Ecumania strikes again!!!

[jmcrae]

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

Well, and you also need to convert because you believe you are following God’s will; not because of what other people do or don’t do. If I or anyone else has power to keep you out of the Church, then obviously you aren’t ready, yet.

When you are ready to follow God’s will without regard for human opinions, nothing will stop you.

 

[DustinsDad]

DustinsDad: 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?

DJim: 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.

Do you have any quotes? Seriously. Shouldn’t be difficult if what you say is factual.

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.

I’m not dissenting - I’m supporting them. I totally respect their authority while acknowledging the Catholic understanding of their ability to be wrong on prudential matters and “approaches” - it’s not covered by infallibility.

And as I and others have demonstrated, from the words of the hierarchy itself, the “approach” others and myself are concerned about is something “new”, not something that’s been around since day one.

Voicing concerns over the current “ecumenical” practices that are going on is not dissent from “official magisterial teaching”, it’s an heartfelt experssion of frustration and bewilderment in the light of what many of the faithful see as scandalous behavior that harms the faith. And I think the quote from the Summa makes this response on our part perefectly justifiable - even called for.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

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.

Thanks - correction duly noted.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[ComradeAndrei]

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

What heritage, as an individual, do you want to keep and yet still return to Rome?

 

[Contarini]

What heritage, as an individual, do you want to keep and yet still return to Rome?

Primarily my Wesleyan heritage, both in terms of a conversionist piety (not a doctrine insisting on a definable conversion as the moment of regeneration, which I recognize as unorthodox) and even more importantly in terms of the hymn-singing tradition and the propagation of a vibrant lay religious culture focused on the study of Scripture. In the course of my “journey” (I find the term a bit pompous so I put it in scare quotes), I’ve found shelter in Anglicanism, which is historically related to my Wesleyan heritage, though the two traditions have grown apart. I am also attached to certain things from Anglicanism, such as the beauty of the Book of Common Prayer. But as already noted, that does have some limited home in Catholicism already.

It’s hard to nail down what I am talking about, because a heritage isn’t made up of discrete elements–rather, it’s a network of things.

Edwin

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Primarily my Wesleyan heritage, both in terms of a conversionist piety (not a doctrine insisting on a definable conversion as the moment of regeneration, which I recognize as unorthodox) and even more importantly in terms of the hymn-singing tradition and the propagation of a vibrant lay religious culture focused on the study of Scripture. In the course of my “journey” (I find the term a bit pompous so I put it in scare quotes), I’ve found shelter in Anglicanism, which is historically related to my Wesleyan heritage, though the two traditions have grown apart. I am also attached to certain things from Anglicanism, such as the beauty of the Book of Common Prayer. But as already noted, that does have some limited home in Catholicism already.

It’s hard to nail down what I am talking about, because a heritage isn’t made up of discrete elements–rather, it’s a network of things.

Edwin

To be a Catholic all you have to do is accept the dogmas of the faith and reject the contrary errors.

You can still have your Bible study, and your type of spirituality as long as it is not contrary to the faith. The Church has many different traditional forms of spirituality. People have different temperments and therefore there are different kinds of spirituality.

As far as the book of common prayer, if you read the history of it from a Catholic point of view, you will see that it was designed to destroy the sacrificial nature of the Mass. If you were to attend a Traditional Mass for 6 months, you would probably forget about the book of common prayer.

I grew up in the Episcopal/Anglican Church myself, and my family has deep roots in the Episcopal Church. I was even an altar boy growing up.

The Episcopal service I grew up with is almost identical to the Novus Ordo mass. The Traditional Mass was a little different when I first attended, but it grew on me; and after about 6 months I was really in love.

There is something special about the deep prayer that you experience at that Mass. There is less acticity, and thus more time to reflect and enter into it.

Give it a try. I think you would really grow to love it if you gave it 6 months.

 

[DJim]

Websters Dictionary:

 

[DJim]

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…

Actually I do have the faintest notion–you gave me a faint notion in another thread. I’m merely asking you to back up your assertions with something more than side-by-side citations that are apparently supposed to be self-interpreting…

…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))

An adequate description of the basic Catholic prinicple of doctrinal development. Now is the part where you’re supposed to show me how this is actually a “modernist heresy,” right?

To the modernist, dogma is not something rock-solid, not absolute sure truth to be received by the faithful with docility.

So Kasper is not displaying “modernist” thinking then–he never asserts this.

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.

Nor does he assert this.

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.

Nor does he assert this.

Dogma is “created” as a “tool” to give meaning to that religous setiment.

Definitely does NOT assert this…

It can be tweaked, critiqued, adapted, modified, re-interpreted, etc.

And definitely NOT this either…

This is modernist thinking, and it is expressed by Kasper’s words above.

Uh, no it’s not. Not a shred of modernism to be found, according to your own description of modernism…

The dead giveaway is the notion that receiving dogma is somehow a “dynamic creative process”. Modernism 101.

Wow–I had no idead that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were a result of…(gasp)…modernism! The reception of dogma in those cases reflected most definitely a dynamic creative process…

Here are my questions for you related to modernism:

1. Who were the originators of modernism?
2. When did it originate?
3. Who were the purveyors of modernism in 1907?
4. What happened to them?
5. How has modernism been transmitted for the last 100 years?
6. Who besides Kasper do you accuse of purveying modernist heresy today?

DJim

 

[DJim]

continuing…from Dustinsdad:

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…

This was your cited text:

…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)

I noticed the familiar little ellipses that often creep up in these comparisons…so, here’s the FULL text:

Such a process took place in the Catholic Church herself after each council and between the councils, for example between Nikaia and Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon, Vatican I and Vatican II; 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. **Vatican I itself invites such a re-interpretation in the light of the tradition of the undivided church of East and West in the first millennium as it expresses its intention to define its doctrine secundum antiquam atque constantem universalis Ecclesiae fidem (according to the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church) (DS 3052). **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.

You’ll note I underlined the part you left out.

Why did you leave it out? Because it helps to clarify his thinking and pretty much decimates your argument???

He’s making a specific–and valid–point regarding the universal Church and the reception of dogma regarding the Papacy from Vatican One. The Eastern tradition is a valid part of the universal Church (especially its pre-schism tradition), but, because of schism, the Vatican One dogmas pertaining to the papacy have really not been received or interpreted from that legitimate Eastern perspective…

Any process of re-unification with the Eastern Churches would indeed require such a process of “re-reception” or “re-interpretation” of the dogmas as they pertain to these Eastern Churches. This is by NO means a wholesale re-invention of dogma, but rather would be the normal process by which such dogmas would have been received or interpreted by these same Churches during Vatican One IF they had been in full union with the Church…

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.

Nonsense. Nothing modernist about the text…

DJim

 

[MMLJ]

Why does the Second Vatican Council and Pope John Paul 2 long for the truly Universal Church, even though we all know it is already here (The Catholic Church)? Is this Ecumenism???

SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

1. Unitatis Redintegratio – Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism.
Vatican II document, Unitatis Redintegratio # 1: “Yet almost all, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, that truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the whole world to the gospel, so that the world may be saved, to the glory of God.”

With Decree on Ecumenism, Second Vatican Council is is signifying that there is longing for a truly universal Church. **Why is this Council describing a longing for a truly Universal Church when it is already present, i.e. the Catholic Church? **This teaching of a longing is suggestive that the Catholic Church does not exist. Why else use such misleading words such as long for a truly Universal Church?
This meaning in The Decree on Ecumenism, Second Vatican Coucncil that the Church does not exist is further corroborated by Pope John Paul 2 remarks/interpretation:

John Paul II, Homily, Dec. 5, 1996, speaking of prayer with non-Catholics: “When we pray together, we do so with the longing ‘that there may be one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and sent forth to the whole world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God’

This seems to be a denial that the One Church Founded by none other than Christ who is GOD. For it is written:
Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Ephesians 4:5-6
One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all

 

[DJim]

Why does the Second Vatican Council and Pope John Paul 2 long for the truly Universal Church, even though we all know it is already here (The Catholic Church)? Is this Ecumenism???

Nope. This is merely your attempt to lead people astray with sedevacantist source material.

Try “googoling” this entire character string:

"John Paul II, Homily, Dec. 5, 1996, speaking of prayer with non-Catholics: “When we pray together, "

That string originates with only one site–an absolutely untrustworthy sedevacantist group that deserves condemnation.

DJim

PS–not all members of the Mystical Body of Christ are “visibly” united. Specifically, not all of the baptized are. We should all pray that one day we are unified.

 

[DustinsDad]

An adequate description of the basic Catholic prinicple of doctrinal development. Now is the part where you’re supposed to show me how this is actually a “modernist heresy,” right?

You are confusing doctrinal development with evolution of dogma. Check out Pax’s post over here - no need to reinvent the wheel.

I’ll only point out a bit (again) from Pascendi here to illustrate the modernist concept of evolution of dogma…
…Consequently, the formulae too, which we call dogmas, must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. An immense collection of sophisms this, that ruins and destroys all religion. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. …

…Hence it comes that these formulas, to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly must be changed. And since the character and lot of dogmatic formulas is so precarious, there is no room for surprise that Modernists regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect.
With regard to that last part, remember Kasper is the one who said “However, this determination of Christian witness is fundamentally different from sectarian fundamentalistic uncommunicativeness and does not at all contradict dialogical openness” Keep that in mind over the next few paragraphs of mine because he recognizes that it is the Catholic concept of stabile and unchangable dogmas that cause problems with dialogue…then notice his solutioni to the problem.

Nowthen, like the modernism’s notion of “evolution of dogma”, Kasper is not talking about “coming to a deeper understanding of the already taught doctrine” - he’s talking about “reception of the dogmas of the Church itself” - and how is it possible that the Church can “dialogue” while holding these dogmas This is question and the context on which Kasper opens up the option of “reinterpreting” the dogmas of the Church…I’ll include the opening paragraph here for your sake…
Nonetheless problems remain. The main problem is whether the Catholic Church through dialogue with other churches “can be open to criticism and change with regard to their binding tradition (dogmas)”. Here the Protestant churches and the Catholic Church have different convictions. While the Protestant tradition speaks of the ‘ecclesia semper reformanda’, the Catholic Church holds to the infallibility and irreversibility of dogmas. In this perspective, the question often arises as to whether there can be a true dialogue or whether dialogue for the Catholic Church is only a means of convincing and converting other Christians.

I will try to give a twofold answer…

…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. **
So Kasper’s answer is YES the Church can dialogue because YES thier dogmas can be open to criticism and change and re-interpretation! Amazing! He even gives the dogmas relating to the papacy as examples!

Wow–I had no idead that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were a result of…(gasp)…modernism! The reception of dogma in those cases reflected most definitely a dynamic creative process…

Uh, nope. They just proclaimed and made explicitly binding what was always believed from the beginning.

Here are my questions for you related to modernism:…

No thanks. Stay on topic please.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

Why did you leave it out?

Because I’m trying hard to keep too much unnecessary text within these posts - a losing battle sometimes.

Because it helps to clarify his thinking and pretty much decimates your argument???

Ya think? Let’s examine…
Kasper: Vatican I itself invites such a re-interpretation in the light of the tradition of the undivided church of East and West in the first millennium as it expresses its intention to define its doctrine secundum antiquam atque constantem universalis Ecclesiae fidem (according to the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church) (DS 3052).
Quite frankly, I don’t see how this applies or can justify Kasper’s other comments, and quite frankly, the good Cardinal is wrong here by his own words - the latter statment (“intention to define according to the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church”) contradicts the forme (“Vatican I invites such a re-interpretation”).

See, as Kasper says, Vatican I intended to define according to the ancient and constant faith of the universal church. This is clearly not a “re-interpretation” and it certainly wasn’t “a dynamic creative* process*” that implied “interpretation, criticism and enrichment by new aspects as well”. And it certainly wasn’t previously defined, and then re-defined and re-interpreted (i.e. adapted) to make it “ok” for another group to enter the Church.

Unless you can explain just exactly how Vatican I’s intention to define according to the ancient and constant faith of the universal church actually involved these other things (need I list them again?), I am forced to conclude you are falling pray to something called sophistry.

Sorry.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DJim]

You are confusing doctrinal development with evolution of dogma. Check out Pax’s post over here - no need to reinvent the wheel.

The post to which you refer doesn’t actually “invent the wheel” to begin with. There’s no confusion in stating that Cardinal Kasper is referring to development of dogma/doctrine and not to “evolution” of it in any supposedly “modernist” sense.

So Kasper’s answer is YES the Church can dialogue because YES thier dogmas can be open to criticism and change and re-interpretation! Amazing! He even gives the dogmas relating to the papacy as examples!

WRONG. Kasper acknowledges the infallibility of dogma, and also acknowledges the necessity of moving from dialogue to unity via an application of dogmas like the papal dogmas of Vatican One specifically to those groups as they explore the possibility of reunification. Doing so does not “change” the dogmas at all. What “changes” is the relevance of such dogma to the group seeking unity. Vatican One isn’t, for example, very relevant to the Orthodox Churches because they are in schism. Vatican One becomes relevant, however, in any attempt to restore unity. The question is how could or how will that dogma be relevant to them?

This doesn’t change the dogma, but rather raises questions regarding just how this “relevance” is to be applied to an Orthodox Church seeking unity with Rome and ending schism.

Uh, nope. They just proclaimed and made explicitly binding what was always believed from the beginning.

Wrong again–Both popes, a century apart, consulted their bishops and asked their bishops to consult their faithful to determine the sense of the faithful regarding these dogmas. This type of dynamic and creative process can take a while. And it did.

The process really didn’t conclude until the promulgation of the dogmas by the popes. And it really can be said that this process took about 1850 years in one case, and about 1950 years in the other…

No thanks. Stay on topic please.

Hey–you’re the one claiming “ecumania” is “modernism” in disguise. You’re also the one claiming I’m ignorant.

My questions are right on topic–if the pejorative “ecumania” is really modernism, then prove it by establishing the links in the chain–at the very least by establishing the links in the chain from 1907 to 2007.

If you can’t demonstrate how 1907’s modernists played their part in bringing modernism unfettered into 2007, your argument fails. If you can’t actually name any modernists condemned by the pope in 1907, and can’t show how their “tenets” were sustained and preserved to this day in a way that gives rise to “ecumania”, then you actually have no basis for your claim of a link…

DJim

 

[DJim]

Kasper: Vatican I itself invites such a re-interpretation in the light of the tradition of the undivided church of East and West in the first millennium as it expresses its intention to define its doctrine secundum antiquam atque constantem universalis Ecclesiae fidem (according to the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church) (DS 3052).
Quite frankly, I don’t see how this applies or can justify Kasper’s other comments, and quite frankly, the good Cardinal is wrong here by his own words - the latter statment (“intention to define according to the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church”) contradicts the former (“Vatican I invites such a re-interpretation”).

That’s just it–it does NOT contradict. It only contradicts if you misinterpret his point. His point is simple–the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church unequivocally INCLUDED “Oriental tradition” in the first thousand years of the Church’s life. The “invitation” to a “re-interpretation” is because Vatican One intended its definition to be in accord with this ancient and constant faith–a faith that once explicitly included “Oriental tradition” but no longer does so fully because of schism. He’s NOT saying the dogma is to be reinterpreted for all–he’s saying that it needs to be “applied” particularly to the East according to Eastern tradition, especially that which comprised the first millennium of the Church.

DJim

 

[MMLJ]

Nope. This is merely your attempt to lead people astray with sedevacantist source material.

So tell us what the decree means when it says long for the one visible Church of God, a truly universal Church? Here are the Vatican and EWTN links, or you may still Google away:bigyikes: at your leisure: (please note the Vatican site and EWTN are not sedevacantist sources )

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2ECUM.HTM

…All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God.

Do you deny this is in UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO Decree on Ecumenism Second Vatican Council? if not clarify for this thread your new revised version of what this means. Thank you and GOD Bless.

 

[DustinsDad]

…WRONG. Kasper acknowledges the infallibility of dogma,

Yes, and he acknowledges the problem dogma puts this new fangled ecumenical dialogue.

…and also acknowledges the necessity of moving from dialogue to unity via an application of dogmas

What exactly is this “appliction of dogma” you speak of if not the reception of said dogma, with the same sense and understanding and meaning the Church has already laid down?

…like the papal dogmas of Vatican One specifically to those groups as they explore the possibility of reunification. Doing so does not “change” the dogmas at all. What “changes” is the relevance of such dogma to the group seeking unity.

Aha! So in other word, the dogma must become “relevant” to the one who receives it.
To ascertain the nature of dogma, we must first find the relation which exists between the religious formulas and the religious sentiment. This will be readily perceived by him who realises that these formulas have no other purpose than to furnish the believer with a means of giving an account of his faith to himself. * (Pascendi, Pope St. Pius X explaining one aspect of the modernist notion of dogma)*
So without changing anything or the dogmas - let the reinterpreting of them begin, indeed let the the “creative process” begin! What are we creating? Who knows? Dialogue perhaps.

…Vatican One isn’t, for example, very relevant to the Orthodox Churches because they are in schism.

Nonsense. Vatican I is relevant to all human beings anywhere and everywhere becaue it is TRUTH.

…Vatican One becomes relevant, however, in any attempt to restore unity. The question is how could or how will that dogma be relevant to them?

It’s already relevant because it’s true. But I’ll play along. How to make it relevant…hmmmmm…by accepting it? And how should they accept it?
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)

…Wrong again–Both popes, a century apart, consulted their bishops and asked their bishops to consult their faithful to determine the sense of the faithful regarding these dogmas. This type of dynamic and creative process can take a while. And it did.

I wouldn’t describe the process as “dynamic and creative”, and nothing “new” was created unless you want to call the clarification itself and the explicit binding nature of that dogma a “creation”.

Further, this is describing how the dogma came to be explicitally defined - it speaks nothing to being “re-defined” and “re-interpreted” once already explicitly proclaimed as dogma. And just to drive the point home, here’s Vatican I again…

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)Hence, the legitimate catholic understanding of “development of doctrine” as an argument for “reinterpreting” and “redefining” and “dynamically recreating” already proclaimed dogma is - here’s a word for ya…“irrelevant”.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

That’s just it–it does NOT contradict. It only contradicts if you misinterpret his point. His point is simple–the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church unequivocally INCLUDED “Oriental tradition” in the first thousand years of the Church’s life. The “invitation” to a “re-interpretation” is because Vatican One intended its definition to be in accord with this ancient and constant faith–a faith that once explicitly included “Oriental tradition” but no longer does so fully because of schism. He’s NOT saying the dogma is to be reinterpreted for all–he’s saying that it needs to be “applied” particularly to the East according to Eastern tradition, especially that which comprised the first millennium of the Church.

DJim

So are you actually saying that Vatican I actually failed to define its doctrine according to the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church because some Eastern Churches in schism didn’t collaborate? And now they should be invited in to “fix” the situation - made the dogma “relevant” to them by letting them re-interpret it? Are you serious? Do you know what you are saying?

DustinsDad

 

[DJim]

So tell us what the decree means when it says long for the one visible Church of God, a truly universal Church? Here are the Vatican and EWTN links, or you may still Google away:bigyikes: at your leisure: (please note the Vatican site and EWTN are not sedevacantist sources )

Glad to hear it. Unfortunately, I do not know how to respond as you have not actually defined any problem with the text you quote. What is the problem you have with it? (and I sure hope it relates to the thread topic)…

Tell me, in any case–is there visible unity among Christians? Or not?

DJim

 

[DJim]

Yes, and he acknowledges the problem dogma puts this new fangled ecumenical dialogue.

Yes, and it is problematic to an extent, but it’s a problem that he is willing to deal with because you have to deal with it. So what?

What exactly is this “appliction of dogma” you speak of if not the reception of said dogma, with the same sense and understanding and meaning the Church has already laid down?

The application necessarily awaiting those groups who may seek an end to schism…restored unity necessitates that these dogmas apply to these groups in a new way–as groups in union with Rome and not as groups in schism…

Aha! So in other word, the dogma must become “relevant” to the one who receives it.

Aha? What’s so “aha” about this? And what do you mean by “the one”–we’re talking ecumenism as it pertains to whole groups, not individuals!

Isn’t rather obvious that a group that centuries ago divided from the Church won’t see Vatican One as very “relevant” and that it won’t really become relevant until unity is sought…

Nonsense. Vatican I is relevant to all human beings anywhere and everywhere becaue it is TRUTH.

I can only respond with “duh”… Objectively truth is “relevant” to all, but this illustrates the problem you are having in interpreting these texts–you will either impose your own framework or simply shift frameworks at a whim, it seems. From the perspective of a schismatic Church of the East, Vatican One is NOT relevant. And the way in which it is relevant must be demonstrated in order to move to unity, the objective of ecumenical dialogue…

I wouldn’t describe the process as “dynamic and creative”, and nothing “new” was created unless you want to call the clarification itself and the explicit binding nature of that dogma a “creation”.

Who said something “new” must be created??? A creative process may not, indeed, generate anything “new”. A creative process may, in fact, either affirm or reveal more clearly something “old”–as in the Marian dogmas.

DJim