Ecumania strikes again!!!

[MMLJ]

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

Since you failed at addressing my previous post, here is something easier, now please show some consideration and educate us on this thread:

I have another issue for your expertise, try to elucidate :

DECREE ON ECUMENISM
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

CHAPTER I

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES ON ECUMENISM

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

What does this mean? Is this ecumenism? Since there is NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Needless to say it is possible that people of other religions may be saved provided they are in invincible error. It is important to note my dear friend that, although they may be saved within other religions, they are NEVER saved by those other religions. Since Christ is GOD, having founded the ONE CHURCH (hence it exists and is not longed for), it is impossible to state that anyone can be saved by religions other than that of GOD. Since it is Christ, who is GOD, who states :

St John 14:6* I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.*

Of course you should realize that this is logically applicable to HIS CHURCH.

This is a rejection of the dogma that ‘Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation’ (pertaining to the Decree on Ecumenism).

SINCE:
**
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896**: “The Church alone offers to the human race that religion – that state of absolute perfection – which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence.”(vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html)

Pope Pius X, Editae saepe (# 29), May 26, 1910: “The Church alone possesses together with her magisterium the power of governing and sanctifying human society. Through her ministers and servants (each in his own station and office), she confers on mankind suitable and necessary means of salvation.”(vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_26051910_editae-saepe_en.html)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives”( DENZINGER, The Sources of Catholic Dogma,ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM)

Let me know if you still cannot see the differences and I will try and rewrite it in another way. But, I am confident you can elaborate for us, we await you clarification. Thank you and GOD Bless.
P.S. I hope that my sources are more to your liking

 

[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

Actually, yes I do know what I’m saying.

Your comment above reveals without a doubt that you don’t know what I am saying.

I’m simply saying that, whatever else Kasper may be, he’s not a “modernist.” He’s not spouting heresy. I’m saying there’s no such thing as “ecumania” in the Magisterium.

I have asked you to prove your assertion by citing the evidence that links Kasper and any other contemporaries to the modernist movement of 1907 which was condemned by Pope Pius. You’ve provded NONE. Not a single link in the chain that is necessary to label Kasper a modernist.

If you can’t bridge the gap between 1907 and 2007 with credible evidence of a sustained “tradition” of “modernism” in which its tenets are handed on to the next generation, then your argument collapses.

DJim

 

[DJim]

Let me know if you still cannot see the differences and I will try and rewrite it in another way. But, I am confident you can elaborate for us, we await you clarification. Thank you and GOD Bless.
P.S. I hope that my sources are more to your liking

You are no longer on topic, seems to me. You should start a different thread and see if anyone replies. Nor did you answer my question about whether there is visible unity among Christians today.

Nor are your sources more to my liking, as you have merely taken the sedevacantist originals and tacked other web links to them.

DJim

 

[MMLJ]

You are no longer on topic, seems to me. You should start a different thread and see if anyone replies. Nor did you answer my question about whether there is visible unity among Christians today.

Nor are your sources more to my liking, as you have merely taken the sedevacantist originals and tacked other web links to them.
DJim

The links are legitimate, please check just one of them, and it shall take you directly to the document. By the way, I cannot send you to a Fake Vatican Webpage! get real man, I am not computer wizard nor a computer hacker!. It is very anti-Christ like of you to libel/slander. It is wrong to defame and be accusative on account of your own transgressions. You should be prudent and diligent. Just address the post and stop evading the truth, if you cannot, there is no harm in admitting you cannot argue your point. There is no shame in that, we are all Christians here. GOD Bless and I pray for you.

 

[DustinsDad]

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?

Indeed - and it’s “how” he suggests dealing with them that is in question.

**DustinsDad: **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?

DJim: 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…

Ah - so we finally get back to relativism - in the very source of your proposed solution even. Imagine that.

So, it’s the same truth, just applied “in a new way” that the schismatic groups can “relate” too. Would you care to ellaborate on this? In accord with the beforementioned dogmatic definition from Vatican I of course.

Aha? What’s so “aha” about this?

Your statement relates directly to what Pope St. Pius X was describing. If you can’t see it, I can do no more to help you than invite you to see it. There’ll be no forced conversions in my playbook.

Isn’t rather obvious that a group that centuries ago divided from the Church won’t see Vatican One as very “relevant”

Yes, precisely because from their erroneious perspective, they don’t accept it.

…and that it won’t really become relevant until unity is sought…

It will become relevant “to them” when they accept it. But then, there’ll be no need to “creatively” reinvent it or “creatively” reinterpret it - because they have to accept it as it’s been defined by Holy Mother Church, and when they do this, it is no longer an obstacle.

…From the perspective of a schismatic Church of the East, Vatican One is NOT relevant.

Is this a “valid” perspective or an “erroneous” perspective. Truth is absolute remember - not relative.

…And the way in which it is relevant must be demonstrated in order to move to unity, the objective of ecumenical dialogue…

That’s why we are to with charity explain the faith and invite them to receive it - what does this have to do with reinterpreting anything?

…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.

So you are just calling the result of this reinterpretation and rereception, this “creative process” a new “deeper understanding”. That fair?

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DJim]

The links are legitimate, please check just one of them, and it shall take you directly to the document. By the way, I cannot send you to a Fake Vatican Webpage! get real man, I am not computer wizard nor a computer hacker!. It is very anti-Christ like of you to libel/slander. It is wrong to defame and be accusative on account of your own transgressions. You should be prudent and diligent. Just address the post and stop evading the truth, if you cannot, there is no harm in admitting you cannot argue your point. There is no shame in that, we are all Christians here. GOD Bless and I pray for you.

I didn’t say the links were false. I said you merely added the legit links to the sedevacantist-derived source material.

I know this because I did string searches again on the texts.

For example, I searched on the string:

“Pope Pius X, Editae saepe (# 29), May 26, 1910: “The Church alone possesses together”

It did not show up at the Vatican site at all, but at the sedevacantist site. I know the original text exists at the Vatican site for much or all of the material. That wasn’t my point. My point was that I observed that the texts themselves which you are quoting are still derived from the original anti-Catholic location…

This also holds true for this string:

“Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The Church alone offers to the human race that religion” (originates with the sedevacantist site)

and for this one:

"Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside" (same site tops the list of actually several sedevacantist sites featuring this text).

Again, I’m not saying that you’re making up the quotes–I’m saying you are letting sedevacantist sites do your homework for you.

You are trusting them to provide you with quote content. When you were called on it, you added the original vatican links to the content, but you still are placing your trust in the material on a sedevacantist web site.

I find that to be troublesome. Especially as I have already demonstrated to you in another thread that that web site is UNtrustworthy and intentionally deceptive.

Plus, I don’t see how your requests relate to the topic. Again, start a new thread and see who replies…

DJim

 

[DJim]

DustinsDad–

Will you please show a direct link between Kasper and the Modernists of 1907?

You accuse Kasper of “ecumania” and assert that “ecumania” is “modernist”, yet you are avoiding demonstrating any direct connection between Kasper and the modernist movement condemned in 1907.

In 1907, the Pope didn’t condemn something belonging to the future–he condemned something present to him. What exactly was that–where was it–who was it? And how does that directly connect with today’s “ecumania”?

Have you no answer?

DJim

 

[DustinsDad]

I’m simply saying that, whatever else Kasper may be, he’s not a “modernist.” He’s not spouting heresy. I’m saying there’s no such thing as “ecumania” in the Magisterium.

Please answer the dog-goned question - I’m asking what you mean you keep answering with what you don’t mean. That not an answer.

Again - you wrote the following in post # 75…
DJim: “…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.”
My questions again…

Are you 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?

Are you suggesting that they should now they should be invited in to “fix” the situation - make the dogma “relevant” to them by letting them re-interpret it?

As for my other questions, about whether you are serious or if you realized what you were writing - it’s because because of genuine incredulity on my part. I am simply amazed at what you are writing.

If you can’t bridge the gap between 1907 and 2007 with credible evidence of a sustained “tradition” of “modernism” in which its tenets are handed on to the next generation, then your argument collapses.

I’m demonstrating where I see modernist influence - alot of it - in Kasper’s writing. I’m demonstrating where I think ecumenism has gone off the deep end so to speak (the mania part). If you are not convinced then sobeit. I’ll keep trying.

Now asking me to give you a biographical timeline and datasheet on all things modernist that exist and have existed from Pascendi until now is rather amusing - but I’m going to have to decline. Nice try to devert the conversation though. Yet another request for “research” data or “exhaustive lists” or what not that you’ve made so far in our discussions, each seeming to get bigger than the last.

I’m sorry my friend, but such isn’t necessary to prove my arguments. And there is plenty of reading material out there for you to investigate these separate issues to your complete satisfaction anyhow. (For example, I hear The Rhine Flows into the Tiberaddresses from an objective point of view some of the things you are looking for - haven’t read it myself though.)

That being said - I don’t need the entire history or biographical information on anything - just please answer the very few questions above. I’d really like to stay on your post 75 for a while - it intrigues me. Humor me for a while there would ya?

Thanks.

And peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DJim]

Are you 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?

No.

Are you suggesting that they should now they should be invited in to “fix” the situation - make the dogma “relevant” to them by letting them re-interpret it?

No.

I’m demonstrating where I see modernist influence - alot of it - in Kasper’s writing. I’m demonstrating where I think ecumenism has gone off the deep end so to speak (the mania part). If you are not convinced then sobeit. I’ll keep trying.

My point is that there are other explanations of his words that do not involve modernism and are completely consistent with the Catholic faith and with the context of his words. You reject such explanation in favor of placing a modernist “spin” on him.

Yet you have no data, apparently, that would support a “modernist” interpretation over the interpretation that is most in keeping with the Catholic faith.

Now asking me to give you a biographical timeline and datasheet on all things modernist that exist and have existed from Pascendi until now is rather amusing - but I’m going to have to decline. Nice try to devert the conversation though. Yet another request for “research” data or “exhaustive lists” or what not that you’ve made so far in our discussions, each seeming to get bigger than the last.

I’m trying to understand, not “divert”–I don’t want anything exhaustive–I just want you to offer one shred of data that demonstrates the source of 1907 modernism as an influence on Kasper. Just one.

Btw, is the Cardinal old enough to have been required to take the “oath against modernism”?

And, can you be a true “modernist” if you don’t adhere to the modernist tenet of disbelief in God?

DJim

 

[St_Isidore]

I didn’t say the links were false. I said you merely added the legit links to the sedevacantist-derived source material.

I know this because I did string searches again on the texts.

For example, I searched on the string:

“Pope Pius X, Editae saepe (# 29), May 26, 1910: “The Church alone possesses together”

It did not show up at the Vatican site at all, but at the sedevacantist site.

After reading your post above and exchange with MMLJ, you are correct that these quotes possibly are used by sedevacantist sites. But that really of no significance, since he/she can use these sites and try and get answers here (this is allowed). Maybe MMLJ has asked in an unorthodox way, but nevertheless you should at least disprove what displayed on this thread. In addition, no matter the sources, as you and I can agree, they are authentic and whether MMLJ linked as you suggest is not the question. MMLJ has made some good points and I would have to agree you are merely labeling MMLJ as a sedevacantist, while simultaneously evading his question/contrast.

You are trusting them to provide you with quote content. When you were called on it, you added the original vatican links to the content, but you still are placing your trust in the material on a sedevacantist web site.
DJim

Again this is irrelevant, this is again a evasive manouver.

 

[St_Isidore]

Sorry about resending but submitted too early.

I didn’t say the links were false. I said you merely added the legit links to the sedevacantist-derived source material.

I know this because I did string searches again on the texts.

For example, I searched on the string:

“Pope Pius X, Editae saepe (# 29), May 26, 1910: “The Church alone possesses together”

It did not show up at the Vatican site at all, but at the sedevacantist site.

After reading your post above and exchange with MMLJ, you are correct that these quotes possibly are used by sedevacantist sites. But that is really of no significance, since he/she can use these sites and try and get answers here (this is allowed). Maybe they have asked in an unorthodox manner, but nevertheless you should at least disprove what MMLJ displayed on this thread. In addition, no matter the sources, as you and I can agree, they are authentic and whether MMLJ linked as you suggest is not the question. MMLJ has made some good points and I would have to agree you are merely labeling someone as a sedevacantist, while simultaneously evading his/her question(s).

You are trusting them to provide you with quote content. When you were called on it, you added the original vatican links to the content, but you still are placing your trust in the material on a sedevacantist web site.

Again this is irrelevant, this is an evasive maneuver. You can still redeem yourself by making your points.

Plus, I don’t see how your requests relate to the topic. Again, start a new thread and see who replies…

Evasive. Humor us and prove MMLJ incorrect.

 

[stmaria]

Sorry about resending but submitted too early.

After reading your post above and exchange with MMLJ, you are correct that these quotes possibly are used by sedevacantist sites. But that is really of no significance, since he/she can use these sites and try and get answers here (this is allowed). Maybe they have asked in an unorthodox manner, but nevertheless you should at least disprove what MMLJ displayed on this thread. In addition, no matter the sources, as you and I can agree, they are authentic and whether MMLJ linked as you suggest is not the question. MMLJ has made some good points and I would have to agree you are merely labeling someone as a sedevacantist, while simultaneously evading his/her question(s).

Again this is irrelevant, this is an evasive maneuver. You can still redeem yourself by making your points.

Evasive. Humor us and prove MMLJ incorrect.

This is the full context of the quote in question
Decree on Ecumenism

1. The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.

But the Lord of Ages wisely and patiently follows out the plan of grace on our behalf, sinners that we are. In recent times more than ever before, He has been rousing divided Christians to remorse over their divisions and to a longing for unity. Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. This movement toward unity is called “ecumenical.” Those belong to it who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, doing this not merely as individuals but also as corporate bodies. For almost everyone regards the body in which he has heard the Gospel as his Church and indeed, God’s Church. **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.**The Sacred Council gladly notes all this. It has already declared its teaching on the Church, and now, moved by a desire for the restoration of unity among all the followers of Christ, it wishes to set before all Catholics the ways and means by which they too can respond to this grace and to this divine call.

This is directed for DJM but I will put in my two cents worth
Seems to me it can be interpreted different ways. All long for the day when all Christians are united into one church with one head, or you could say that the one visible church already exists right here and now. It is the Catholic Church therefore there is no need to long for something that already exists.Remember we are talking about ecumenism and the last definition would be too bold for Vatican II.
To actually say that the Catholic Church** is** the One Visible Church of God is too militant. One must say that the One True Chruch subsists in the Catholic Church.Of course the text says the movement is toward “unity” and not “reunion” which would mean an acceptance of the Pope. Its been over 40 years since vatican II and I see no movement toward acceptance of the Pope as head of all Christianity.

 

[DJim]

After reading your post above and exchange with MMLJ, you are correct that these quotes possibly are used by sedevacantist sites.

“Possibly”?–only if search engines lie. “Definitely” is the proper term…

MMLJ has made some good points and I would have to agree you are merely labeling someone as a sedevacantist, while simultaneously evading his/her question/contrast.

First of all, if you review my posts you will not see me labelling MMLJ as “sedevacantist”–I believe I was careful not to.

Second–what “good points” have been made? Please cite one for me to consider, if you want a reply.

You are accusing me of evasion when the honest truth is that there has not been anything in the posts to reply to.

Not only that, but I have asked MMLJ twice whether there is visible unity among Christians today, or not. No response.

There’s nothing else for me to reply to unless I know the answer to that question from MMLJ’s perspective.

Again this is irrelevant, this is again an evasive maneuver. You can still redeem yourself by making your points.

“Redeem myself”??? What have I been “convicted” of and by whom???

Evasive. Humor us and prove MMLJ incorrect.

“Us” who?

In any case, what needs to be proved? Give me a specific accusation to refute.

DJim

PS–I hope the accusations being made are on topic…

 

[DustinsDad]

DustinsDad: Are you 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?

DJim: No.

Then please explain what your statement here means…don’t tell me what it don’t mean, tell me what it does mean.
DJim: 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. Now a dogma is the proclamation of some Apostolic Truth, something ancient and constant - there from the beginning and handed down intact in HMC throught the centuries. Vatican I obviously intended it’s definition of papal infallibility to be in accord with this (like all other defined dogmas). Simple enough. Yet here you say Vatican I “intended” to do this “BUT…” But what? But they LOST the fullness Oriential tradition. (By saying the “used” to have it “but” no longer have it in full) Does that mean they Vatican I only defined “partially” in accord with the ancient and constant faith because they didn’t (in your words) have the Oriental tradition fully? Please don’t just answer “no”, but explain how this can not be the case if your words are to be taken as factual. For if something is constant and unchanging - it means it was always there.

Follow up question here…Kasper’s source for this supposed “invitation to reinterpretation” is apparently this statement from Vatican I -
“This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church.” (Vatican I, Session IV, First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ, No. 7)Please explain to me how someone can derive an “invitation to reinterpretation” in this decree. I’m trying to find it, but I just don’t see it.

Further still, if something has been “cut off” of from Holy Mother Church due to schism - it wasn’t always there, it wasn’t constant, and it wasn’t unchanging. You can’t claim that a part of that constant and unchanging faith was “cut off due to schism” without also saying that the Catholic Church does not have the fullness of truth because folks took parts of that truth away from the Church when they fell into schism. You see my friend - look at what you are actually saying. This exemplifies the problem with so many of these ecumenical platitudes - they sound “nice” on the surface, but when you look at what the words actually mean - it can’t fit with reality. It amounts, sorry to say, to sophistry and doublespeak.

DustinsDad: Are you suggesting that they should now they should be invited in to “fix” the situation - make the dogma “relevant” to them by letting them re-interpret it?

DJim: No.

Then why when presented with this same thing earlier, did you state the following…
DJim: "Aha? What’s so “aha” about this?..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…"Further, humoring the preposition that such an invitation to reinterpret actually exists…then why would there be a need to re-interpret them if not to “make it relevant” to them?

DustinsDad: I’m demonstrating where I see modernist influence - alot of it - in Kasper’s writing. I’m demonstrating where I think ecumenism has gone off the deep end so to speak (the mania part). If you are not convinced then sobeit. I’ll keep trying.

DJim: My point is that there are other explanations of his words that do not involve modernism and are completely consistent with the Catholic faith and with the context of his words. You reject such explanation in favor of placing a modernist “spin” on him.

For the most part you just keep asking for more and more and more examples and “proof” - and when you try to offer an explanation - it merely represents the very words we are discussing. Now it seems we’re finally getting to some real details right now…Why jump onto something else at this time??? Seems like you’d rather examine who Kasper’s teachers were growing up and the list of his top-ten favorite books than the actual words that come from his mouth and pen (which, given his words, can’t say as I blame you).

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[ncjohn]

I have been watching this thread with much amusement, and with just as much sadness, as the continual misinterpretation of both the statements and intentions of ecuminism get made, with the implication that the Church is teaching error and contrary to previous doctrinal statements. I had determined to not post here, but I am going to do one post (which unfortunately got too long to fit in one piece) to highlight the problems I see with these continual faulty arguments as they show up in thread after thread.

There seems to be a whole set of faulty assumptions that goes into the whole process.

1–That those on the “other side”, the “separated brethren”, are dealing in bad faith, obstinate, and uneducated.

While there certainly are some who probably fit this description, just as their are on “our side” (including some who post here), the bulk of them are more than willing to sit down and rationally discuss our differences if they can find people who will do so without the condescending “take it or leave it” approach that implies that they are just a bunch of rubes out in left field. They may indeed be greatly in error on specific points, as are some on our own side making presentations of “Truth”, but the constant implication is that they are totally in error and just need to chuck everything they were ever taught, along with their misguided devotion, and follow us “no questions asked”. As if any of us would do that because someone with no credibility to us told us to.

2-That these separated brethren are not totally devoted to God and to the gospel.

Baloney. I have met and read many of them and this could not be further from the truth. In fact, many of them show more devotion to God and the gospel, and the command to love one another as we have been loved, than many Catholics who seem much more bound up in their rules and regulations on how everyone else should live than in devotion to God or their fellow man.

3-That people should just understand that we have the whole Truth and just accept that, regardless of whatever evidence has shown them otherwise along the way.

We have separated brethren primarily because in the past the Church abused its power and acted with arrogance, refusing to deal with things that were rightly brought to its attention. In the eyes of many, not much has changed and the Church continues to be arrogant and pretend that it is spotless when it is quite clear to many outside the Church that “the emperor has no clothes.”

Yes, the Church may be the spotless bride of Christ. Those running the Church however are most assuredly not. And many of the faithful give the most hideous examples of Christianity that could be offered. It is really no wonder that many would still view the Church with great suspicion. And without credibility and a vision clear to all that the Church tries to move toward the ultimate perfection, no message of “we have the whole Truth” can be heard since none of us accepts a message from one that does not have credibility with us.

Worse, the idea that people should just drop their previous conclusions without examination is foolish. Not one of us got to where we are instantaneously. We didn’t know at 10 what we knew at 20, nor did we know at 20 what we would know at 40. Faith is a journey that requires building foundations and providing concrete examples of why that foundation is solid.

When we started arithmetic, we were told you couldn’t take away a bigger number than the number you were taking it from; yet we later found out that just gives you a negative number. When we were in algebra we were taught that you cannot get a square root from a negative number. Yet lo and behold, we later found out that the square root of a negative number does in fact exist, and is quite necessary to much engineering work. Yet we continued to believe those faulty statements until the proper learning and foundations could be laid to disprove them. Any attempt to tell us otherwise before then would have been fruitless.

This is the basis of ecumenism. To take what is true, but to start at a point where there is understanding and work forward from there. Some lack patience and want to skip all that though and just go to “full mental assent” as if the journey can be skipped. We didn’t get to skip it, but we expect everyone else to. Frankly, I would say that it is not possible for anyone to claim “full mental assent” without fully understanding each and every teaching of the Church. One can claim to assent to what they know; one cannot truthfully assent to what one is not aware of.

continued on next post

 

[ncjohn]

continued from previous…

Finally, we deal with this need on the part of some to specifically attribute negative connotations to Cardinal Kaspar, and refuse to consider how what he is saying is totally consonant with the Church’s teaching, prefering to accuse a Cardinal in the Church, who has devoted his life to the Church, of heresy rather than consider that it may be our own misinterpretation or dislike for the Church’s understanding that may be at fault.

If nothing else, we are required to always assume the good will of others in what they say and do:

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

I know that those here will feel that they are “…correcting others in love” from their faulty interpretation. What I see instead from the outside is “Thank you Lord for not making me like other men”, with a total belief in one’s own righteousness and inability to be in error, while a Cardinal appointed to deal with ecumenical efforts couldn’t possibly know what he’s talking about.

Those who want to find error will find error, whether it exists or not. I’ll not even try to debate further than has been done as it is clear that no one here is going to change their minds. I just find it sad that so many are so willing and eager to find fault in the leadership of the Church rather than do the soul searching they demand of everyone else to find out where their own thoughts may be mistaken. And I find it sadder that they are willing to look down on their Catholic brethren who just don’t find the problems in accepting what the Chruch teaches, and find them to just be unenlightened.

Peace to all,

 

[DJim]

Then please explain what your statement here means…don’t tell me what it don’t mean, tell me what it does mean.

Judging from what you wrote and what you emphasized, you completely misread my quote. The phrase “but no longer does so fully because of schism” is modifying “a faith that once explicitly included ‘Oriental tradition’”.

The “but” does not apply to what Vatican One “intended”.

Vatican One accomplished what it intended–it defined dogma based upon the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, which for 1000 years fully encompassed both East and West.

That definition, however, has yet to be applied to a major portion of the Eastern Churches because of the schism. Today’s “Oriental tradition” is at least partially inaccessible to us because of schism.

So, healing that schism will amount to a restoration of the fullness of “Oriental tradition” (note this is “small-t”) in the Church and would necessitate an application of Vatican One dogma to the Eastern Church(es) that would unify with Rome. Kasper’s English translation uses “re-interpretation” for this concept.

Follow up question here…Kasper’s source for this supposed “invitation to reinterpretation” is apparently this statement from Vatican I -
“This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church.” (Vatican I, Session IV, First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ, No. 7)Please explain to me how someone can derive an “invitation to reinterpretation” in this decree. I’m trying to find it, but I just don’t see it.

The statement refers to “the whole church.”

The schismatic Eastern Churches are still technically Churches and thus part of the “whole” Church, though imperfectly. Even if you quibble with that concept, you must acknowledge that any attempt to heal the schism results in these Churches “becoming” part of the “whole Church”, thus permitting a re-examination of how Vatican One is to be “applied” to these particular restored members of the “whole church.”

Further still, if something has been “cut off” of from Holy Mother Church due to schism - it wasn’t always there, it wasn’t constant, and it wasn’t unchanging. You can’t claim that a part of that constant and unchanging faith was “cut off due to schism” without also saying that the Catholic Church does not have the fullness of truth because folks took parts of that truth away from the Church when they fell into schism.

No one is saying anything about “fullness of truth”–he’s talking about fullness of “tradition”.

Further, humoring the preposition that such an invitation to reinterpret actually exists…then why would there be a need to re-interpret them if not to “make it relevant” to them?

You have it exactly backwards–and perhaps so did I as I tried to explain it. What I’ve been trying to get at is the concept that the truth is not being changed in order to make it something “relevant”, rather it becomes relevant once unity is restored.

The best way to say it might be that, when unity is restored, the newly restored Churches become relevant to the truth in a historically new context and must have that truth applied to them in a meaningful and understandable way–a way that respects their tradition as much as it respects the fullness of the truth.

For the most part you just keep asking for more and more and more examples and “proof” - and when you try to offer an explanation - it merely represents the very words we are discussing. Now it seems we’re finally getting to some real details right now…Why jump onto something else at this time??? Seems like you’d rather examine who Kasper’s teachers were growing up and the list of his top-ten favorite books than the actual words that come from his mouth and pen (which, given his words, can’t say as I blame you).

You’re spending more words refusing to respond than I would have expected you to expend if you had replied with an answer.

Let me ask it simply: Do you have personal knowledge of any direct links between Kasper and 1907 modernism, or not???

This is yes or no. Either way I’ll let it go for awhile if you just give me a yes or no…

DJim

 

[MMLJ]

-what “good points” have been made? Please cite one for me to consider, if you want a reply.

As you requested:

Ioannes Paulus PP. II
Ut unum sint
On commitment to Ecumenism

1995.05.25

Chapter 1
The Catholic Church’s Commitment to Ecumenism
God’s plan and communion

The way of ecumenism: the way of the Church

7…And yet almost everyone, though in different ways,*** longs 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". (vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html)

This is not a sedevacantist source, or string or whatever imaginary things you come up with. Forgive any redundancy but I have to repeat, ‘This is NOT a Sedevacantist Source’. Please do not try and use unjust tactics and malign the thread.
Please GOOGLE or Yahoo this on your own accord (I used Yahoo!), and the very first site is the HOLY SEE (vatican website) the second site in the Catholic Encyclopedia (New Advent).

So Again, you cannot keep on this evasive path, so I ask again:

Q: 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)? **Q:**Is this Ecumenism???

Another Citation:

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.”

You are accusing me of evasion when the honest truth is that there has not been anything in the posts to reply to.
DJim

With the Decree on Ecumenism, Second Vatican Council is is signifying that there is longing for a truly universal Church.
Q: 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. ****Q:**Why else use such misleading words such as long for a truly Universal Church?

Please allow me rewrite the questions if you still do not see them. Surely there is something to reply to now.

 

[Genesis315]

MMLJ,

You really need to read the full texts and not things you may have cut and pasted from sedevacantist cites that are accompanied by their commentary. It is pretty clear that when you actually sit down and read the entire texts of both documents, they are talking about people longing for the one Church–not longing to create something that is not a reality, but longing for a reality that already exists (even if some do not recognize it).

From Ut Unum Sint:

“14. All these elements bear within themselves a tendency towards unity, having their fullness in that unity. It is not a matter of adding together all the riches scattered throughout the various Christian Communities in order to arrive at a Church which God has in mind for the future. In accordance with the great Tradition, attested to by the Fathers of the East and of the West, the Catholic Church believes that in the Pentecost Event God has already manifested the Church in her eschatological reality, which he had prepared “from the time of Abel, the just one”.19 This reality is something already given. Consequently we are even now in the last times. The elements of this already-given Church exist, found in their fullness in the Catholic Church.”

and here:

"9. Jesus himself, at the hour of his Passion, prayed “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21). This unity, which the Lord has bestowed on his Church and in which he wishes to embrace all people, is not something added on, but stands at the very heart of Christ’s mission. Nor is it some secondary attribute of the community of his disciples. Rather, it belongs to the very essence of this community. God wills the Church, because he wills unity, and unity is an expression of the whole depth of his* agape*.

“In effect, this unity bestowed by the Holy Spirit does not merely consist in the gathering of people as a collection of individuals. It is a unity constituted by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and hierarchical communion.”

Notice, the full unity of profession of faith and hierarchical communion is already bestowed upon the Catholic Church, which is the realization already in history of the one visible Church.

“88. Among all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities, the Catholic Church is conscious that she has preserved the ministry of the Successor of the Apostle Peter, the Bishop of Rome, whom God established as her “perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity” and whom the Spirit sustains in order that he may enable all the others to share in this essential good.”

“97. The Catholic Church, both in her *praxis *and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is—in God’s plan—an essential requisite of full and visible communion.”

Obviously the call to unity is not to create something different, but the call of all to communion with the Bishop of Rome in the unity he preserves.

As regards “full unity” or growing in unity, it is a traditional doctrine of the Church that there are those united to the Church in voto who are not united in the full way that those are who are members in res. The growth in unity is to gather those unity to the Soul of the Church, but not in the full visible unity, to that full visible unity found in the Catholic Church.

 

[DJim]

Q: 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)? **Q:**Is this Ecumenism???

The same reason we all are supposed to long for a truly holy Church even though we all know it is already here.

Q: 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. ****Q:**Why else use such misleading words such as long for a truly Universal Church?

The Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic–right?

Each of those four marks have been attacked and wounded, yet, still stand with the Church. The “holy” Church is holy despite human sin, the “one” Church is one despite human division, the “catholic” Church is universal despite human division.

Yet, we acknowledge the wounds to unity, catholicity, holiness, don’t we? We don’t go around pretending sin doesn’t exist just because the Church is holy, do we?

Would you claim those who acknowledge sin in the Church are really “suggesting” the Church does NOT exist???

Would you have us pretend division doesn’t exist just because the Church is One and Catholic???

DJim