Ecumenism-Why the Euphoria and what is the Gain for Catholics?

[Deacon_Ed]

Exporter,

Let me give you an answer. Unity means we come to an agreement and profess the same faith and, thereby, are able to enter into communion with each other. It does not mean uniformity wherein we all worship the same way and express things with the same theology. An example would be the communion between the Western and Eastern Catholic Churches. The Catholic Church today is made up of 22 (or some claim 23) Churches that are in communion with each other. Each Church has its own head (Patriarch, Major Metropolitan or other bishop). Each Church has its own synod of bishops and the right to select and ordain their own deacons, priests and bishops.

Is that clear enough?

Deacon Ed

 

[Exporter]

Thanks Ed, I know you are trying hard to make a thickheaded man like me to understand what “unity” means. Thank You for that explaination.You and HagiaSophia both have the ability to write so well. I can get my mind around what you wrote, but again I was asking about the nuts and bolts of Ecumenism.

.
An extra credit question: **You are the director of the first ecumenical meeting in your Diocese. You will set the agenda. This will be a meeting of a Roman Catholic, a Jew, and a Baptist. You are the Catholic. All you have to do is to set two goals to be met. WHAT WILL YOU DO? What would your agenda be? What are your GOALS? Here I am trying to learn how ecumenism in action starts in real life. I am very interested in this extra credit qs.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Exporter:

Thanks Ed, I know you are trying hard to make a thickheaded man like me to understand what “unity” means. Thank You for that explaination.You and HagiaSophia both have the ability to write so well. I can get my mind around what you wrote, but again I was asking about the nuts and bolts of Ecumenism.

Um, if you don’t mind, it really is “Deacon Ed” since I am a deacon of the Catholic Church. And, no, you asked: “But what does UNITY mean? ‘The GOAL is to achieve unity by proclaiming the full truth to those Christians who are not in union with the Church’.” I answered the question of what unity means.

If, however, you are actually asking how unity is achieved, that’s a much tougher question. We begin with dialog so that we understand each other. We define terms, hash out acceptable meanings so that when we dialog we have a chance of actually communicating instead of assuming that words have the same meanings for the participants. The we work through the various issues that separate us, one at a time, trying to see if there is a way to resolve that separation.

It’s a long, slow, difficult process. Nobody wants to give up what they hold to be true. So we have to work slowly, looking for ways to resolve problems, examine errors and understand the source and meaning of the error.

Deacon Ed

 

[HagiaSophia]

Exporter:

Thanks. In simple language it seems to me that you said the Pope wants to build a Christian Army (my words) that will be a bulwark against the expected Evil Forces. And you tried to say that Ecumenism was the way to build that bulwark. It is interesting to note that you, HagiaSophia did not actuall take sides, but you did express that you hold the Pope in high esteem.

John Paul is my hero, my catechist and two days a week he drives me wild until I can try and figure out what he’s doing or why he’s doing it the way he is. This is IMHO one of the most complex men ever to hold the throne of Peter. He’s a century ahead of us.

Exporter:

If you can’t answer or if you don’t feel comfortable in answering…just say so. I can tell from your essay that you are able to set forth an abstract idea. I thank you again.

I’m not uncomfortable with offering my ideas the thing I am struggling with is the length of the explanations in order to make them seem sensible. We are covering a lot of ground here about a great many disparate groups all of whom are dealt with differently in respect to interreligious or ecumenical relationships.

Now the deacon has taken care of unity-I always picture it as an umbrella covering us all.

The goal as I understand it is first to unite all of Christendom, the next goal would be to unite all monotheists, this then includes Jews and Muslims. Now this leaves polytheists, ethical systems, etc., how it is to occur with them I am not yet quite sure, but I do note that discussions and some ceremony are opening this very week and I believe they were referred to as “naturalistic religions”.

Will there be some mass conversion among pantheists, polytheists, animists such as as Guadlupe when the Virgin appeared, 6.000 in one day they claim. I don’t have a clue.

I do feel it will take about two pontificates to accomplish, in that time, the “marriage” as I think of it, will do what all marriages do, each will be changed and although each is separate, they will be joined.

The reasons for it are myriad-- “one fold, one Shepherd” - “that they all may be one” and the verse in Scripture where Jesus tells the apostles not to concern themselves with those doing what He says who have not formally joined, them. They are “with us”. It apears to be the will of God that in His Providence we will not see the secular world remove Him from our hearts and minds.

Now how each and every step is worked out, I must leave to canonists, theologians and the hierarchy. We have prophets and saints who tell us of many future things, some dreadful, and some wonderful. For instance St. Paul of the Cross and the Cure d’Ars tell us that England will be Catholic again…don’t try telling that to the Archbishop of Canterbury this week but we are told it is so.

One of my favorite authors over 20 years ago, who worked very closely with Cardinal Bea on the Nostra Aetate document, says we will see it incrementally, he predicted an Anglican rite, affiliated with us-- I see signs of that on today’s horizon - he predicted that we and the Orthodox will settle on a mutual date for Easter (that’s already in the works), that the position of the pope will be a distinct and separate office when he deals with them and that amazingly he felt it would happen faster than we thought. It will be based on Vatican I documents and Pottmayer has already written a long article on it and it is being looked at during this pontificate.

Our Eastern Rites will once more assume the place at the Table of the church in service to the Lord that they rightfully have coming to them. Some of it is amazing to me - but then I never thought I’d see Bartholomew and Canterbury in Rome, the Pope in every corner of the globe, not to mention at the Wailing Wall-- the Iron Curtain rent in two or the internet. Yet it all happened.

I hope I have answered all your questions and the only thing I would add is that part of the title of this thread is kind of a misnomer, it isn’t all about what we can “get” - iin many cases, it’s about what we can give.

This from a woman who thought that the liturgies of her childhood of her mother’s life and her grandmother’s history would always be the same, that the hymns old and familiar would always be heard – well we’ve come a long way – there is no going back. For us it is the hardest time of all, many remember the past and have step by step come into the present - those in the future will wonder why we thought it so difficult. We are the bridge between the pre council and post council churches. It’s hard and it ain’t over.

If I missed any of your questions - please give it to me again and Deacon, I thank you so much for the “unity” - beautifully done.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Deacon Ed:

No, I don’t claim to know better than anyone. I claim to be a Son of the Church. I do know that Pope John XXIII said it was time to take a new approach since the “big stick” approach was not working.

I understand that’s one of the reasons he called Vatican II - That and much of the dryness that had begun to afflict much of the Church during the 20th Century.
Deacon Ed:

Yes, that is the Protestant approach, but it is not the Catholic approach. We don’t downplay anything, but we do start from a common starting point in order to build a working vocabulary so that we can actually communicate instead of talking past each other.

The problem is, that many of those working on the “Ecumenical Committies” are taking the Protestant or non-Christian approach, and the results have been that; 1) In many parishes, the SHEEP aren’t being fed with the Gospel of Christ and the Word of God! 2) Seminaries are largely empty as the Catholic church, esp in the Northern Hemisphere, has exp. a real and prolonged drought in VOCATIONS to the Sacred Priesthood! and 3) Conversions of NON-Christians to Catholicism are at all time lows!

"By their Fruits you will know them." St. Paul and, “You will know the Dragon by his tail.” St. Ignatius of Loyala.

And, 4) the US Council of Bishops disobeyed a direct request from Pope John Paul II to NOT join the National Council of Churches…
Deacon Ed:

And I’m sure the pope was right given the situation and times in which this took place. That was nearly 100 years ago; the Know-Nothings are pretty much gone, and the Church has determined that the disciplines then in force should be changed.

The Catholic Church, as well as the Orthodox Churches, still does not belong to the World Council of Churches, although the Vatican did send “observers”.

Why are you calling the people who were obedient to the Pope and their Bishops then “Know-Nothings”? That’s an unfair and uncharitable insult to people who maintained their trust and gave us the Church in the same condition in which it was received. Are we going to do as well to the next generation?
Deacon Ed:

Well, apparently you feel that the protection offered ecumenical councils by the Holy Spirit is a lie. That, somehow, the Holy Spirit could not protect the Church, that Jesus was on vacation. I cannot buy into that sort of thinking. Our constant teaching has been that ecumenical councils cannot teach error. Apparently you disagree. If so, how do you know that what the other ecumenical councils taught were free from error? At some point your argument self-destructs. Let’s hope you don’t.

Deacon Ed

As a member of a group labelled Schismatic by the Archbishop of Canterbury for leaving his jurisdiction over the ordination of women “Priests” and “Bishops” and presently Gay men to those positions who are engaged in those activities and turning towards the Bishop of Rome for Safe Harbor, I have to take it on Faith that Vatican II was infallible on its pronouncements regarding Faith, Doctrine and Morals.

May Gopd prosper your ministry.
In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

HagiaSophia:

John Paul is my hero, my catechist and two days a week he drives me wild until I can try and figure out what he’s doing or why he’s doing it the way he is. This is IMHO one of the most complex men ever to hold the throne of Peter. He’s a century ahead of us.

I must admit that I’ve been guilty of a bit of hero-worship, too. What’s amazed me is that he’s just published a new book, while suffering from end stage PARKENSON’S and working on the Reunification of those Anglicans who haven’t gone mad and ordained women “priests” and tossed away the traditions of the Church (more on that below)…And, he seems quite determined to show the world how to die with dignity.

HagiaSophia:

Will there be some mass conversion among pantheists, polytheists, animists such as as Guadlupe when the Virgin appeared, 6.000 in one day they claim. I don’t have a clue.

The miracle before that would be the MASS conversions of Jews to Jesus as the Messiah in the context of the Catholic Church. When that happens, you’ll see see whole parishes reinvigerated by jewish converts to Cathlicism, and we may find ourselves watching Jewish Catholic Priests being ordained by Jewish Catholic Bishops.

Although, alter talking to some of the more suspicious of the Orthodox…We need to remind them that the purpose of miracles is to bring people to faith or to restore Faith in Christ From another thread).

HagiaSophia:

Now how each and every step is worked out, I must leave to canonists, theologians and the hierarchy. We have prophets and saints who tell us of many future things, some dreadful, and some wonderful. For instance St. Paul of the Cross and the Cure d’Ars tell us that England will be Catholic again…don’t try telling that to the Archbishop of Canterbury this week but we are told it is so.

The steps have been worked out, by God.

HagiaSophia, do you remember that thread “Anglicans to Rome”? What do you think would happen if ALL of the BELIEVING ANGLICANS in England could have their LITURGY with familiar Priests or at least ones that sound familiar, where they didn’t have to worry about “Peganism” or some other form of unbelief being foisted on them, and where all they had to do was pray for and submit themselves to a Pope such as our mutual hero?

Remember, a survey said that only 30% of the CLERGY of the C of E actually believed in the Virgin Birth, Divinity and Resurrection of Jesus Christ! The TAC won’t allow anyone into it’s seminaries who can’t honestly say they believe in those!

Anglicans who believe in the UK are dying to hear the Gospel proclaimed! Too bad the Archbishop of Canterbury opted out! If this goes through, he would be able to keep the Anglican Catholic Church out of the UK!

HagiaSophia:

One of my favorite authors over 20 years ago, who worked very closely with Cardinal Bea on the Nostra Aetate document, says we will see it incrementally, he predicted an Anglican rite, affiliated with us-- I see signs of that on today’s horizon - he predicted that we and the Orthodox will settle on a mutual date for Easter (that’s already in the works), that the position of the pope will be a distinct and separate office when he deals with them and that amazingly he felt it would happen faster than we thought.

See above about the prospective name chage for the TAC to the “Anglican Catholic Church”. This does seem to be the vehicle chosen by Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger for this “Anglican Rite” that your friend referred to.

HagiaSophia:

Our Eastern Rites will once more assume the place at the Table of the church in service to the Lord that they rightfully have coming to them. Some of it is amazing to me - but then I never thought I’d see Bartholomew and Canterbury in Rome, the Pope in every corner of the globe, not to mention at the Wailing Wall-- the Iron Curtain rent in two or the internet. Yet it all happened.

This Pope has proven that courage can work mircles (bringing the Iron Curtain down), and has nearly paid for it with his life.

Patriarch Bartholomew has been impressed by Pope John Paul II. I’m sorry that the Archbishop of Canterbury just couldn’t see the price of heresy and real schism.

Time may tell what happens when he sees huge bunches of people desert his dead body for the TAC >> “Anglican Catholic Church” in Union with the See of Peter.

Blessings.

In Christ, Michael

 

[HagiaSophia]

Traditional Ang:

I must admit that I’ve been guilty of a bit of hero-worship, too. What’s amazed me is that he’s just published a new book, while suffering from end stage PARKENSON’S and working on the Reunification of those Anglicans who haven’t gone mad and ordained women “priests” and tossed away the traditions of the Church (more on that below)…And, he seems quite determined to show the world how to die with dignity.

I cannot believe how many hours are in his day and his prayer life they say is deep and frequent - I hope I have at least half of his energy for activity - sometimes when I see his schedule, I say to myself, it would kill me and I don’t have Parkinson’s.
Traditional Ang:

What do you think would happen if ALL of the BELIEVING ANGLICANS in England could have their LITURGY with familiar Priests or at least ones that sound familiar, where they didn’t have to worry about “Peganism” or some other form of unbelief being foisted on them, and where all they had to do was pray for and submit themselves to a Pope such as our mutual hero?

I’d be all for it; I see no reason to make things “difficult” or strange for those who simply want to get into “communion” with others who have shared beliefs. I think it would be comfortable for those making the transition, it would attract whole" lots "of them and I have heard a couple of local Protestant ministers declare on their radio and tv progams, it’s time we all joined up with this man. I nearly fell off my couch. I attended an Anglican Vespers at the cathedral in Dublin - beautiful liturgy, lovely prayers and wonderful music. I hope the Anglicans can get their own rite, I think it would be a wonderful addition to the “collection”. Many of them I have met have great devotion to the Blessed Virgin - it’s wonderful. Two of the most important things I think John Paul has said during this pontiicate are “Come home” and “Be not afraid”.
Traditional Ang:

Remember, a survey said that only 30% of the CLERGY of the C of E actually believed in the Virgin Birth, Divinity and Resurrection of Jesus Christ! The TAC won’t allow anyone into it’s seminaries who can’t honestly say they believe in those!

Remember the UK Anglican bishop they were ordaining who said he didn’t believe in the Virgin Birth and as he was entering to be consecrated the exterior statue of Mary was struck by lightening. I never forgot it.
Traditional Ang:

Anglicans who believe in the UK are dying to hear the Gospel proclaimed! Too bad the Archbishop of Canterbury opted out! If this goes through, he would be able to keep the Anglican Catholic Church out of the UK!

See above about the prospective name chage for the TAC to the “Anglican Catholic Church”. This does seem to be the vehicle chosen by Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger for this “Anglican Rite” that your friend referred to.

I hope so - I think new blood invigorates us and the combination would give such meaning to the world today - that people still have their spiritual needs and will do what it takes to get them fulfilled. It’s a major statement. I had a young priest tell me awhile back, that when he deals with the young, they are so hungry to know about God that he is amazed. You wonder with some of these prelates, whatever happened to “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep”. They don’t get it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Traditional Ang:

Why are you calling the people who were obedient to the Pope and their Bishops then “Know-Nothings”? That’s an unfair and uncharitable insult to people who maintained their trust and gave us the Church in the same condition in which it was received. Are we going to do as well to the next generation?

The “Know-Nothings” were an historical group in, if I’m not mistaken, the late 19th century (it’s early here!). The deacon was not being unkind, he was referencing them, I believe.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Traditional Ang:

Why are you calling the people who were obedient to the Pope and their Bishops then “Know-Nothings”? That’s an unfair and uncharitable insult to people who maintained their trust and gave us the Church in the same condition in which it was received. Are we going to do as well to the next generation?

In the 1850’s in the United States there were a group of self-proclaimed “nativists” known as the “Know-Nothings” who were rabidly anti-Catholic. It is to that group that I was referring.

Deacon Ed

 

[StMarkEofE]

Deacon Ed:

Um, if you don’t mind, it really is “Deacon Ed” since I am a deacon of the Catholic Church. And, no, you asked: “But what does UNITY mean? ‘The GOAL is to achieve unity by proclaiming the full truth to those Christians who are not in union with the Church’.” I answered the question of what unity means.

If, however, you are actually asking how unity is achieved, that’s a much tougher question. We begin with dialog so that we understand each other. We define terms, hash out acceptable meanings so that when we dialog we have a chance of actually communicating instead of assuming that words have the same meanings for the participants. The we work through the various issues that separate us, one at a time, trying to see if there is a way to resolve that separation.

It’s a long, slow, difficult process. Nobody wants to give up what they hold to be true. So we have to work slowly, looking for ways to resolve problems, examine errors and understand the source and meaning of the error.

Deacon Ed

I can only speak as an Eastern Orthodox Christian but we also feel that any talk of unity between the eastern and western churches must not involve any contradiction or compromise on the part of the Eastern church. We may not concede truths which we hold dear and have believed since the early church fathers. So, it is starting to sound like a stalemate to me. Many on both sides would like to see the cessation of talks and would like each other to go their own ways. I dont know where all this talk will lead anyway but I do know that we dont want any changes in our beliefs and I know you feel the same way about your beliefs. Any guesses as to how all this will turn out?

StMarkEofE

 

[Exporter]

The “Know Nothings”,

Platform

The platform of the American Party (know nothins)called for, among other things:

• Severe limits on immigration, especially from Catholic countries (Ireland, Italy, France)
• Restricting political office to native-born Americans (the U.S. Constitution only restricts the office of President in this way).
• Mandating a wait of 21 years before an immigrant could gain citizenship.
• Restricting public school teaching to Protestants.
• Mandating daily Bible readings in public schools (from the Protestant version of the Bible).
• Restricting the sale of liquor.
• From:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know-Nothing_movement

---

Ecumenism: From what has been written so far about John Paul II’s call for Ecumenism it seems the abstract concept is fairly well defined. As was said: it is to build a great Christian “front” that will repel the Evil Forces of the world. But it’s obvious there is a problem. Three of us have been discussing the concept but no one has the nuts and bolts of how to implement Ecumenism.

I offered a question involving only three people. A Jew, A Baptist and a Catholic. The Catholic was to set the agenda for the first meeting. I suggested the Catholic was to have two objectives. Then I asked,“What would you do?” One would leave it up to the Clergy, another said to devise a set of definitions so they are talking about the same thing.

Bringing action to Ecunenism is difficult. Three Roman Catholics can’t agree on how to start such a movement. I say it would have to be a movement, much like a great political movement. Movements require a few men in the background to have not only the zeal and brain power but organizational prowess. (+money)

If this movement comes straight from the Vatican, non-Catholics will balk. If the Jesuits can get the Protestants to initiate it and think it was their idea, it would have a better chance off success.
With this I think I will have to say this is the end of Ecumenism on this thread. I’m open to questions]

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Exporter:

I offered a question involving only three people. A Jew, A Baptist and a Catholic. The Catholic was to set the agenda for the first meeting. I suggested the Catholic was to have two objectives. Then I asked,“What would you do?” One would leave it up to the Clergy, another said to devise a set of definitions so they are talking about the same thing.

The problem is, of course, that’s not how ecumenical meetings work. We would never gather together with just one person of a given faith tradition, nor would we mix Jew and Christian. What you have described might be nice as a forum discussion of different traditions, but would never work as part of the ecumenical movement that the Pope has envisioned. That’s why I never responded to your “extra credit” question.

I also believe I supplied a “nuts and bolts” description of the process. If you want to see this in action, find the time to attend one of the annual *Orientale Lumen *conferences. They are meetings of Catholics and Orthodox on an unofficial level. On the official level we have dialogs going on with the Lutherans, Orthodox, Episcopalians, and several others. There are also dialogs established with the Jews and the Muslims.

Deacon Ed

 

[Fogny]

Deacon Ed:

The problem is, of course, that’s not how ecumenical meetings work. We would never gather together with just one person of a given faith tradition, nor would we mix Jew and Christian. What you have described might be nice as a forum discussion of different traditions, but would never work as part of the ecumenical movement that the Pope has envisioned. That’s why I never responded to your “extra credit” question.

I also believe I supplied a “nuts and bolts” description of the process. If you want to see this in action, find the time to attend one of the annual *Orientale Lumen *conferences. They are meetings of Catholics and Orthodox on an unofficial level. On the official level we have dialogs going on with the Lutherans, Orthodox, Episcopalians, and several others. There are also dialogs established with the Jews and the Muslims.

Deacon Ed

Dear Deacon,

What is the purpse of these interfaith dialogs ?? As you seem to have a good understanding. Is it conversion? or ] I personally cannot see a moving toward the Catholic faith in any meaningful way between the other churches or faiths. Seems that it is so far been a one way street. We as Catholics have changed, they have not moved in any way. Am I mistaken.

Fogny

 

[Contarini]

The Real Presence dogma is less important than the Incarnation.

Besides, one of the most important ecumenical documents, “Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry,” confesses the Real Presence, although in a much vaguer manner than orthodox Catholics can be satisfied with: “The Church confesses Christ’s real, living and active presence in the eucharist.” For the full context see wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/faith/bem4.html

The Infant baptism dogma is less important than baptism itself. And again, many if not most of the churches who take part in the ecumenical movement practice infant baptism.

The Sacrament of confession dogma is less important than the doctrine of repentance.

The Mass as a Sacrifice dogma is less important than the one sacrifice of Christ. And again, I suggest that you consult BEM (no, not Bug-Eyed Monster, though it may be all the same to you) to see just how much ecumenical agreement there is even on the question of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

The Primacy of Peter dogma is less important than the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Papal Infallibility dogma is less important than the true faith in Christ that dogma is intended to defend.
The infallibility of Cath dogma is less important than the truths contained in that dogma.
The Filioque Dogma is less important than the Holy Spirit Himself, from however many Persons He proceeds.

Sacred Oral Tradition dogma is less important than the content of the Tradition itself.

Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament dogma is less important than Jesus Christ whom you adore in the Holy Eucharist.

The Sacraments ACTUALLY give grace dogma is less important than the practice of the Sacraments themselves, and Jesus Christ to whom they unite us. And again, there’s wide agreement in ecumenical circles that grace is received in the Sacraments (some might want to say that God gives grace through the Sacraments rather than that the Sacraments give grace, but that’s just a linguistic caution to avoid the view that the Sacraments give grace in and of themselves independently of the gracious action of God–something that no one as far as I know believes).

And last but not least:
The ENTIRE Deposit of Faith is found ONLY in the Catholic Faith dogma is less important than

well, you’ve got me there, since the whole is obviously greater than the parts. But of that Deposit, my point is that by far the more numerous and important parts are agreed on by most if not all Christians.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Fogny]

Contarini:

The Real Presence dogma is less important than the Incarnation.

Besides, one of the most important ecumenical documents, “Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry,” confesses the Real Presence, although in a much vaguer manner than orthodox Catholics can be satisfied with: “The Church confesses Christ’s real, living and active presence in the eucharist.” For the full context see wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/faith/bem4.html

The Infant baptism dogma is less important than baptism itself. And again, many if not most of the churches who take part in the ecumenical movement practice infant baptism.

The Sacrament of confession dogma is less important than the doctrine of repentance.

The Mass as a Sacrifice dogma is less important than the one sacrifice of Christ. And again, I suggest that you consult BEM (no, not Bug-Eyed Monster, though it may be all the same to you) to see just how much ecumenical agreement there is even on the question of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

The Primacy of Peter dogma is less important than the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Papal Infallibility dogma is less important than the true faith in Christ that dogma is intended to defend.
The infallibility of Cath dogma is less important than the truths contained in that dogma.
The Filioque Dogma is less important than the Holy Spirit Himself, from however many Persons He proceeds.

Sacred Oral Tradition dogma is less important than the content of the Tradition itself.

Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament dogma is less important than Jesus Christ whom you adore in the Holy Eucharist.

The Sacraments ACTUALLY give grace dogma is less important than the practice of the Sacraments themselves, and Jesus Christ to whom they unite us. And again, there’s wide agreement in ecumenical circles that grace is received in the Sacraments (some might want to say that God gives grace through the Sacraments rather than that the Sacraments give grace, but that’s just a linguistic caution to avoid the view that the Sacraments give grace in and of themselves independently of the gracious action of God–something that no one as far as I know believes).

And last but not least:
The ENTIRE Deposit of Faith is found ONLY in the Catholic Faith dogma is less important than

well, you’ve got me there, since the whole is obviously greater than the parts. But of that Deposit, my point is that by far the more numerous and important parts are agreed on by most if not all Christians.

In Christ,

Edwin

Like I said, The other Churchs and Faiths have not moved and I suspect will not. Why are Catholics asked to?? Change for what to say we are more Christian, Absurd.

 

[Contarini]

Fogny:

I personally cannot see a moving toward the Catholic faith in any meaningful way between the other churches or faiths. Seems that it is so far been a one way street. We as Catholics have changed, they have not moved in any way. Am I mistaken.

You could not possibly be more mistaken, at least with regard to Protestantism. Protestantism has changed radically since Vatican II, and a great deal of it is due to Catholic ecumenism. If you don’t believe me, find a good seminary library that has archives of the evangelical magazine Christianity Today and compare the tone taken toward Catholicism in the early issues (in the 1950s) with the tone of recent issues.

“Mainline” Protestants have changed even more in this regard than evangelicals. I grant that they’ve moved away from Catholicism in some respects, most notably moral theology. But in liturgical and sacramental matters they have changed radically in a more Catholic direction. And even in the moral issues where you might see changes for the worse, the conservative resurgence in denominations like the UMC is changing that picture. Many of the best and brightest young Methodist theologians have very pro-Catholic views on issues like abortion and sexual morality as well as sacramental theology. (Women’s ordination is another matter, granted.)

What kinds of Protestantism have you been monitoring for the past forty years, and how? (I’m not asking for personal experience of those years, which I can’t claim myself. But if you think Protestants have not changed you must have some benchmark against which to measure whether they have or have not.)

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Fogny:

Like I said, The other Churchs and Faiths have not moved and I suspect will not. Why are Catholics asked to?? Change for what to say we are more Christian, Absurd.

This post is almost incomprehensible. How did my remarks strengthen your point? Don’t you realize that this level of agreement would have been inconceivable even a hundred years ago, on the Protestant side alone?

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Exporter]

Contarini http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_online.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_414508”, true);
Senior Member

I have just read your post. It looks like you wrote it. You showed some thinking.

But I have to ask, Are you an educated Protestant ? If I were to copy what you posted and pass them out to the some 800 people coming out of Mass I think half of them would chase me off the premisis. That stuff is not Catholic and Catholics wouldn’t put up with it.

Would you pass your post out at the nearest Parochial School?

 

[HagiaSophia]

Contarini:

You could not possibly be more mistaken,

Your post was an excellent summation of some of the changes which have occurred and I agree with you, it all started with the RC’s and took off from there.

 

[Contarini]

Contarini http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_online.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_414508”, true);
Senior Member

I have just read your post. It looks like you wrote it. You showed some thinking.

But I have to ask, Are you an educated Protestant ? If I were to copy what you posted and pass them out to the some 800 people coming out of Mass I think half of them would chase me off the premisis. That stuff is not Catholic and Catholics wouldn’t put up with it.

Would you pass your post out at the nearest Parochial School?

I’m a bit baffled by your questions. Are you doubting my education or my Protestantism, or both? I have an M.A. and am working (interminably) on a Ph.D., which probably makes me educated (though I expect unless I die young I’ll live to see the day when a Ph.D. is considered basic education and they’ve invented about three or four further degrees to make people feel really educated).

As for Protestantism, I’m Protestant if Episcopalians are Protestants (which in my book we are, at least historically which is the only effective way to define Protestantism). Besides, I attend a Methodist church with my wife as well as the Episcopal church, so I guess these days you could call me an Episcomethodist.

I’m not sure which of my posts you have in mind, but I should expect that my posts contain material incompatible with Catholicism. I have frequently come to the brink of converting to Catholicism and drawn back, and my posts often undertake to explain why–on my blog I’m doing this in a somewhat more systematic manner, if you ever care to visit (stewedrabbit.blogspot.com). Mind you, your parish may be more orthodox than some–the one I tried to join in NC would have been hard to shock. If the priests couldn’t do it (actually they frequently did–the parishioners were generally more orthodox than the clergy) I probably couldn’t have managed it.

I’m actually more sympathetic to conservative Catholicism than I may appear from some of my posts. I understand what you guys are reacting to, both in terms of fundamentalism and of liberal Catholicism. But I have a perhaps unfortunate hobby of playing the gadfly.

In Christ,

Edwin