G
- Status
H
HagiaSophia
Guest
You have to look at it also in the light that two sides will have to agree to the agreements - until that is completed we don’t have the “rules of engagement” clearly specified yet - we are in those “negotiations” on many fronts now - so what I’m saying is you can’t read the last chapter in the book until the beginning and the middle are complete and the characters fuly defined. Once tht happens yu can see what is on the table and move from there.
C
CrusaderNY
Guest
.
In Lumen Gentium, the Council fathers even state this fact, that they are following in the teachings of past Popes. This in itself is incorrect and totally false. No Pope in history would be caught dead saying what was written in mnay of these V2 documents. Below is an article from Declaration of the Church as it Relates to non-christian religions, where being Moslem and Hindu is being glorified. Can you imagine that?
The Orthodox Catholics who are drawn to this string, including the Deacon, would obviously like to see the Catholic Church promote ecumenism, and take the vagueness and confusion that exists in these V2 documents and use them as fodder, as no council documents before could ever be used (Can anyone find anything in V1 or Trent documents that is not dead on in what the intent was?).
So as these Orthodox and Protestants are within our forum hearing us Catholics debate among ourselves, the question I pose to them is "What are you as an Orthodox willing to admit or recant, that led to your schism, to bring you back to the church?"
DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH
TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
NOSTRA AETATE
PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965
Lisa4Catholics:
In Lumen Gentium, the Council fathers even state this fact, that they are following in the teachings of past Popes. This in itself is incorrect and totally false. No Pope in history would be caught dead saying what was written in mnay of these V2 documents. Below is an article from Declaration of the Church as it Relates to non-christian religions, where being Moslem and Hindu is being glorified. Can you imagine that?
The Orthodox Catholics who are drawn to this string, including the Deacon, would obviously like to see the Catholic Church promote ecumenism, and take the vagueness and confusion that exists in these V2 documents and use them as fodder, as no council documents before could ever be used (Can anyone find anything in V1 or Trent documents that is not dead on in what the intent was?).
So as these Orthodox and Protestants are within our forum hearing us Catholics debate among ourselves, the question I pose to them is "What are you as an Orthodox willing to admit or recant, that led to your schism, to bring you back to the church?"
DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH
TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
NOSTRA AETATE
PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965
- From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.
- The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
C
Contarini
Guest
Traditional Ang:
Obviously we must believe everything revealed by God. I don’t think that the list of things revealed by God is as clear-cut as conservative Catholics seem to believe. But I’m certainly not questioning that when the revealed status of a doctrine is established that doctrine becomes non-negotiable. Rather, I’m saying that ecumenical dialogue begins with the points that we hold in common, which are generally the more central doctrines (Incarnation, Resurrection, the practice of Baptism and Eucharist) and moves outward toward the questions under dispute (mode and significance of the two dominical sacraments, practice of the other five sacraments, Marian doctrines, papal authority, etc., etc.). This doesn’t involve compromising revealed truth. Rather, it helps both sides understand how more peripheral doctrines are related to the more central ones, which may or may not reveal areas of agreement hitherto unknown, or alternatively may convince one or both sides that they have been erroneously insisting on something as revealed dogma that is not in fact necessarily connected with the central Mysteries.
One thing puzzles me: isn’t your choice of name a bit rude to the continuing Anglican body currently calling itself the “Anglican Catholic Church”? Whether it has the right to do so is not the point. Quarrelling about names seems particularly unprofitable to me–and such a quarrel will definitely ensue if you insist on using that name. Granted, it’s hard to come up with Anglo-Catholic titles any more, given the number of Continuing Anglican bodies with very similar-sounding names.
In Christ,
Edwin
I understand what Catholics mean by this kind of language, and there’s a sense in which it’s true, but I don’t think it’s the best way of putting it. There is a hierarchy of truths, and certain things (such as the Immaculate Conception) are only important insofar as they point to other more important things (such as the Incarnation). The problem with the way you just phrased it is that it can be understood to mean that everything is equally important. I’ve met cradle Catholics who really did grow up with that impression–that the Faith was a collection of various teachings whose force came simply from the fact that they were all taught by the Church, rather than by their relationship to each other.
Obviously we must believe everything revealed by God. I don’t think that the list of things revealed by God is as clear-cut as conservative Catholics seem to believe. But I’m certainly not questioning that when the revealed status of a doctrine is established that doctrine becomes non-negotiable. Rather, I’m saying that ecumenical dialogue begins with the points that we hold in common, which are generally the more central doctrines (Incarnation, Resurrection, the practice of Baptism and Eucharist) and moves outward toward the questions under dispute (mode and significance of the two dominical sacraments, practice of the other five sacraments, Marian doctrines, papal authority, etc., etc.). This doesn’t involve compromising revealed truth. Rather, it helps both sides understand how more peripheral doctrines are related to the more central ones, which may or may not reveal areas of agreement hitherto unknown, or alternatively may convince one or both sides that they have been erroneously insisting on something as revealed dogma that is not in fact necessarily connected with the central Mysteries.
I’m not sure what you mean by “not necessarily salvific.” And since I’m not a Catholic, the question is inappropriately posed to me–I’m obviously not the one who would be making that decision in a Catholic-Protestant dialogue. It would be nice if Catholics were to decide that certain dogmas (such as the Immaculate Conception or Papal infallibility) were not in fact essential to the unity of the Church and could be accepted as doctrines held by some parts of the Church but not others (in fact, I know some Eastern Catholics who do seem to hold this view–but that’s a matter for Roman and Eastern Catholics to work out between themselves). I do not however think that this is likely. If we are ever to be reunited to Rome, it will probably require us to be persuaded that these more controversial dogmas are in fact necessary to the Faith. But who knows? I’m not sure where you and others get the idea that ecumenism involves “dropping” certain doctrines. Far more often it involves trying to understand controversial doctrines to see if each side can in fact “receive” the view of the other by putting it in a new light. For instance, Protestants are coming to a greater understanding of what Catholics mean by the Eucharistic sacrifice, and by the communion of the saints. That may not mean that in a union between Catholics and Methodists, say, the Methodists are going to run around with Rosaries and attend weekly Benediction (though I know two Methodists–including my wife–who do pray the Rosary). Rather, they would have to accept these practices as legitimate expressions of the Faith, while perhaps choosing to express the essential doctrines themselves in other ways (through a greater commemoration of saints’ days, for instance, or through a more reverent attitude toward the elements of the Eucharist).
I wish you all the best in that endeavor. If you succeed in maintaining the Anglican ethos in communion with Rome (as from my limited experience it appears that the current Anglican Use parishes have not done) that will be a powerful argument influencing me to convert to Catholicism myself.
One thing puzzles me: isn’t your choice of name a bit rude to the continuing Anglican body currently calling itself the “Anglican Catholic Church”? Whether it has the right to do so is not the point. Quarrelling about names seems particularly unprofitable to me–and such a quarrel will definitely ensue if you insist on using that name. Granted, it’s hard to come up with Anglo-Catholic titles any more, given the number of Continuing Anglican bodies with very similar-sounding names.
In Christ,
Edwin
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
CrusaderNY said:
This is no proof that what they said then is still valuable in the same sense now - even Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus speaks of “adaptation”. Mysterium Ecclesiae recognised in 1973 that there is a time-conditioned element in the formulation of dogma - which is surely self-evident anyway. St.Paul adapted the Gospel - he was not confining himself to Palestinian Jews, as Jesus more or less had: so why must there be no adaptation today ?
****## Nicea I did it, Chalcedon was accused of doing it, so was Trent, so was Vatican I. They have all been accused of altering or betraying the Faith. Nicea used a “taboo” word in its creed, a word condemned just 50 years before. So the “trads” - in this instance, the Arianisers - very understandably objected. The word homoousios was at least as objectionable in 325 as some features of V2 (and other Councils) have been since. But the *homoousios *is now so much a test of Christological orthodoxy that “trads” object to its disuse. No Catholic in 275 would have understood this at all. ##
and hence the reason why people dont feel obliged to, well lets say obey it as it is vague and teaches false doctrine that is leading people away from salvation and not towards it.
What do you care where I quote from or obtain info? I know exactly why because if it was written by a Priest who may have said something negative about whomever, you can right away go SEE He/she is a Sedevacantist or a Schismatic! Thats your only defense. Let me repeat, a Pope is allowed to introduce new dogma or clarify existing, as long as it does NOT contradict prior dogma (refer to your Vatican I documents). What ecumenism and most of Vatican II has done is just that, defined new teachings with total disregard for prior dogma.
Non-existent "Progress"
The so called dialogue that is ongoing is not really progressing at all. This is because today’s ecumenism is not actually a union of religions, but a pan-religious union of the liberals and lefties within the various denominations. “Ecumenical Catholics” know full well that they will get nowhere with those members of denominations who believe their religion to possess the truth. Rather, they engage with the progressivist members of the various sects whose first concern is that we all get along.## Maybe ecumenical Protestants in their turn engage with those Catholics who don’t equate God’s truth with Papal teaching from a very recent 200-years slice of the Christian tradition. After all, how can one talk to someone who is convinced that all truth is found only in a small segment of the experience of the Church and nowhere else ? Jack Chick has this approach - so do Catholic traditionalists: they differ only in their choice of the segments of history that they canonise. Which is why those who believe that God is active in all time and all space and history, & that He cannot be shut up in a Book or caged by a Church, have difficulty talking to either group
But maybe that is where ecumenism’s task really lies: in engaging with the Fundamentalists. ##[continue…]
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Who signed an accord with a Church which did little to stop child-abuse. And…? The fact is all Christians are scummy - not just “non-Catholics”; “all fall short of the glory of God…”.
It was Pope Saint Pius X who pointed out that, in the objective order, members of the Orthodox religion are not only schismatics, but also *heretics, *because they refuse to accept, 1) The processions of Persons in the Trinity;
There have been great strides - at least we no longer burn Orthodox priests for denying Roman doctrines (as happened in 1280 or so); at least Christians no longer murder one another for the Love of God. Theologically, relations between Rome and Protestants are a thousand times better than they were - thanks in part to Fascists & Communists, who helped to make intra-Christian hatred harder to sustain, by attacking Christians equally. Who cares Who sends the Spirit, when RCs and Orthodox are both perceived as equally destructible ?
Why can’t Catholics & Orthodox each hold their respective doctrines without requiring either one to be dogmatised ? “Let both grow until the harvest”. IMO, if Christians had nothing to divide them but the pronunciation of the word “potato”, they would fight over that. Christians receive the same Spirit - can it really matter Which Person sends Him how ? This kind of hair-pulling merely makes us all look ridiculous, and God contemptible or non-existent. ##Petrine supremacy is the issue - not primacy. As for the others - the Roman conceptualisations of them are alien to Orthodox thinking. One cannot be a heretic for rejectiong what has not been part of one’s Christianity: and the 1854 & 1870 definitions define what Orthodoxy did not hold anyway. Believing that Mary is immaculate is not the same as holding the form of that belief dogmatised in 1854. They cannot be made Romans in method in order to be in union with Rome. We have no more right to ask that, than to ask them to be come Thomists.
I find it very hard to believe that Our Lady cares one iota what we think about her - isn’t she more concerned with how we treat her Son ? ##This notion of a miraculous conversion seemingly “from the blue” and without human agency could have been written by a Dispensationalist. In the Church as hitherto observed, conversions don’t occur without a lot of human labour.
Why should Orthodox Christians bother with an apparition that may not even be actual ? We don’t have to believe it happened - why should they ? ##
C
CrusaderNY
Guest
With all due respect, the subject matter when Pope Benedict, Pius X, XI and XII wrote their eccyclicals and papal bulls has not changed much in 100 years, Hindus, Moslems and the schismatics are the same then as they are now and was in 1962 when the Church decided to do an about face and change all doctrine and theology and play the United Nations. Possible as a cave in from the assaults levied upon it from WWII and the accusations flying that our Holy Father Pope Pius XII did not stick his neck out far enough to save more Italian Jews, or a threat of a lawsuit, or whatever the reason, the Church and it’s indefectability fall into question when she go back on doctrine, and then you can throw Vatican I out the window and if you throw Vatican I out the window, then Vatican II should be thrown into the wastebasket
Gottle of Geer:
But maybe that is where ecumenism’s task really lies: in engaging with the Fundamentalists. ##
[continue…]
Gottle of Geer:
This is no proof that what they said then is still valuable in the same sense now - even Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus speaks of “adaptation”. Mysterium Ecclesiae recognised in 1973 that there is a time-conditioned element in the formulation of dogma - which is surely self-evident anyway. St.Paul adapted the Gospel - he was not confining himself to Palestinian Jews, as Jesus more or less had: so why must there be no adaptation today ?
Nicea I did it, Chalcedon was accused of doing it, so was Trent, so was Vatican I. They have all been accused of altering or betraying the Faith. Nicea used a “taboo” word in its creed, a word condemned just 50 years before. So the “trads” - in this instance, the Arianisers - very understandably objected. The word homoousios was at least as objectionable in 325 as some features of V2 (and other Councils) have been since. But the *homoousios *is now so much a test of Christological orthodoxy that “trads” object to its disuse. No Catholic in 275 would have understood this at all.
## Maybe ecumenical Protestants in their turn engage with those Catholics who don’t equate God’s truth with Papal teaching from a very recent 200-years slice of the Christian tradition. After all, how can one talk to someone who is convinced that all truth is found only in a small segment of the experience of the Church and nowhere else ? Jack Chick has this approach - so do Catholic traditionalists: they differ only in their choice of the segments of history that they canonise. Which is why those who nbelieve that God is active in all time and all space and history, & that He cannot be shut up in a Book or caged by a Church, have difficulty talking to either group But maybe that is where ecumenism’s task really lies: in engaging with the Fundamentalists. ##[continue…]
T
TNT
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:## And…
Communion under both kinds is even more ancient, as is communion in the hand - that has not commended either practice to traditionalists in the RCC: as the late Michael Davies explains, in “Pope Paul’s New Mass”. ##
Well, then let’s go way back:
[ **
**1 Corinthians 15:29](Douay-Rheims Bible, 1 Corinthians Chapter 15)
Antiquarianism has been condemned by Papal Encyclicals…
Give it a rest.
T
TNT
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:## And…
Communion under both kinds is even more ancient, as is communion in the hand - that has not commended either practice to traditionalists in the RCC: as the late Michael Davies explains, in “Pope Paul’s New Mass”. ##
The rubrics of the TLM do not allow for either. Trads did not “invent” TLM liturgy, nor should they change it to antiquarianism.
When did C. in - hand - stop? Exactly?
Was the C. only touched by the Ordained closer to the dogma of Real Presence and It’s Sublimity or is potato-chip style closer?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
All manner of people touched/were touched by Jesus. His Absolute, Bright, Sweet, Ineffable, Sublime Sanctity is the cure of our illness and all to our good. There is nothing inherently less reverent in rec. our God in our hand instead of on our tongue. It is the disposition of the heart God looks at, not the posture of the body. This also falls within the authority of the Pope and the Bishops to govern.
E
Exporter
Guest
What was the original question of this thread?
The question is asked, what does the Catholic Church gain by continuing on this dangerous path of Ecumenism?
Two assuptions. 1. The Church looses or gains, and 2. This is a dangerous path.
The question is asked, what does the Catholic Church gain by continuing on this dangerous path of Ecumenism?
Two assuptions. 1. The Church looses or gains, and 2. This is a dangerous path.
H
HagiaSophia
Guest
- Not of necessity; The church is doing what it considers the will of God in the uniting with others in the world. It expands, it gains allies and it gives
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
I thought somebody might drag in that part of Mediator Dei - which is one Encyclical, unless you can refer to more.
Pius XII considered restoring the permanent diaconate, just as he did restore the pre-9th century matter of the Sacrament of Order for the ordination of priests.So going back to past practices is not always bad - if his own example counts for anything. Either that is so, or he was behaving very inconsistently.
In any case, Vatican II encouraged a “return to the sources” - which had already begun in any case, as history of the Biblical, ecumenical, and Liturgical movements by 1962 show: and Pius XII can be given some of the credit for encouraging them. So even if Mediator Dei had not already to some extent been interpreted by the acts of Pius XII, the Council would take precedence over the Encyclical, both because the Church cannot be bound by the wills of Popes now dead, so that it owes no obedience to them; and because the Council was ecumenical. No pope can bind his successors, because they are not less truly popes than he is - so if John XXIII, or those who have succeeded him, have had different ideas from Pius XII, they have been fully entitled not to agree with Pius XII. After all, they must meet the problems they face, and these may not be the problems Pius XII had to face; and, solutions which were once serviceable, may no longer be.
If the history and life of the world and the Church had come to a halt in 1947 when “Mediator Dei” was written, the motionlessness and neglect of the past that some people seem to want might be both desirable and obligatory - but as long as there is a human race with a Church whose life is bound up with it, there will be challenges for the Church to meet, and the need to use the best means available - which might not always be those that are traditional, canonically legislated, or allowed by papal letters. The Church has to be flexible enough to be both traditional and present-minded; otherwise she may not be able to obey Christ with the freedom of movement to do so that she requires. So she cannot treat immobilism or legalism or traditionalism as the only ways to be faithful to Christ - because they are nothing of the kind. She has to use what she already has, without making a prison or an idol of it. ##
T
TNT
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:## And…
Communion under both kinds is even more ancient, as is** communion in the hand** - that has not commended either practice to traditionalists in the RCC: as the late Michael Davies explains, in “Pope Paul’s New Mass”. ##
And From:
**OK, HERE IS YOUR LIVING POPE: JPII **
** Dominicae Cenae 24th February 1980, the LIVING Pope … “to touch the Sacred Species and to administer them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.”
** Not enough? OK…
St. Sixtus I (circa 115)
“The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord.”
Pope St. Eutychian (275-283)
Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.
St. Basil the Great (330-379)
"The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution."
**
** The Council of Saragossa (380)
Excommunicated anyone who dared continue recieving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461)
“One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith” Serm. 91.3
The Synod of Rouen (650)
“Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman but only in their mouths.”
The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681)
Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
** St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)**
“Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)
The Council of Trent (1545-1565)
“Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the Communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained.” sess. 13, c.:8
One of the threads has Credibility for Sale…Go visit.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
But…are we permitted to do so now by the Holy See? Did the Holy Father or those acting in his competence give permission for the Church in America to distribute Holy Communion in the hand?
Not to hijack the thread, sorry, Exporter.
T
TNT
Guest
Actually, no one knows who is in charge, who obeys, who gives commands, who decides tradition. It’s make it up as you go, a sure sign and method of revolutionaries.
The patients have long since taken over the asylum (sanctuary).
If JPII gave permission, then he’s contradicting himself and the RCC. It’s all become Simon-says…
Like I’ve said so many times here, contradiction is a logical discourse of a liberal mind.
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
Not enough? OK…
St. Sixtus I (circa 115)
"The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."This is alleged to come from the Liber Pontificalis – but it doesn’t. The actual quote is “He decreed that objects consecrated for the ministry should be touched by ministers only.” Of course, most of the records in this book prior to the 5th century are inventions of the unknown author. Further, “sacred vessels” did not yet exist since this was still the era of the “home Mass” as described by St. Justin the Martyr.
Another citation from this dubious source. However, this one’s not even in the book. BTW, for those who are interested, Liverpool University Press prints the LP translated into English.
continued in next post…
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
The actual records of this council are lost, however there is a summary of this given in the writings of Sulpitius Severus. Here’s what he says:
As you can see, the claim that they condemned people for communion in the hand doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Correct – but whether one receives communion on the tongue or in the hand, it eventually winds up “in the mouth.” Nothing here prohibits communion in the hand.
I can’t find the records of this synod, but I’ll admit it’s probably accurate. However, the later Council of Trullo (692) didn’t support it. It excommunicated those who brought gold or silver vessels instead of receiving in the hand.
This council did no such thing. It dealt with Monothelitism, which it condemned.
Yes, St. Thomas justified with logical argument the current practice.
This also does not condemn the practice of receiving communion in the hand. It does require a priest to give communion. However, as Pope John Paul II noted (see my previous reply) – that is a privilege that may be delegated as needed.
Deacon Ed
C
Contarini
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
Then tell Catholic apologists to stop quoting the Church Fathers and chanting solemnly “to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” Apparently, in your view, to be deep in history is to be condemned by Papal Encyclicals!
In Christ,
Edwin
- Status