I need the help of my traditionalist brethren on the issue of ecumenism

[BennyBoy89]

Today I got into an argument with a close friend, also a practicing Catholic, because of our differences on what ecumenism is. In my mind, I fail to see how “ecumenism” is some sort of lovey dovey mutual search for the truth, when in fact the Church possesses the fullness of truth.

Another argument was that protestants preach a false gospel, to which my friend replied that I was going against the Church, which says they have an “incomplete” gospel. Isn’t it a fallacy to present an incomplete truth as the full truth?

My friend told me that I was bordering on schism because I question “apostolic authority,” meaning that I question the actions of local bishops and their presbyters. I said that I am free to question them individually, as the only bishop who can speak for the Church is the Holy Father. I told my friend that I am not free to question what the Magisterium or Holy Father has dogmatically declared. Yet somehow I’m still wrong.

Do any of you have resources to answer his accusations? I’d never have imagined that I’d be told I was contradicting the Church by defending Her primacy. 50 years ago, I would’ve been a good Catholic. Now, I’m schismatic.

 

[Al1953]

Today I got into an argument with a close friend, also a practicing Catholic, because of our differences on what ecumenism is. In my mind, I fail to see how “ecumenism” is some sort of lovey dovey mutual search for the truth, when in fact the Church possesses the fullness of truth.

Another argument was that protestants preach a false gospel, to which my friend replied that I was going against the Church, which says they have an “incomplete” gospel. Isn’t it a fallacy to present an incomplete truth as the full truth?

My friend told me that I was bordering on schism because I question “apostolic authority,” meaning that I question the actions of local bishops and their presbyters. I said that I am free to question them individually, as the only bishop who can speak for the Church is the Holy Father. I told my friend that I am not free to question what the Magisterium or Holy Father has dogmatically declared. Yet somehow I’m still wrong.

Do any of you have resources to answer his accusations? I’d never have imagined that I’d be told I was contradicting the Church by defending Her primacy. 50 years ago, I would’ve been a good Catholic. Now, I’m schismatic.

I don’t know that your schismatic. I recall that St. Paul questioned the authority of Peter the first pope on the question of circumcision. Peter, if memory serves me right, said only circumcised males could join the church and St. Paul wanted it to be open to all, circumcised and non circumcised. I don’t think protestant preach a false gospel, I think its more of a selected gospel. A priest told me once that in the protestant bible they just leave out passages that they do not believe in, such as in our bible it states “who’s sins you shall forgive shall be forgiven and those you should retain shall be retained them”. This is Christ giving us the sacrament of penance, since the protestant do not believe in confession I don’t think you will find it in the King James bible. I fail to see any malice in your defense of holy mother church.

 

[saint_rafael]

Here’s a great Traditional Catholic Apologetic website which has many great articles against the hysterical ecumania of today’s false ecumenism:

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecumenism/index.htm

 

[Jacob_Fenton]

Jeez. That website sounds like the propaganda of my old Fundamentalist church (I’m home in Rome now).

See this page.

It tells people to “shun Protestants” and that our families are “to be hated”. One of the last things that page says is that heretics are “to burn at the stake”.

Thats disgusting. I haven’t hear such ugly, ignorant words since I left Fundamentalism.

I wouldn’t dare trust that site as true Catholic teaching. In fact this page is entitled TWENTY-FIVE EXPLICIT ERRORS OF VATICAN COUNCIL II. It doesn’t sound very Catholic to me.

 

[otjm]

Today I got into an argument with a close friend, also a practicing Catholic, because of our differences on what ecumenism is. In my mind, I fail to see how “ecumenism” is some sort of lovey dovey mutual search for the truth, when in fact the Church possesses the fullness of truth.

There is tremendous misunderstanding of what ecumensim means, and the misundertstanding is not limited to those who are painted as liberals. There are ecumenical meetings being carried on by Rome, and by others through the oversight of Rome. Most people are not aware of what transpires, in part because the work is being done at something a bit higher than the local level.

Ecumenism also encompasses such activites as Catholics working with Protestants in the ongoing battle against abortion; and in the continual problem of dealing with the poor through shelters, food kitchens, clothing supplies etc. These are encouraged by Rome and local bishops.

Another argument was that protestants preach a false gospel, to which my friend replied that I was going against the Church, which says they have an “incomplete” gospel. Isn’t it a fallacy to present an incomplete truth as the full truth?

You would do well to read what has actually been written about the Protestants; you might start with the Catechesim of the Catholic Church; and then you might branch out, say, to some of the writings of then Cardinal Ratzinger and now Pope Benedict. You are taking an all or nothing approach; any possible straying from the complete truth as resulting in complete condemnation. The Church doesn’t take this approach.

My friend told me that I was bordering on schism because I question “apostolic authority,” meaning that I question the actions of local bishops and their presbyters. I said that I am free to question them individually, as the only bishop who can speak for the Church is the Holy Father. I told my friend that I am not free to question what the Magisterium or Holy Father has dogmatically declared. Yet somehow I’m still wrong.

You are also not free to question the teaching of the bishops when they are teaching what the Church holds to be true. The bishops are not mid-level managers under the direction of a CEO pope. They have apostolic succession just as the Pope does. They have the authority to teach and when their teaching is in line with the offical teaching of the Church, they are as autoritive as if the Pope himself was saying it. Their authority is not higher than the Pope, but their authority is the authority of the Church when they teach what the Church holds to be true. And contrary to many critques of bishops, they teach what the church teaches in most of their official pronouncements concerning doctrine and the implementation of doctrine, and morals and the application of moral law.

Do any of you have resources to answer his accusations? I’d never have imagined that I’d be told I was contradicting the Church by defending Her primacy. 50 years ago, I would’ve been a good Catholic. Now, I’m schismatic.

I don’t know your age, nor your education in Church matters, but you might want to start with reading what the Church actually says on matters rather than some of the things that float around criticizing what the Church actually says. The Catechism is a good place to start; so also the writings of the popes. This one has a number of books out, as well as a few documents. There have been a number of things called ecumenism; some of them are wild hares and lead down wrong paths, resulting in broad-brush attacks on true ecumenical activities which are in line with Church teachings. It is somewhat along the lines of people attacking Protestants; it is as if there are only two positions - they are either heretical, or the differences don’t matter; neither of those positions reflect what the Church truly teaches about Protestants.

50 years ago, people were taught in a fairly simplistic, black and white approach to issues which were actually somewhat more nuanced than what was taught. That does not mean that what people were taught was wrong, so much as what they were taught sufficed in most fairly simplistic situations. 50 years ago, a Bob Jones University approach to Catholicism was much more pronounced, and the Church as represented in the local classroom was reactive to it. Many (but certainly not all) Protestants are much less antagonistic to the Church now than they were 50, 60 or 70 years ago. It was not that awfully long ago that crosses were burned in Oregon by the local version of the Clan; and it was not an action taken against African Americans; it was agianst Catholics. that now is pretty much a footnote in history.

 

[SFD]

Today I got into an argument with a close friend, also a practicing Catholic, because of our differences on what ecumenism is. In my mind, I fail to see how “ecumenism” is some sort of lovey dovey mutual search for the truth, when in fact the Church possesses the fullness of truth.

Have your friend read the encyclical Mortalium Animos.

Another argument was that protestants preach a false gospel, to which my friend replied that I was going against the Church, which says they have an “incomplete” gospel. Isn’t it a fallacy to present an incomplete truth as the full truth?

But a Catholic is bound to hear the “Church Preaching”, which is the ecclesisatical magisterium. This is the proximate rule of faith for a Catholic…“he who hears you hears Me.” The remote rule is the written word, the Scriptures…the protestants have that (more or less) but they interpret it to their destruction.

My friend told me that I was bordering on schism because I question “apostolic authority,” meaning that I question the actions of local bishops and their presbyters. I said that I am free to question them individually, as the only bishop who can speak for the Church is the Holy Father. I told my friend that I am not free to question what the Magisterium or Holy Father has dogmatically declared. Yet somehow I’m still wrong.

You do not appear to be actually questioning “Apostolic Authority”…but questioning an individual. They are not the same thing.

Do any of you have resources to answer his accusations? I’d never have imagined that I’d be told I was contradicting the Church by defending Her primacy. 50 years ago, I would’ve been a good Catholic. Now, I’m schismatic.

You should be confused at first…things have happened that seem inexplicable. Keep the Faith. When difficulties become doubts…make an act of Faith.

SFD

 

[saint_rafael]

Jeez. That website sounds like the propaganda of my old Fundamentalist church (I’m home in Rome now).

See this page.

It tells people to “shun Protestants” and that our families are “to be hated”. One of the last things that page says is that heretics are “to burn at the stake”.

Thats disgusting. I haven’t hear such ugly, ignorant words since I left Fundamentalism.

I wouldn’t dare trust that site as true Catholic teaching.

Every qoute and line from that page comes from a Pope, Saint, and Church Council.

That is the traditional Catholic teaching on heresy and on the nature of the one true Church throughout the centuries.

The Church knows it alone has the fullness of truth for salvation and the false faiths are not pleasing to God but dangerous error.

 

[Genesis315]

Why not go to the governing decrees promulgated when the Church decided to enter the “ecumenical movement”? She did so on her own terms, not necessarily what other “ecumenists” think.

Here is the decree from the Second Vatican Council:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Here is Pope John Paul II’s encyclical on the matter:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

 

[Genesis315]

Every qoute and line from that page comes from a Pope, Saint, and Church Council.

That is the traditional Catholic teaching on heresy and on the nature of the one true Church throughout the centuries.

The Church knows it alone has the fullness of truth for salvation and the false faiths are not pleasing to God but dangerous error.

They also are parsed to present an incomplete view. For example, Pope Leo XIII established the Confraternity of Compassion by which Catholics and non-Catholics could pray together for unity. Pope Pius XII encouraged Catholics to work with non-Catholics to defend the natural law in the public sphere. St. Peter Damian, St. Augustine, and others, while using harsh words against those obstinate individuals who created and actively sought to perpetuate dissensions, all said to treat those born in those sects and who were likely in good faith differently. Similarly, Bl. Pius IX exhorted the faithful to see to their every need.

It is one thing to claim non-Catholic communities are on the same level as the Church or to have communicatio in sacris with them (these things are still rejected and were done so by the Council and recent Pontiffs–many of the quotes in the link deal with joining heretical “communions” or trying to be a member of both the Catholic and a heretical communion), but it is quite another to reach out to those who do not yet profess the entirety of the faith. If one were to take only those lines provided in that link, one would conclude that we should never share and discuss the faith with anyone. Likewise, many of those quotes represent local ecclesiastical and civil law enacted for particular circumstances, not immutable principles.

Rather, you will find from those same saints and many more an almost infinitely greater amount of quotes concerning sharing the truth with patience and charity.

I am sure you yourself have brought many individuals to know and love the Catholic faith and to enter into communion and I am sure you did not accomplish this feat (with the help of God who draws men to Himself of course) by shunning and hiding from those individuals. God desires us to participate in the salvation of the world–that is the principle mission of the entire Church. We are not to hide our lanterns under a basket, but we must be all things to all men that we might save some.

 

[SFD]

It is one thing to claim non-Catholic communities are on the same level as the Church **or to have communicatio in sacris with them (these things are still rejected and were done so by the Council and recent Pontiffs–**many of the quotes in the link deal with joining heretical “communions” or trying to be a member of both the Catholic and a heretical communion), but it is quite another to reach out to those who do not yet profess the entirety of the faith. If one were to take only those lines provided in that link, one would conclude that we should never share and discuss the faith with anyone. Likewise, many of those quotes represent local ecclesiastical and civil law enacted for particular circumstances, not immutable principles.

The 1983 Code allows communicatio in sacris. Do you really believe that the conciliar popes and most modern catholics think that non-catholics should and must convert? And why do you think no one believes this?

SFD

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Today I got into an argument with a close friend, also a practicing Catholic, because of our differences on what ecumenism is. In my mind, I fail to see how “ecumenism” is some sort of lovey dovey mutual search for the truth, when in fact the Church possesses the fullness of truth.

Another argument was that protestants preach a false gospel, to which my friend replied that I was going against the Church, which says they have an “incomplete” gospel. Isn’t it a fallacy to present an incomplete truth as the full truth?

My friend told me that I was bordering on schism because I question “apostolic authority,” meaning that I question the actions of local bishops and their presbyters. I said that I am free to question them individually, as the only bishop who can speak for the Church is the Holy Father. I told my friend that I am not free to question what the Magisterium or Holy Father has dogmatically declared. Yet somehow I’m still wrong.

Do any of you have resources to answer his accusations? I’d never have imagined that I’d be told I was contradicting the Church by defending Her primacy. 50 years ago, I would’ve been a good Catholic. Now, I’m schismatic.

You’re correct on all counts and your friend is mistaken on all counts.

Protestant theology is directly at odds with Catholic theology on a number of key points; it’s not ‘incomplete’, it’s falsehood - heresy - and that’s what the Church has always taught.

You’re also spot-on regarding authority. Ask your friend this: when the local bishop contradicts the Pope, or the consistent Tradition of the Church, who’s being faithful and who’s being disobedient in pointing it out?

Your friend is very confused, and probably biased towards getting along with people ahead of getting along with God, something extremely common in our society today.

Proclaiming Truth is indeed sometimes a real *****.

 

[BennyBoy89]

You’re also spot-on regarding authority. Ask your friend this: when the local bishop contradicts the Pope, or the consistent Tradition of the Church, who’s being faithful and who’s being disobedient in pointing it out?

That was my point. Another poster seemed to think that I had no idea how the authority of the Church worked. If a bishop or one of his priests is teaching something contrary to the Church, why should I not question them? Infallibility is reserved to the Church as a whole, and only the Bishop of Rome may speak on behalf of the Church.

On a lighter note: if I wasn’t convinced of Petrine primacy, I’d probably end up being Orthodox.