinking is that the Cardinal and the Pope have this concept in mind.

DJim

 

[Contarini]

How many Assisi’s and how many “Happy Diwali’s” are we to endure before the faithful can speak out?

As a Protestant, I’m all in favor of Catholic laity speaking out more boldly, even if I’m not happy with what they say!

However, I’m curious as to just what you find unorthodox in the letter to which you link. To me it seems like a marvelous proclamation of the Gospel, very much like St. Paul’s use of the “unknown God” altar at Athens.

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?

Most Protestants are not protesting against anything. They are just faithful to the Christian community into which they were baptized. You surely are not silly enough to think that just because the label “Protestant” is a handy one, therefore everyone to whom it is applied must be protesting something, are you?

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!

I’m with you there. Both Dominus Iesus and the recent restatement were helps, not hindrances, to true ecumenism.

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.

In rejecting “ecumenism of return,” Kasper is saying no more than the Pope has said.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Are you familiar with the term “Anglican Use”? It applies to entire Anglican communities that have been reunited with the Catholic Church, but were permitted to retain as much of their identity and history as could be itself reconciled with the Catholic faith.

I’m pretty sure that is the concept being applied here and is being contrasted with the concept of simple and complete abandonment of one’s collective “denominational” history and identity.

That’s how I understand it too. However, I wish the Pope and the Vatican generally would give a little more guidance to those of us who are drawn to Catholicism as individuals but also do not want to abandon our heritage. The statements about rejecting “ecumenism of return” make it sound as if we are supposed to work for corporate reunion, but apart from the false position in which that may put us (“pretending” to be loyal to one community while accepting an authority external to that community’s self-definition), it brings us into conflict with the clear teaching of Vatican II (and, of course, the much more harshly expressed earlier versions of this teaching) that if you know the Catholic Church is true and don’t join it, you are putting your salvation in peril.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

This addresses the pastoral activity of both the Latin and Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. Proselytizing is VERY different from evangelizing. Proselytizing has many negative connotations for people of all faiths.

What is being said here is simply that the Catholic Church does not include proselytization among its pastoral activities. Pastoral activity does NOT equal “ecumenical dialogue.”

DJim

Websters Dictionary: “proselytize”: 1 : to induce someone to convert to one’s faith; 2 : to recruit someone to join one’s party, institution, or cause transitive verb : to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause

May I continue to Proselytize to my daying day. How many are there in heaven today who are thanking the missionaries for proselytizing them to leave their false religion and join the religion founded by God?

How many former Calvanists are in heaven today due to the proselyzation of St. Francis De Sales, who converted 70,000 of them through his proselyzation?

Why is it that the most modern churchmen today have lost this zeal for converting souls? Why do they no longer proselytize like the missionaries of old?

No one is calling for forced converssion, and that is not what the word proselyzation means. Proselyzation (which has become a bad word for many today) is actually the mission of the Church.

Those seeking to build a Big Tent religion (can anyone say Tiaze?) do not seek to convert others to the true faith, but rather to “unite” with them while they remain in their errors. This “unity” is either due to a lack of faith, or a lack of charity. Probably the former.

 

[DustinsDad]

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…

It’s obvious I’m talking with someone who doesn’t have the faintest idea what modernism is, so by pointing you to the pertinent areas of Pascendi, I’m trying to get you to actually grasp the concept and see the connection. That ain’t good enough obviously since you refuse to entertain thenotion, so I’ll say it again and spell it out for ya…Here are the comments in question…
…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. ([Nature and Purpose of Ecumenical Dialogue](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/Nature and Purpose of Ecumenical Dialogue))
To the modernist, dogma is not something rock-solid, not absolute sure truth to be received by the faithful with docility. It’s plastic and adaptable to whatever age/circumstances/experience one lives in and is experiencing. It’s the midway point between the abstract unknowable truth - and man himself. Dogma is a pliable/adaptable thing standing midway between God and man that merely serves to give religious meaning to the “current” religious setiment within man himself. Dogma is “created” as a “tool” to give meaning to that religous setiment. It can be tweaked, critiqued, adapted, modified, re-interpreted, etc. This is modernist thinking, and it is expressed by Kasper’s words above. The dead giveaway is the notion that receiving dogma is somehow a “dynamic creative process”. Modernism 101. And a far cry from
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. (1st Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter IV, #14)
What else has Kasper to say? What of the doctrine of the Papacy. Sort of a conerstone to the One True Relgion, the Church Christ founded. no? Is this safe from revision? Apparently not in the mind of Kasper…
…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.
(Nature and Purpose of Ecumenical Dialogue)
The Catholic doctrine/dogma of the papacy is certainly a problem with the Eastern Churches. Here Kasper puts even this dogma on the table for a modernist tweaking. Let’s re-examine it and make it relevant to the Eastern man - make it relevant, adapt it to his “religous setiment”. Reform the teaching in man’s image (via his religous sentiment). Again, modernism 101.

Got it now? Or do you simply refuse to see it.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

…You don’t, for example, feed Augustine’s treatise on the Trinity to someone who can’t be “fed” by it.

The fact that Christ estalished a Church and calls all to it for the Salvation of their souls is not a deep theological concept - it’s basic. If you ain’t preachin’ this, you ain’t preachin!

More on the rest later.

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

…However, I’m curious as to just what you find unorthodox in the letter to which you link. To me it seems like a marvelous proclamation of the Gospel, very much like St. Paul’s use of the “unknown God” altar at Athens.

There was no call to conversion in it. St. Paul’s did.

…Most Protestants are not protesting against anything. They are just faithful to the Christian community into which they were baptized.

And that Christian communities these folks are faithful to reject the One True Church - the Church Christ founded.

…You surely are not silly enough to think that just because the label “Protestant” is a handy one, therefore everyone to whom it is applied must be protesting something, are you?

Objectively speaking - yes. Individually, there are some who may be ignorant of this, but their religous “systems” do. Therefore, for the sake of their eternal souls, we’ve got to let 'em know what they are being faithful to. Preach the Gospel. Issue the call to conversion.

…In rejecting “ecumenism of return,” Kasper is saying no more than the Pope has said.

Wish I could, but I can’t disagree with you here. Good thing the pope is not impeccable.

I sense, perhaps too hopefuly and optimistically, that Pope Benedict XVI is sensing a problem here with this “method”, and is ever-so-slowly moving to the more traditional ways. I think he’s torn between the high expectations of the “Spirit of VII”, the “new” orientation and all that (of which he played a big part) and the reality of where these attitudes and practices have taken the Church.

Keep prayin’ for him!

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Contarini]

There was no call to conversion in it. St. Paul’s did.

It proclaims that Jesus Christ became incarnate for love of us. There is nothing unorthodox about proclaiming the truth, even if one does not say in so many words, “and now you should become Christians.” Courtesy and nuance are not heretical.

Edwin

 

[ComradeAndrei]

And many subsequent “Papas” have said it just as eloquently (and just as authoritatively) in their own words.

Pope John Paul II, for example, said it just as well in his own words, for his own time.

He did in Ut Unum Sint-that was my point. He basically reiterated what Pope Pius XI said in Mortalium Animos-something which Cardinal Kaspar (by his quotes) seems to have disregarded or put his own spin on to say something utterly different than what the documents themselves say.

Condescension has no place in authentic ecumenical dialogue. Because the starting point for both sides of such dialogue is a deep and abiding and profound faith that their “side” of the truth is the “right” side of it, both sides must be willing to approach the table of dialogue with equal respect for the other. This necessitates a level starting point for the dialogue. But this does NOT in any way suggest that either side engaging in dialogue has somehow “forfeited” their profound faith in what they each hold to be true.

Well, there’s your problem. We cannot, by the very nature of the Church, be “level” with heresy. Sure, we can respect other folks and try to find out what each party really believes in order to work more effectively for conversion, but we cannot leave the supreme truth of the Catholic Faith behind as if it doesn’t exist. That is false ecumenism.

Furthermore, I can have all the faith in the world that I’m the Easter bunny-doesn’t make it so. This is what we really do in ecumenism-we gently guide other groups towards the truth despite what their faith might have them believe at the moment. There is nothing wrong with taking a “kind and gentle” approach, but there is nothing “kind and gentle” about saying that we are all on the road to Jesus as if none of us have the right way.

In our (of course, not the official stance) rush to make sure that we don’t “offend” anyone, it seems as if we let indifferentism run amok.

There is no “koolaid” to drink. Only a genuine desire to build relationship with those long separated by falsehood and human failure.

Has heresy ceased to be a damnable sin? Can Catholics join heretical sects with impunity? Since when has it become possible to fix heresy or schism by saying, “Oh well, we’re all Christians. Let’s just call it good”?

 

[DustinsDad]

It proclaims that Jesus Christ became incarnate for love of us. There is nothing unorthodox about proclaiming the truth, even if one does not say in so many words, “and now you should become Christians.”

Except that “and now you should become Christians” is the truth.
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)

Acknowledging that “the Christian faith professes” Jesus became incarnate for love of us, without mentioning that we have to accept HIm and this love to gain eternal life…well that can be called negligent to some degree. The letter does say “God loves us all without exception and his love is unconditional” and this is true…but you can’t leave it at that without leaving the false impression that our response to that love isn’t crucial…or that our proper response is only in being “nice” to one another.

Add to this the positive spin put on the Hindu religion in the first paragraph and adding a “Happy Dwahili” to boot - well, that’s gross negligence in my book. That fact that it’s an “official message” from the Church Christ established - the voice of Christ in the world - and there you’ve got scandal.

What did Christ say if He did not say, “Come, follow me”?!?!?

End result - it leaves the pagan feeling quite complacent and secure where he’s at. At best they’ll come away with, “Well, the Christians think that Jesus is the son of God, and that we should be nice to each other…they don’t seem to have a problem with my religion, so I’m cool with that. I’ll try to be nicer from now on.”

Hoo ha.

Courtesy and nuance are not heretical.

Didn’t say it was heresy.I don’t think it’s a courtesy either.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[stmaria]

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.

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!

This is from the link you provided:
“The first magisterial use of the expression was at Vatican II, in the context of ecumenical dialogue”
I was under the impression that Vatican II taught no new doctrine. That it just developed traditional doctrine. Apparently this is not the case.
There are no footnotes attached to this statement to show that it has been developed from the teachings of previous Popes so this must be new doctrine.
I don’t see the point of coming up with something like this now. Why wasn’t this new doctrine necessary one hundred or five hundred years ago and why is this listed under “Ecumenism” and not in the Constitution of the Church?

Decree on Ecuminism
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.[34]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Top Vatican ecumenical official reassures Protestants

Comments anyone?## Nothing remarkable there, AFAICS. It’s entirely right to make clear - if clarification is needed, which it seems it was not, by Protestants at least - in what spirit a document is issued: & that is what the Cardinal has done.

There is nothing here that is not in continuity with the previous dealings between the Holy See & Protestants. Nothing is gained by being gratuitously insulting to them, & nothing Christian in gratuitous offensiveness - they are partners in dialogue & fellow-Christians, not enemies; which is also how they for their part must regard Rome, or they would not bother with Rome.

Ecumania this is not; it’s nothing worse than good manners.

 

[Genesis315]

This is from the link you provided:
“The first magisterial use of the expression was at Vatican II, in the context of ecumenical dialogue”
I was under the impression that Vatican II taught no new doctrine. That it just developed traditional doctrine. Apparently this is not the case.
There are no footnotes attached to this statement to show that it has been developed from the teachings of previous Popes so this must be new doctrine.
I don’t see the point of coming up with something like this now. Why wasn’t this new doctrine necessary one hundred or five hundred years ago and why is this listed under “Ecumenism” and not in the Constitution of the Church?

The first Magisterial instance of the phrase “Transubstantiation” was at the Fourth Lateran Council–that doesn’t mean it was a “new doctrine.” Likewise, the first Magisterial instance of the phrase “infallible” when used in reference to the Pope was by Pius IX just before the First Vatican Council, but that doesn’t mean it was a new doctrine. Just because a phrase is used by the highest organ of the Magisterium for the first time doesn’t mean it’s a new doctrine. That’s basic Catholicism really. The word Purgatory and concepts involving satisfaction for the temperal effects of sin were also late in coming in magisterial teaching–again, not new doctrine. It took a few centuries for the Magisterium to enunciate certain aspects of Chrstology even though individual Fathers had been doing so for much longer.

In fact, the very reason these truths are emphasized in a progression is because of the hiearchy of truths.

I think you are just being a little contrary here. I don’t see how anyone could find anything wrong with the idea that in order to understand certain truths of the faith, one must first understand other truths.

 

[DustinsDad]

If GOD only knows this, then quite telling me that I’m making the exception the rule. YOU can’t know for sure that you have properly identified what is numerically “exceptional.”

I can see you are making the “exception to the rule” the “rule” by comparing and contrasting your words and your posts with the writings of the Church throughout the centuries. It’s really as simple as that. Why express such incredulity?

All you and I can do is admit–with the Church–that there is significant potential for the Mystical Body of Christ to include a host of baptized Protestants who have not willfully and consciously rejected the true Church.

Actually no. You are wrong here. The Mystical Body of Christ includes all baptized Christians who do not willfully and consciouslly (or more properly - culpably) reject the truth. How many of this number are those outside the visible bonds of Holy Mother Church is impossible to know on an individual basis.

Objectively speaking, however, we can look at what they profess to believe and address that - with all charity and kindness of course - but not assuming they are all just ignorant and saved anyway - despite there religious beliefs.

So how to deal with it? Objectively again, we can taking a look at the traditional teachings of the Church - examine what it said down through the centuries up until, eh, more recent “attudes” have popped up. Look at these centuries of encyclicals and writings and athemas and what do we see? We can see the approach is to err on the side of caution (and I’d say common sense), and realize that it is signifactnly more probable that those who choose to remain outside the Church do so with full consiousness and willfulness. As I said, most adults have brains and free wills.

If we are wrong - what have we lost? Nothing (aside from perhaps being more persecuted) , because we’ll have been preaching the truth all along anyway. We’ll have actively and clearly invited and encouraged these who are already open to the truth to see the error of their Protestantism and come home. (We do that by saying “Come Home”. Not by saying - “your home is so nice, but ours is so much nicer.” and hoping they take the hint without ever having to actually “say the words”.

If we are right - well, we have still been preaching the truth and we’ll have actively and clearly invited and encouraged those outside the visible bonds of mother Church to see the errors of their Protestantism and come home. We’ll have done our duty and fulfilled the command of Christ.

DustsinsDad: 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.

DJim: So are the souls of many INSIDE those visible bonds.

Ah - so there is no difference then from being inside and being outside the visible bonds of Holy Mother Church? As I said, there seems to be an identity crisis here.

False religion? I thought we were talking about Christianity since that’s the subject of ecumenism–there are many erroneous forms of the Christian faith to contend with, but I don’t know that the term “false religion” is sufficient to describe that reality.

First of all - not all ecumenism is dealing with Christianity. Secondly - how bout “man-made religions that contain falsehoods”? That better?

Whether it is better to “believe some” than to “believe none”, I refer you again to the Summa…
Whether a man who disbelieves one article of faith, can have lifeless faith in the other articles?

I answer that, Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.
Read this question, objections and responses by St. Thomas in its entirety here.

**%between%**Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

PS: Modernists dislike Thomistic philosphy. Ever wonder why?

 

[jmcrae]

That’s how I understand it too. However, I wish the Pope and the Vatican generally would give a little more guidance to those of us who are drawn to Catholicism as individuals but also do not want to abandon our heritage. The statements about rejecting “ecumenism of return” make it sound as if we are supposed to work for corporate reunion, but apart from the false position in which that may put us (“pretending” to be loyal to one community while accepting an authority external to that community’s self-definition), it brings us into conflict with the clear teaching of Vatican II (and, of course, the much more harshly expressed earlier versions of this teaching) that if you know the Catholic Church is true and don’t join it, you are putting your salvation in peril.

In Christ,

Edwin

Edwin;

If this is your situation, then I don’t see how you have any other choice than to become a Catholic. Surely God cannot possibly want you to be dishonest with yourself, or to try to serve two masters at the same time.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin;

If this is your situation, then I don’t see how you have any other choice than to become a Catholic. Surely God cannot possibly want you to be dishonest with yourself, or to try to serve two masters at the same time.

This may be true, but I’m afraid you’re the last person I’m willing to accept this from. Where you have ended up–saying that Protestants worship a different God from Catholics–has nothing to do with anything I long for, desire, or have any reason to think might possibly be true. The only reason I think Catholicism is true is that Catholicism proclaims the same God, the same Jesus, the same Gospel I have heard all my life, but more fully.

The fact that you clearly started out believing this (I identified with your remark on another thread that you initially wanted to be ecumenical and then wondered why you cared so much more about ecumenism with Catholics than with anyone else!) is very disturbing to me. This “convert syndrome” of which you seem to have a particularly bad case is a good reason not to convert to anything. What is the point if you just kick down the ladder by which you climbed?

In Christ,

Ediwn

 

[Contarini]

First of all - not all ecumenism is dealing with Christianity.

Actually, in the strict and proper definition it is. You are of course not alone in using it in a much looser sense, but your Church does not use the term that way in official texts, nor do ecumenists generally. Ecumenism and interfaith relations are two quite distinct things.

Edwin