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

[TNT]

Contarini:

…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.
In Christ,

Edwin

Speaking of Methodist:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
christchurchnyc.org/tour.html
Beautiful & Reverent!.
Yep, It’s Methodist! I believe it even has a communion rail !
The VATII church is selling/razing/“modernizing” such as these! Why?
Because The VATII church believes in the Real Presence and Methodists probably don’t.
It’s all very liberally Pretzel-Logical.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

katherine2:

I do love my neo-traditionalist friends, they keep me entertained.

Of course, the theology of the Mystical Body of Christ was very controversial in the early 20th century and unwelcome by the conservative elements of the Church. It was a development of the liturgical renewal and stridently denounced by the conservative Archbishop Conrad Graber of Freiburg in part of his overall condemnation of the liturgical reform movement.

**Grober’s (in)famous letter was answered by Pius XII in 1943 with his letter endorsing the theology of the Mystical Body fo Christ to the great joy of the proponents of liturgical renewal. **

**Even today SSPX and some neo-traditionalists groups within the Church cite Grober’s letter as the unheard warning against all that was to come. **

FWIW - the phrase “mystical body” was used in the 17th century: by the Puritan theologian John Owen ​

Perhaps we Catholics should denounce Pius XII for using and spreading a phrase used by a Protestant It would at least be consistent. If the CC junked everything in her that had come from outside her, I don’t think there would be very much left.

If everything that had at any time been controversial were to be “out of bounds” to Catholics, there would be no more reading of Thomas Aquinas: 20 propositions said to be extracted from his works (Dominicans were apt to deny that they all represented his ideas) were condemned by the Archbishop of Paris in 1277, just three years after he died. He had not yet become the semi-infallible Doctor of the Church and “Angel of the schools” that he had become by the eve of Vatican II; he was just another theologian, one using a rather suspect method at that; philosophical ideas based on that often-condemned author and heathen Aristotle. He also draws on Jews and Muslims: something that the “traditionalists” of today might not welcome.

Perhaps there should be a tee-shirt proclaiming that “Only ecumaniac trendies read Aquinas”. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Exporter:

Please, All of you, CONTENUE!

We will all learn something if all of you contenue posting. Please don’t be so afraid to state your state of mind, but color it with a few facts. (sarcasm)

From other threads I think Deacon Ed and some others have shown themselves to be enlightened Catholics. But I get the uncomfortable feeling from this thread they are drumbeaters for a "Smiley-Faced Church " that will accept partial Doctrine when it is conveniant.

Although my ancestors wore the Gray in the 1860s and were treated miserably by the Carpetbaggers, I will sit in CrusaderNY’s
corner on this topic.

Just one more thought. If ecumenism is so good, why didn’t the Early Fathers practice it? Think, what did they do when faced with a “New” Doctrine from another sect?

Tyconius was much quoted by certain Fathers - despite being a Donatist.​

Tertullian became a Montanist - which did not stop St. Cyprian drawing on him.

Plato was much in favour in the East - despite not being Christian at all.

The notion that Catholic Fathers, Saints & Doctors drew only and always upon other Catholics should be exposed for what it is - exaggeration and fantasy.

It is one thing to see all Arians as enemies, especially if those one meets behave as enemies - but when one finds out that a lot of “non-Catholics” are not the Catholic-hating beasts one has heard them called, but people as human and Christian as most Christians one knows, then there is surely good reason to reconsider past enmities. One does not have to believe in Papal infallibility to find the scandal of disunity among Christians scandalous; it is because it was seen as a scandal that the efforts of 1910 took root. If the seed is sown by God, He can be trusted to prosper it, in His own good time; we have only to be faithful - whatever our churchmanship. ##

I respect Deacon Ed’s vast knowledge of the Church, but here he just tinkered with technicalities. CrusaderNY, I believe, thinks like I do. We would prefer the Church to be the Roman Catholic Church, and that means to observe all that has been promulgated.
The last sentance is not well written, but it will suffice. :yup:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

Without being “super-spiritual” about things, I’ll answer “…than Christ”.​

Catholicism - any Christianity of any kind - is so much garbage without the One Who gives it the meaning it has. Most things in Christianity can be got elsewhere - but only this one Element can be found among Christians: and only because He deigns to be found & wills us to find Him. ##

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

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Fogny:

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

The primary purpose of the current dialogs is to arrive at a working vocabulary and to address issues that separate us. As far as I can see, the teachings of the Catholic Church have not changed at all.

Where there is room for change is an area that Pope John Paul II has set up – the role of the papacy. It is historically true that the role of the pope has taken on greater force over time from the beginning of the Church until today. Much of what we consider to be the role of the pope is, in reality, the role of the Patriarch of the West. However, the role of the pope is something that is up for discussion, especially in areas of juridic authority.

The ultimate goal is to lead to a reunion of Churches, either a reinitegration (for those who broke from the Catholic Church) or a reestablishment of communion for the Orthodox – who were never a part of the Roman Catholic Church but always Churches within the communion of Churches that formed the Catholic Church.

Deacon Ed

 

[TNT]

## FWIW - the phrase “mystical body” was used in the** 17th century: by the Puritan theologian John Owen**
…blah blah .

173 The term “Mystical Body” was first used in the ninth century to designate the sacramental Body, the eucharistic Body, of Christ; then, since the twelfth century, to designate its proper effect namely the "Body which is the Church", cf. Henri de Lubac, S. J., Corpus Mysticum, l’eucharistie et l’Eglise au moyen age, Paris 1944, p. 15.
ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin4.htm

Hmmmm?

 

[Fogny]

Deacon Ed:

The primary purpose of the current dialogs is to arrive at a working vocabulary and to address issues that separate us. As far as I can see, the teachings of the Catholic Church have not changed at all.

Where there is room for change is an area that Pope John Paul II has set up – the role of the papacy. It is historically true that the role of the pope has taken on greater force over time from the beginning of the Church until today. Much of what we consider to be the role of the pope is, in reality, the role of the Patriarch of the West. However, the role of the pope is something that is up for discussion, especially in areas of juridic authority.

The ultimate goal is to lead to a reunion of Churches, either a reinitegration (for those who broke from the Catholic Church) or a reestablishment of communion for the Orthodox – who were never a part of the Roman Catholic Church but always Churches within the communion of Churches that formed the Catholic Church.

Deacon Ed

The Magisterium hasn’t changed but the interpetation of the teaching sure has. Some Bishops have seemed to embrace the freedom to interpet individualy.
I cannot imagine what liberties will come from a Democratic Church instead of a Hierarchical Church.
First the liturgy then the Papacy, playing with fire???

Fogny

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Deacon Ed:

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

Deacon Ed:

Thanks - I know about these people, because they lived at about the same time as the Irish Potato Famine, Dred Scott and the Civil War.

I was afraid you had called obedient sons of the Church by the same name as these people.

I’m very glad to hear that wasn’t so, but wasn’t the era of the formation of the World Council of Churches some 20 years AFTER the hayday of the “Know Nothings”?

BTW, are you are a Perpetual Deacon, or are you preparing for the Sacred Priesthood?

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

StMarkEofE:

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

St. Mark:

I really do hope that isn’t so.

It was Our Lord’s fervant Prayer that we all be ONE. In the face of that and other things he said, to not sit down and beg each other’s forgiveness for past sins, and to not forgive those past sins, no matter how painful, would be the sin of DISOBEDIENCE!

I pray that we stop committing that sin and that we do so before the entire Church is driven underground in the persecutions that are to come! I know that, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we can ride that out together and continue to preach the Gospel to a manking that so needs to hear it, if we are UNITED. I doubt whether we can do that during that time if we are still apart and distrusting each other.

Are you really sure that’s the way you want it, or is it just that it’s easier that way?

Blessings!

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

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

Edwin, we don’t get to pick and choose, because everything the Church has taught all people since the Apostles is agreed to be true, infallible and necessary for salvation.

So out of that magnificent and necessary whole, which we have received from the Apostles, which “Items” are you willing to drop in the name of a “watered down” and not necessarily salvific “Christian Unity”.

Remember, the Church has always drawn the maximum number of people to herself and to Our Lord when she has preached and taught the deposit of faith entire and undefiled, and she has always had the most difficulty when she has done as many parts are doing today, which is dumming and “Watering down” the faith!

So, in order to draw these people into the church, what should the Church and all of her Priests and Bishops do?

Just so you know, I’m part of the Traditional Anglican Communion that’s in negotiations with the Vatican about becoming a Unite Catholic entity called the Anglican Catholic Church.

Blessings!

In Christ, Michael

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Traditional Ang:

Deacon Ed:

Thanks - I know about these people, because they lived at about the same time as the Irish Potato Famine, Dred Scott and the Civil War.

I was afraid you had called obedient sons of the Church by the same name as these people.

I’m very glad to hear that wasn’t so, but wasn’t the era of the formation of the World Council of Churches some 20 years AFTER the hayday of the “Know Nothings”?

BTW, are you are a Perpetual Deacon, or are you preparing for the Sacred Priesthood?

In Christ, Michael

I am a bi-ritual permanent deacon. The term “bi-ritual” means I have faculties to serve the Latin Church (in which I was ordained) and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church (one of the Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine Rite). The Lord knew better than to call me to the priesthood, a role for which I am unsuited.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Fogny:

The Magisterium hasn’t changed but the interpetation of the teaching sure has. Some Bishops have seemed to embrace the freedom to interpet individualy.
I cannot imagine what liberties will come from a Democratic Church instead of a Hierarchical Church.
First the liturgy then the Papacy, playing with fire???

Fogny

The liturgy has always been subject to the Holy Father (or, at least, that’s what Pope Pius XII says). The papacy itself has changed from what the Church of the first millenium saw and accepted. We need to address those changes since, clearly, they cannot be a part of the deposit of faith and are, instead, “tradition” (lower case “t” intentional).

However, perhaps you could shed some light on teachings (as opposed to disciplines) that have, in your opinion, changed.

Deacon Ed

 

[StMarkEofE]

Traditional Ang:

St. Mark:

I really do hope that isn’t so.

It was Our Lord’s fervant Prayer that we all be ONE. In the face of that and other things he said, to not sit down and beg each other’s forgiveness for past sins, and to not forgive those past sins, no matter how painful, would be the sin of DISOBEDIENCE!

I pray that we stop committing that sin and that we do so before the entire Church is driven underground in the persecutions that are to come! I know that, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we can ride that out together and continue to preach the Gospel to a manking that so needs to hear it, if we are UNITED. I doubt whether we can do that during that time if we are still apart and distrusting each other.

Are you really sure that’s the way you want it, or is it just that it’s easier that way?

Blessings!

In Christ, Michael

No, its not the way I really want it, but look at the issues: The Filioque controversy, the Dogma of the IC, Supremacy of the Pope, Essence vs Energies, Leaven vs Unleaven, Infant Communion, Purgatory, Infallibility, married priesthood, Immersion vs sprinkling, to only mention a few. Yes, we have a lot in common but we also have much more that are not so much in common. To be in union we all must be on the same page so to speak. Union means speaking as one and believing as one and celebrating the Liturgy as one. What we have now is not anywhere near unity. There are too many issues on the plate and it seems we were very much closer to each other a thousand years ago and have gradually grown apart in beliefs and practices. Nothing less than the intercession of the Holy Spirit will reconcil our differences. I hear the talk that we are stuck in the 11th century and that the western church passed us by. That may be true but it also indicates that what was believed then is also believed now by the east. Please keep in mind that we mean to keep our beliefs for this has sustained us over the many centuries and to compromise our faith and beliefs are to us anathema. Hearts and minds must be united not just externals.

StMarkEofE

 

[StMarkEofE]

Traditional Ang:

St. Mark:

I really do hope that isn’t so.

It was Our Lord’s fervant Prayer that we all be ONE. In the face of that and other things he said, to not sit down and beg each other’s forgiveness for past sins, and to not forgive those past sins, no matter how painful, would be the sin of DISOBEDIENCE!

I pray that we stop committing that sin and that we do so before the entire Church is driven underground in the persecutions that are to come! I know that, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we can ride that out together and continue to preach the Gospel to a manking that so needs to hear it, if we are UNITED. I doubt whether we can do that during that time if we are still apart and distrusting each other.

Are you really sure that’s the way you want it, or is it just that it’s easier that way?

Blessings!

In Christ, Michael

No, its not the way I really want it, but look at the issues: The Filioque controversy, the Dogma of the IC, Supremacy of the Pope, Essence vs Energies, Leaven vs Unleaven, Infant Communion, Purgatory, Infallibility, married priesthood, Immersion vs sprinkling, to only mention a few. Yes, we have a lot in common but we also have much more that are not so much in common. To be in union we all must be on the same page so to speak. Union means speaking as one and believing as one and celebrating the Liturgy as one. What we have now is not anywhere near unity. There are too many issues on the plate and it seems we were very much closer to each other a thousand years ago and have gradually grown apart in beliefs and practices. Nothing less than the intercession of the Holy Spirit will reconcil our differences. I hear the talk that we are stuck in the 11th century and that the western church passed us by. That may be true but it also indicates that what was believed then is also believed now by the east. Please keep in mind that we mean to keep our beliefs for this has sustained us over the many centuries and to compromise our faith and beliefs are to us anathema. Hearts and minds must be united not just externals.

StMarkEofE

 

[StMarkEofE]

Sorry for the double posting, my computer is acting up.

StMarkEofE

 

[CrusaderNY]

Exporter

You are so correct, and this is why every Pope before V2 saw no need to “compromise” our religion, as we are the One True Church and it is others like the Orthodox and Protestants that have sought out other forms of our True church founded by Chirst. I am not up on who the Deacon quoted before, but I did not see the word “Pope” before any of their names so if they are more important the Pope Benedict, Pope Pius X, Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII, all who wrote encyclicals and bulls on this subject (as they did not have a Council forum) which always said to keep ecumenism at arms length from the church so as not to appear that the church is looking for answers outside of the church, when it is us who have been obligiated and priviliged by our Lord to pass down for 2000 years the faith and safeguard it, as we have all of the answers and possess the entire truth, not part of it. The path we are on is a dangerous one which we were warned against and which the Post V2 Popes ignore entirely, hence the fallacy of this doctrine on church teachings and which can be defined as heresy, if you look up the meaning of it, and a Pope can be a heretic (but I am not saying that here)
.
I Love Our Holy Father, but he is bent on this Ecumenism kick, and if you search the documents of Vatican II, where this was kicked off, you cant even find what the Council fathers meant by ecumenism, no definition, vague like the entire council so the wiggle room for the modernists and anti catholic forces that were present at the council can take off and run with this.

Our Holy Father reminds me of a former President we had named Jimmy Carter, a wonderful loving liberal man who was willing to sell us out to the Russian and everyone else for that matter for the sake of having America being Loved, what happened is that Breznef and Castro and all just walked all over him, including Iran. When Reagan came in, he threw away all that love doctrine and had a carrot in one hand and a hammer in the other. That is the way a Pope has to govern. Right now Pope John Paul II is willing to give away the store and on top of that, disrgard the teachings and doctrines of other Popes.

Exporter:

HagiaSophia,

I recognise you as a competent poster. You are “level-headed” and honest. I will ask you to help this thread.

This was posted," Its goal is to achieve unity by proclaiming the full truth to those Christians who are not in union with the Church, and removing or ameliorating barriers to unity that are the products of politics, ethnicity, misuse of language, superstition and misinformation. It does not include changing or watering down doctrine."

“The GOAL is to achieve unity by proclaiming the full truth to those Christians who are not in union with the Church”.(That means Baptists and jews)

HagiaSophia, what do you think this means?
What is meant by “achieving unity”? In mathematics unity means ONE. In Chemistry unity means ONE. In terms of ecumenism, what does it mean*,"The Goal is to achieve “unity”.* What is the result of that unity?

I have addressed HagiaSophia but if another poster can offer an answer…please answer.

(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. All you have to do is to set two goals to be met. WHAT WILL YOU DO? What are your GOALS?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

StMarkEofE:

No, its not the way I really want it, but look at the issues: The Filioque controversy, the Dogma of the IC, Supremacy of the Pope, Essence vs Energies, Leaven vs Unleaven, Infant Communion, Purgatory, Infallibility, married priesthood, Immersion vs sprinkling, to only mention a few. Yes, we have a lot in common but we also have much more that are not so much in common. To be in union we all must be on the same page so to speak. Union means speaking as one and believing as one and celebrating the Liturgy as one. What we have now is not anywhere near unity. There are too many issues on the plate and it seems we were very much closer to each other a thousand years ago and have gradually grown apart in beliefs and practices. Nothing less than the intercession of the Holy Spirit will reconcil our differences. I hear the talk that we are stuck in the 11th century and that the western church passed us by. That may be true but it also indicates that what was believed then is also believed now by the east. Please keep in mind that we mean to keep our beliefs for this has sustained us over the many centuries and to compromise our faith and beliefs are to us anathema. Hearts and minds must be united not just externals.

StMarkEofE

I’m not so sure we were “closer” 1,000 years ago – but we were more willing to allow for variations of expression and tradition (note the lower case “t”) than we seem to be today. Since at least the 5th century East and West have drifted slowly into different expressions of aspects of the One Faith, but those differences were never enough to break communion.

Even the so-called 1054 break wasn’t! Patriarch Michael excommunicated only the papal legats (one of whom, Frederick of Lorraine, would become Pope Stephen IX). But communion with the Church of Rome continued for nearly 600 years after that (at least, with the Chuch of Russia). The defining event for the Greek Church was the misguided sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders.

We need to break down our differences into those that are real, those that are linguistic, those that are important, and those that aren’t (leavened vs. unleavened bread is, IMNSHO, an unimportant difference).

Deacon Ed

 

[CrusaderNY]

An article from Carndinal Ratzinger-We are all Now “Passengers on the same Train”. Never heard that definition of Ecumenism before!
Cardinal Ratzinger Comments
on Lessons of Assisi

http://www.tcrnews2.com/assisi.jpg **Evaluates Religious Leaders´ Day of Prayer for Peace

**ROME, FEB. 21, 2002 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger described the train that took religious leaders from the Vatican to Assisi as “a symbol of our pilgrimage in history.”

In an article in … 30 Days magazine (30giorni.it/), the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith evaluates the historic summit that gathered the leaders Jan. 24.

“Are we not all, perhaps, passengers on the same train?” Cardinal Ratzinger asks in the article. “Is not the fact that the train chose as its destiny peace and justice , and the reconciliation of peoples and religions, a great inspiration and, at the same time, a splendid sign of hope?” (TCR Note: Please note that this is precisely the same Cardinal who as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith issued *Dominus Iesus *which rejects both syncretism and theological relativism. Everything has its context.)

Multitudes of people gathered in all the stations between the Vatican and Assisi to greet the pilgrims of peace, says the German cardinal, who himself was a passenger on the train. The enthusiasm was no less in Assisi, especially among young people.

The people´s applause was directed above all to the Pope, who called the meeting “with the force of his personality, the depth of his faith, and the passion for peace and reconciliation that stems from it,” Cardinal Ratzinger writes.

The applause was also for “all those who along with him seek peace and justice, and it was a sign of the profound desire for peace felt by individuals in face of the devastation that surrounds us, caused by hatred and violence,” the cardinal adds.

In his address that day, the Pope said that Christ is our peace. “As Christians, we must not hide this conviction: On the part of the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch the confession of Christ our peace was clear and solemn” that day, the cardinal says.

The way undertaken by the world´s religious leaders “must be for all a way of purification,” Cardinal Ratzinger continues.

Before his conversion, St. Francis was a Christian, but then he began to think of Christianity in a new way. Only after this experience was he able to hear the voice of the Crucified, to see his nakedness, his poverty, and humiliation in contrast to the luxury and violence that previously seemed normal, the cardinal notes.

“Only then did he really know that the Crusades were not the appropriate way to protect the rights of Christians in the Holy Land, but that one had to take literally the message of the imitation of the Crucifix,” the cardinal explains.

From Francis “emerges even today the splendor of a peace that convinced the sultan and really knocked down the walls,” Cardinal Ratzinger emphasizes.

“If we as Christians undertake the way of peace following St. Francis´ example, we must not fear to lose our identity: It is precisely then when we find it,” the cardinal concludes.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Crusader NY,I am a convert and a very thankful one.I want to ask you something.How are people going to learn about the Catholic Faith if we don’t talk to them about it?If we act like snobs what kind of Christ like example is that?We are supposed to represent Jesus in our actions,so I hope that is not forgotten.There should also be an understanding that we will not change the Catholic Faith to try to "keep From Offending"non-catholics to do that is dishonest.God Bless

 

[Exporter]

“Passengers on the same train to Assisi”. How many different cars are on that train? Will there be forced integration? Will there be expected results?

Sometimes to get an idea of what a leader has said or how a proposal will work, take it to the extreme, take it to a point beyond the accepted norms. Some famous talk show hosts do that successfuly.

From another post (maybe two) the object of Ecumenism is to build a buwark against expected Evil Forces. That is a logical analysis. If I am correct that does not mean to convert the Jews & the Muslims to Catholocism. It means working shoulder to shoulder in all ways possible: militarily, economically and in humanitarian efforts.

In my experience when launching a new venture the first thing to do is to have a firm set of goals. When these goals have been reached the new venture should have been reached. What does this mean? It means planning. Often plannners are far removed from the every-day working man. Some of them have their heads in the clouds, threfore their planning doesn’t produce a workable plan. Included in the planning board should be people who are in close contact with the masses.