U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
Do you believe the ecumenical movement and interrligious dialogue have ultimately watered-down traditional Catholic Teaching? Basically, have we sacrificed some Truth for the sake of unity and “world peace”?
- Status
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Nope
R
reen12
Guest
Didn’t C.S.Lewis state that those who are closest to the heart of their own faith are those who can successfully enter into fruitful ecumenical dialog? It’s been so many years since I read Lewis, that
I hope that this is correct.
If by indifferentism is meant that it doesn’t matter what dogmas
you hold, then I think that the Lewis quote is apt.
best wishes,
reen12
I hope that this is correct.
If by indifferentism is meant that it doesn’t matter what dogmas
you hold, then I think that the Lewis quote is apt.
best wishes,
reen12
B
BulldogCath
Guest
If every Pope before Vatican II refrained from involvement in ecumenism, which was not a even a defined word in the Catholic dictionary until the early 1900’s as it gives off the appearance that the church as a whole no longer possess the answers and is the One True Faith-then that is defined dogma and tradition and to break away from dogma and tradition has another definition-and you can decide for yourself if certain Bishops are going where it has never gone before.I would suggest all follow the Holy Father as he interprets ecumenism-and shall I say some of these other organizations that have interpreted the “loose wording” of Vatican II on this subject. I myself dont trust Cardinal Kasper-I am all for ecumenism with our Christian bretheren as I love them dearly (Orthodox and Protestant , to a lesser extent), but am deeply suspicious of the Jewish, Moslem, and Hindu and Buddhist faiths as they are not Bretheren as they totally reject Our Lord. Taking ecumenism to the farthest outreaches of the church and her past teachings and dogmas, can be defined as heresy.
I. CONNOTATION AND DEFINITION
The term heresy connotes, etymologically, both a choice and the thing chosen, the meaning being, however, narrowed to the selection of religious or political doctrines, adhesion to parties in Church or State. Josephus applies the name (airesis) to the three religious sects prevalent in Judea since the Machabean period: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Essenes (Bel. Jud., II, viii, 1; Ant., XIII, v, 9). St. Paul is described to the Roman governor Felix as the leader of the heresy (aireseos) of the Nazarenes (Acts, xxiv, 5); the Jews in Rome say to the same Apostle: “Concerning this sect airesoeos], we know that it is everywhere contradicted” (Acts, xxviii, 22). St. Justin (Dial., xviii, 108) uses airesis in the same sense. St. Peter (II, ii, 1) applies the term to Christian sects: “There shall be among you lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition aireseis apoleias]”. In later Greek, philosophers’ schools, as well as religious sects, are “heresies”.
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. "The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are,therefore,two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness–free choice–is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one’s own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of “freely willed”.
I. CONNOTATION AND DEFINITION
The term heresy connotes, etymologically, both a choice and the thing chosen, the meaning being, however, narrowed to the selection of religious or political doctrines, adhesion to parties in Church or State. Josephus applies the name (airesis) to the three religious sects prevalent in Judea since the Machabean period: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Essenes (Bel. Jud., II, viii, 1; Ant., XIII, v, 9). St. Paul is described to the Roman governor Felix as the leader of the heresy (aireseos) of the Nazarenes (Acts, xxiv, 5); the Jews in Rome say to the same Apostle: “Concerning this sect airesoeos], we know that it is everywhere contradicted” (Acts, xxviii, 22). St. Justin (Dial., xviii, 108) uses airesis in the same sense. St. Peter (II, ii, 1) applies the term to Christian sects: “There shall be among you lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition aireseis apoleias]”. In later Greek, philosophers’ schools, as well as religious sects, are “heresies”.
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. "The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are,therefore,two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness–free choice–is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one’s own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of “freely willed”.
E
Exporter
Guest
Perception is 90% of the truth. Although we know that Catholic Teaching has not changed much, the very vocal adocates of Ecumenism have caused an “apparant” watering down of Catholicity.
The watering down always causes people to fall away from the Church. Hard-line discipline attracts people. Sad to say, but it is true. What kind of people are attracted to a weak-kneed Church? Weak-kneed people.
The watering down always causes people to fall away from the Church. Hard-line discipline attracts people. Sad to say, but it is true. What kind of people are attracted to a weak-kneed Church? Weak-kneed people.
R
reen12
Guest
Whoa!! The current Holy Father has gone out of
his way to engage the Orthodox, hoping that, once
again, the Church can “breathe with both lungs.”
I don’t see this as breaking with tradition, I see
this as an effort to fulfill the prayer of Jesus:
“That they all may be one, Heavenly Father, as
you and I are one.”
Am I misunderstanding what you are saying,
BulldogCath?
reen12
his way to engage the Orthodox, hoping that, once
again, the Church can “breathe with both lungs.”
I don’t see this as breaking with tradition, I see
this as an effort to fulfill the prayer of Jesus:
“That they all may be one, Heavenly Father, as
you and I are one.”
Am I misunderstanding what you are saying,
BulldogCath?
reen12
B
BulldogCath
Guest
Nooooooooooo
I am all for talks and ecumenical relations with our Orthodox bretheren and I said , our Protestant bretheren to a lesser degree, my bones of contention are with those faiths that reject Christ. No, I love, respect, and admire the Orthodox faiths and I applaud Our Holy Father for bringing back, like you said-our Other Lung. And to some degree-I think they are more in tune with their tradition than we are post Council.
No, Bulldog has Orthodox family that loves the TLM and Catholic faith (though we fight like mad about the Filioque).
Also, I think I should correct myself from my earlier post-those embracing non catholic faiths are not heretics by apostic. Sorry
II. DISTINCTIONS
Heresy differs from apostasy (q. v.). The apostate a fide abandons wholly the faith of Christ either by embracing Judaism, Islamism, Paganism, or simply by falling into naturalism and complete neglect of religion; the heretic always retains faith in Christ. Heresy also differs from schism. Schismatics, says St. Thomas, in the strict sense, are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other and of all the members with the head. Now this head is Christ whose representative in the Church is the supreme pontiff. And therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not submit to the supreme pontiff nor communicate with the members of the Church subject to him. Since the definition of Papal Infallibility, schism usually implies the heresy of denying this dogma. Heresy is opposed to faith; schism to charity; so that, although all heretics are schismatics because loss of faith involves separation from the Church, not all schismatics are necessarily heretics, since a man may, from anger, pride, ambition, or the like, sever himself from the communion of the Church and yet believe all the Church proposes for our belief (II-II, Q. xxix, a. 1). Such a one, however, would be more properly called rebellious than heretical.
God bless
reen12:
I am all for talks and ecumenical relations with our Orthodox bretheren and I said , our Protestant bretheren to a lesser degree, my bones of contention are with those faiths that reject Christ. No, I love, respect, and admire the Orthodox faiths and I applaud Our Holy Father for bringing back, like you said-our Other Lung. And to some degree-I think they are more in tune with their tradition than we are post Council.
No, Bulldog has Orthodox family that loves the TLM and Catholic faith (though we fight like mad about the Filioque).
Also, I think I should correct myself from my earlier post-those embracing non catholic faiths are not heretics by apostic. Sorry
II. DISTINCTIONS
Heresy differs from apostasy (q. v.). The apostate a fide abandons wholly the faith of Christ either by embracing Judaism, Islamism, Paganism, or simply by falling into naturalism and complete neglect of religion; the heretic always retains faith in Christ. Heresy also differs from schism. Schismatics, says St. Thomas, in the strict sense, are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other and of all the members with the head. Now this head is Christ whose representative in the Church is the supreme pontiff. And therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not submit to the supreme pontiff nor communicate with the members of the Church subject to him. Since the definition of Papal Infallibility, schism usually implies the heresy of denying this dogma. Heresy is opposed to faith; schism to charity; so that, although all heretics are schismatics because loss of faith involves separation from the Church, not all schismatics are necessarily heretics, since a man may, from anger, pride, ambition, or the like, sever himself from the communion of the Church and yet believe all the Church proposes for our belief (II-II, Q. xxix, a. 1). Such a one, however, would be more properly called rebellious than heretical.
God bless
R
reen12
Guest
Thanks, BulldogCath for your response!
And I’ll bet you do have some hearty discussions
on the filioque.
May I please add one other thing? I understand
what you are saying, but how to reach out to and
bring the Good News to those who have never
heard it proclaimed, perhaps in some areas of
Asia or India, if not through some kind of
exchange, which we can call “ecumenism”
for lack of a better term? I
though I admittedly get nervous over the
possiblity of yielding our birthright for the
sake of the porridge of “precious agreement”.
God bless you as well,
reen12
And I’ll bet you do have some hearty discussions
on the filioque.
May I please add one other thing? I understand
what you are saying, but how to reach out to and
bring the Good News to those who have never
heard it proclaimed, perhaps in some areas of
Asia or India, if not through some kind of
exchange, which we can call “ecumenism”
for lack of a better term? I
though I admittedly get nervous over the
possiblity of yielding our birthright for the
sake of the porridge of “precious agreement”.
God bless you as well,
reen12
T
TNT
Guest
What Iota has the Orthodox compromised or given?
So, The Prayer of Christ, the God-Man was NOT fulfilled?
The 1st Person of the Trinity refused to fulfil that Prayer of the 2nd Person of the Trinity? …2000 years later, still unfulfilled?
Tell me more, please.
In the Creed it says “ONE, Holy Catholic and Apostolic CHURCH.”
So, ONE = UNITY, as defined many times over the centuries…not 2 (“lungs”) or more.
The essential marks fo the True Church of Christ are "ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
So, is that not true?
Is it TWO, Holy Catholic and Apostolic?
Or, do you think the prayer was about some combination of the human race and not about His Church?
There is only ONE Church. All who exit the Ark of Salvation perish in THEIR disunity, NOT the True Church.
Meanwhile here is my concise definition of modern ecumenism:
**Ecumenism:**The destruction of Internal UNITY in the false hope of External unity.
A few may disagree, but I’ll give my facts, you give me yours.
Destruction of Internal Unity: it is plain as day that the conflicts within the Church, toward VATII implementation, Liturgy, Interfaith prayer, dogmatic compromises (such as the refusal to enforce the filiogue in dialogue, double-speak in the Lutheran Declaration) etc, not to mention the near annilation of the religious and secular Orders, collapse in Church attendance, flood of departures of the laity, collapse of Confession, have raised the level of conflict to earsplitting levels.
False hope of external Unity: their has been NO measureable much less offsetting flood of Orthodox into the RCC. The only perceptable inflow has been Anglicans who are fed up with the apostacy of their bishops re. Priestesses, and homo leaders’ ordination. Even then, we had to compromise to their liturgy coming with them and give them a separate liturgy, immune from the GIRM…
Meanwhile, in the “ecumenism era”, condemned by all previous popes who addressed the issue (wisdom absent in them all??), the Mormans have nearly doubled in members, same for the JW’s, the Muslims for the 1st time in their history equal/outnumber the RCC. Need I mention their elevated level of butchery of Christians? A common denominator of these growing sects is strict adherence to their “traditional” teaching without compromise (aka ecumenism).
The Russian Orthodox so far, refuse to even let the RCC establish dioceses in their areas. The pope is not allowed to go to his Russian subjects and preach, even after the “Consecration” per Fatima 20 years ago.
Ecumenism - the greatest failed experiment of the New Springtime
Compromise ALWAYS includes some level of Indifferentism. That’s why it’s called compromise. And compromise is the game plan of modern ecumenism, just by not mentioning the dogmas of the Faith in dialogues.
Compromise has been the big bullet in the separation of harmony between the trads and the modernist liberals.
F
frdave20
Guest
i dont like the choices available… but of the ones there, i had to choose the 1st one… though after having thoroughly thought about it, i would have to answer to No (the 1st No). The Faith has not changed. What ‘ecumenism’ has done, i think, is made the faithful – priest, religious, and lay – timid in defending, living, promoting the Catholic Faith – the COMPLETE FAITH…
We have become a social justice-people, rather than a Eucharistic-people, in many respects…
We have become a social justice-people, rather than a Eucharistic-people, in many respects…
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
No.
I think that people often forget that even before the Council there were plenty of Catholics who were lapsed: read “France Pagan ?” wriiten by the Abbe Godin in 1949. This, was at a time when Catholicism was supposedly in excellent health, before V2 came along and torpedoed it. It’s not so. The Church always has problems, severe ones; V2 has simply altered the atmosphere a bit. And, perhaps, brought to light what was there in any case, and had been for years. Some parts of the Church are in various ways healthier than others at various times - it does not follow that there are no problems.The Church’s woes did not begin in 1962.
FWIW, I would far rather live when the Church is humiliated, than when it is (seemingly) prosperous - because prosperity can always turn rotten, and can lead to pride, which in leads to humiliation; but to live in a Church that has been brought low, gives little reason for pride
Yet it isthe same Church, whether prosperous or humiliated.FWIW - the Church does not engage in ecumenism for the sake of itself - that would be selfish. It does so, because doing so is a means of obeying the commission Christ Himself has given it. ##
R
RSiscoe
Guest
You are right when you say that “the faith has not changed”, nor can it change. But, what has happened is that Catholics are being taught something other than the Catholic faith, and are being told that it is the same faith, that has undergone a change - “an updating”. Instead of being honest and saying “we are teaching you a new faith”. They simply say: “the faith has changed: we no longer believe what we used to believe, etc.”. An older Priest once told me: “everything has changed since Vatican II”. How right he was. Everything has changed since Vatican II. As Bella Dodd predicted, the Church is now unrecognizable. If you are not familiar with Bella Dodd, she was a former high ranking communist who was converted by Bishop Fulton Sheen. After her conversion, she revealed the plans of the communists, one of which was to “change the Church from within”. In 1963, when she gave the talk I have on tape, she said that communist agents had infultrated the Seminaries (over 1000 of them). She then said that “within 10 years the goals of the communists would come to pass and the church would undergo a change that would make it unrecognizeable”. She was right.
M
mjdonnelly
Guest
I voted yes, our faith may have grown and what we believe is the same, but what is taught to children in class is significantly more liberal.
E
Exporter
Guest
Some of you say the Church hasn’t changed. Today I went to the 8:00 AM Mass. For the FIRST time I heard these words in the Gospel. “HE WAS HUNG ON A TREE”.
He was hung on a tree, not nailed to a cross! What has happened? Where does this “Hung On A Tree” come from? It was a Deacon who read that Gospel, the Priest didn’t speak English well at all. “Hung on a Tree”!
He was hung on a tree, not nailed to a cross! What has happened? Where does this “Hung On A Tree” come from? It was a Deacon who read that Gospel, the Priest didn’t speak English well at all. “Hung on a Tree”!
G
Grolsch
Guest
Ecumenism does not mean abandoning your own faith and in my opinion does not lead to religious indifferentism if done properly.
In fact I would argue the opposite is true. Indifferentism arguebly started shortly after the age of exploration and the enlightenment. Already in the 16th and 17th centuries people like Montaigne were writing about the Natives and their beliefs and admired these “noble savages” pure beliefs. Thats when people started asking “How is my own belief better than these other peoples?”
The Church didn’t put forward an effective response and held to the same policy which worked in europe for 1000 yrs before. The result was a rise in cynicism and apathy in Europe.
Ecumenism has to be done properly. Hightlight where we agree and argue effectively on why we differ.
In fact I would argue the opposite is true. Indifferentism arguebly started shortly after the age of exploration and the enlightenment. Already in the 16th and 17th centuries people like Montaigne were writing about the Natives and their beliefs and admired these “noble savages” pure beliefs. Thats when people started asking “How is my own belief better than these other peoples?”
The Church didn’t put forward an effective response and held to the same policy which worked in europe for 1000 yrs before. The result was a rise in cynicism and apathy in Europe.
Ecumenism has to be done properly. Hightlight where we agree and argue effectively on why we differ.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
since our fundamental baptismal call is evangelism, to preach the truth of the gospel to all, any and all outreach to separated Christians who are lacking the fullness of the faith, to the unchurched, and to non-Christians is a good thing, and by no means demands or implies that Catholic teaching must be watered down. It must be taught and expressed, however in terms understandable to the culture and age with which you are dealing.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Well, Exporter, I’m not Catholic, but I went to the Easter Vigil at my local Catholic Church Cathedral last night (interesting scene, with confirmations, chrisms, laying on of hands, and everything else). I have the program of the vigil (quite nicely done, I must say!), where it states, in big, bold Latin: Qui pro nobis pependit in ligno.
Now, what does that mean, in the Latin-to-English? “For our sakes, he was hung on a tree”. “In ligno” means “on a tree”, not “on a cross” (which is “in crucis”); and pependit relates to being hung (“pendere” – to hang), not being crucified (“crucifixus est” – he was crucified). To say “he was crucified on a cross” is not a very literal rendering of the Latin. So maybe the CC is going back to its roots [no pun intended!], rather than making undue changes.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Xylon = tree is simply another word for stauros = cross; possibly a euphemism, or, more likely, a reference to Deuteronomy, which states, “accursed is every one who is hanged upon a tree”. This was one reason the preaching of the crucified Messiah was so offensive to Jews, as Paul found (see 1 Corinthians 1.20 following); to be crucified, was to come under the curse in Deuteronomy, and to be unclean, accursed, and rejected by God. Yet that is what Jesus did - he numbered himself with those who were rejected, despised, and most abhorrent to “respectable” “pious” people.
A crucified Messiah is a contradiction in terms - that is also why he was rejected, and why the Gospel was heard by lower class characters: crucifixion was a slave’s death, in Roman law. It’s what happened to men who had no civil rights, no protection in law, who were regarded as, to put it politely, the scum of the earth. But that is how the Wisdom of God redeemed the human race; that is the only Messiah on offer.So calling the Cross a “tree” is anything but wrong or blameworthy. Catholics need to know the Bible better - then they won’t have these unpleasant surprises, and they won’t be tempted to accuse the clergy of error or whatever, for doing no more than read and preach what the Bible says & means.
- Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
- Act 10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
- Act 13:29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took [him] down from the tree, and laid [him] in a sepulchre.
- Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:
- 1Pe 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. ##
F
Franze
Guest
Ecumenism is good but is bad understandable and goes to indifferentism.
M
MariaG
Guest
For those to say that the church has watered down the beliefs is to believe that she has fallen into error. If that is so, you better leave Christianity now because the Bible is false. “The church is the pillar and foundation of truth”
There are people within the church who water down beliefs of the Church, but to say that Vatican II watered them down is a complete misunderstanding of what VII said.
There are people within the church who water down beliefs of the Church, but to say that Vatican II watered them down is a complete misunderstanding of what VII said.
- Status