Is Catholicism A Democracy?

[JReducation]

As I read through these threads I’m more amazed at the Catholics than at people of other faiths. I understand that if you’re born into another faith you approach Catholicism with many questions regarding Church authority, questions about Vatican II and the decisions and declarations made by the Popes, especially from John XXIII to the present.

That being said, I came to Catholicism from Judaism. I’m a convert. I became Catholic four-years ago. However, Catholicism was not new to me. My father was Catholic and we attended Catholic schools and even Catholic colleges. My brothers and I were the only kids in the Catholic school who were allowed to wear a yarmulke and allowed to sit during mass or stand quietly. The friars who educated us were very kind. They even encouraged my desire to study theology to become a Rabbi, which ended up in my becoming more interested in understanding Catholic spirituality and studying Mystical Theology and Philosophy. After that the rest was easy. I asked a lot of questions and got a lot of answers. Some I liked and some I thought were nonsense.

But there was one reality that I walked away with. Catholicism, much like Judaism IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. The Catholic Church has always operated as a monarchy, both its infrastructure and its theology has always been hierarchical. I don’t understand why Catholics today feel they have the authority to debate whether this pope was right or wrong in separating Archbishop Lefebvre and his society; whether the Pope is right or wrong on birth control, abortion, homosexual behaviour, capital punishment or mass in Latin.

To the best of my knowledge the laity has never had a voice in formulating dogma or canon law. Correct me if I’m wrong. Every contribution that the laity has made to these has always been subject to the approval of the Magisterium… What I gather from these forums is that there are both conservative and liberal Catholics, I hate those terms, who would like to see the Church go their way. It isn’t going to happen.

Also, I find it interesting that this phenomenon is more common among North Americans (including Canadians) and Europeans. In the Southern Hemisphere Catholics simply accept what the Church says or ignore it. They don’t debate it. And they don’t seem bent on proving their point. Their understanding seems more in touch with the reality of what the Church is a theocratic monarchy.

What is in it for us to debate? Why can’t we spend our time and energy understanding how to be good Christians and how to apply the spiritual principles that we have inherited to our daily lives and our dealings with others. It would seem to me that time would be better spent understanding how to be saints, such as the great mystics did.

You don’t see a Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Francis of Assisi, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Vincent de Paul, Francis de Sales, Mother Teresa questioning the Church’s position on the issues of their time. They spent their energy on developing a deeper life of prayer, developing their commitment to the poor, trying to see Christ in their brothers and sisters, living closer to the Church despite her weaknesses and teaching others to love the Church.

Francis of Assisi had a vision in which Christ said, “Go rebuild my Church for it’s falling into ruins.” He went out and preached conversion and charity. He didn’t take on the corruption of the medieval Church. In fact he condemned those who would challenge the Church and trusted that the Holy Spirit would repair the damage.

Mother Elizabeth Ann Seton’s last words on her deathbed to her daughters were, “Be children of the Church.” She didn’t tell them to go out and challenge the Church’s every decision or teaching.

I don’t get it.

 

[Pax]

Well said JR. I suspect that part of the problem is cultural. American pluralism and individualism play a part in people’s attitudes and thought. These are not at all friendly to Catholicism.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I agree that the Church is monarchical in structure. And certainly there is no debate on matters that have been settled by the Magisterium on Faith and Morals. However, this does not mean that Catholics have to just sit and remain silent if prudential decisions of the hierarchy, which are not infallible, are seen to be imprudent (even though they have to obey). I posted recently a quote from one of Dietrich von Hildebrand’s essay here on the distinction:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3310934&postcount=45

 

[JReducation]

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for asking questions. That’s how we learn. That’s’ how I became a Catholic. I had many questions about what I saw and what I heard in Catholic school, as well as what my Jewish mother taught me about Judaism. However, there was one thing that my parents made clear to us. “It is what it is.”

Judaism was not going to change because I was an American and I believe in self-determination, neither was Catholicism.

When the Church said that there it believes there is rarely a justifiable reason for capital punishment, given the resources that society has to protect the innocent, I can question what those resources are. What’s there to question about the Church’s position? This is its moral position. I don’t have a vote or voice in this matter.

While I may love my relative who is gay, if the Church says that homosexual activity is sinful, then that’s the Church’s last stand. However, when the same Church also says that all injustice against homosexual people is wrong, that’s also its last stand. These are the Church’s moral stands regarding the sin and the individual. I don’t have to buy into it. The Church doesn’t own me, but it is futile to try to save my place in the front pew by trying to prove that the Church is wrong.

It’s like any other community. It has its rules. You either play by their rules or find another community.

This whole argument around Archbishop Lefebvre, the Tridentine Liturgy, Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI is another case in point. John Paul II gave the Archbishop very specific directives. He also warned him that he would incur excommunication. Now Pope Benedict XVI opens up the possibility for Tridentine masses. OK, what’s that big deal? John Paul II was the Pope at the time. At that time, whatever he said was the voice of the Church. Now, Benedict XVI is the Pope, whatever he says is the voice of the Church today. In a monarchy, one monarch is not above another. The reigning monarch has the final voice. We may not like it, but that’s the nature of monarchies, even the Church’s monarchy.

We live in a society where we have taken the idea of freedom and turned it into entitlement. While the Church respects and demands freedom for all, entitlement has never been part of its theology or pastoral practice.

The notion that there are traditionalists and liberals in the Church is a carryover from politics. An individual can embrace or appreciate certain traditions, this is true. But I would like to see how many of the so called traditionalists would like to return to the era before Vincent de Paul when women were not allowed to engage in ministry. The only option for women was to be married or cloistered nuns. How many would like to go back to a time when the Church was an empire? The same goes for the alleged liberals. If liberal means do whatever you think is right, which moral or canon laws should we do away with? Where is the line that we cannot cross before we are no longer one Church? Unity requires discipline. However, discipline is not the same as traditionalism. Unity is a goal and discipline is an internal attitude, not a custom.

JR

 

[mgy100]

As I read through these threads I’m more amazed at the Catholics than at people of other faiths. I understand that if you’re born into another faith you approach Catholicism with many questions regarding Church authority, questions about Vatican II and the decisions and declarations made by the Popes, especially from John XXIII to the present.

That being said, I came to Catholicism from Judaism. I’m a convert. I became Catholic four-years ago. However, Catholicism was not new to me. My father was Catholic and we attended Catholic schools and even Catholic colleges. My brothers and I were the only kids in the Catholic school who were allowed to wear a yarmulke and allowed to sit during mass or stand quietly. The friars who educated us were very kind. They even encouraged my desire to study theology to become a Rabbi, which ended up in my becoming more interested in understanding Catholic spirituality and studying Mystical Theology and Philosophy. After that the rest was easy. I asked a lot of questions and got a lot of answers. Some I liked and some I thought were nonsense.

But there was one reality that I walked away with. Catholicism, much like Judaism IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. The Catholic Church has always operated as a monarchy, both its infrastructure and its theology has always been hierarchical. I don’t understand why Catholics today feel they have the authority to debate whether this pope was right or wrong in separating Archbishop Lefebvre and his society; whether the Pope is right or wrong on birth control, abortion, homosexual behaviour, capital punishment or mass in Latin.

To the best of my knowledge the laity has never had a voice in formulating dogma or canon law. Correct me if I’m wrong. Every contribution that the laity has made to these has always been subject to the approval of the Magisterium… What I gather from these forums is that there are both conservative and liberal Catholics, I hate those terms, who would like to see the Church go their way. It isn’t going to happen.

Also, I find it interesting that this phenomenon is more common among North Americans (including Canadians) and Europeans. In the Southern Hemisphere Catholics simply accept what the Church says or ignore it. They don’t debate it. And they don’t seem bent on proving their point. Their understanding seems more in touch with the reality of what the Church is a theocratic monarchy.

What is in it for us to debate? Why can’t we spend our time and energy understanding how to be good Christians and how to apply the spiritual principles that we have inherited to our daily lives and our dealings with others. It would seem to me that time would be better spent understanding how to be saints, such as the great mystics did.

You don’t see a Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Francis of Assisi, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Vincent de Paul, Francis de Sales, Mother Teresa questioning the Church’s position on the issues of their time. They spent their energy on developing a deeper life of prayer, developing their commitment to the poor, trying to see Christ in their brothers and sisters, living closer to the Church despite her weaknesses and teaching others to love the Church.

Francis of Assisi had a vision in which Christ said, “Go rebuild my Church for it’s falling into ruins.” He went out and preached conversion and charity. He didn’t take on the corruption of the medieval Church. In fact he condemned those who would challenge the Church and trusted that the Holy Spirit would repair the damage.

Mother Elizabeth Ann Seton’s last words on her deathbed to her daughters were, “Be children of the Church.” She didn’t tell them to go out and challenge the Church’s every decision or teaching.

I don’t get it.

Exactly!!! Great post. Excellent indeed.

 

[JReducation]

I agree that the Church is monarchical in structure. And certainly there is no debate on matters that have been settled by the Magisterium on Faith and Morals. However, this does not mean that Catholics have to just sit and remain silent if prudential decisions of the hierarchy, which are not infallible, are seen to be imprudent (even though they have to obey). I posted recently a quote from one of Dietrich von Hildebrand’s essay here on the distinction:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3310934&postcount=45

Thanks for sharing the article. I read it. But it doesn’t change the question.
Look at the wisdom of Dr. van Hilderbrand. Observe what he says in this paragraph.

“The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.”

He does not give the laity the authority to change the decisions of the Magisterium. He encourages the laity to ask questions, to write letters and make petitions. He deliberately says that “WE MUST OBEY”.

There is no question that there are going to be decisions and declarations that are “loopy”, to quote my son. But even the loopy decisions must be obeyed until such time as the legitimate authority changes their mind. We can ask for reconsideration. That’s not in doubt here. What I’m calling into question is the idea that many Catholics have that they can do whatever they feel is right on either side of an issue.

The question on this thread is when did we become a democracy where we can pick and choose what to obey?

 

[garytb]

Exactly!!! Great post. Excellent indeed.

I am glad the USA is not a democracy.
I am very glad it’s a republic.
gtb
peace

 

[I_Believe]

Hi JR,
Well, a great many recent converts don’t understand the traditionalist mindset. And we don’t expect you to.

The Church is in a crisis and there are those who know full well why. Both laity and, thankfully, some of those in the Curia.

You do have a point, in that many on these fora spend more time trying to be armchair inquisitors, than they do nurturing their Catholic spirituality. Declaring dead Popes heretics serves no purpose.

And you are right, the current Pope should have the last word.

But using terms like “so-called traditionalists”, and saying you don’t understand why Catholics debate certain trends and directions in which the Church is heading, while adding non Catholics blindly obey their powers that be, kind of waters down your point.

I know you meant no ill intent, but some are going to feel you are saying we can learn from the protestants.

Blind obedience is hard to swallow as long as Modernism is in the equation.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Thanks for sharing the article. I read it. But it doesn’t change the question.
Look at the wisdom of Dr. van Hilderbrand. Observe what he says in this paragraph.

“The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.”

He does not give the laity the authority to change the decisions of the Magisterium. He encourages the laity to ask questions, to write letters and make petitions. He deliberately says that “WE MUST OBEY”.

There is no question that there are going to be decisions and declarations that are “loopy”, to quote my son. But even the loopy decisions must be obeyed until such time as the legitimate authority changes their mind. We can ask for reconsideration. That’s not in doubt here. What I’m calling into question is the idea that many Catholics have that they can do whatever they feel is right on either side of an issue.

The question on this thread is when did we become a democracy where we can pick and choose what to obey?

Yes, and I agree completely with von Hildebrand’s point here. If I don’t like the New Mass and greatly prefer the TLM (which I do), that does not mean I can run off and found my own church with the TLM. The Pope and Bishops do have the authority. Von Hildebrand once put it more succinctly: “We obey, but do not agree.”

Again, I think the big distinction is between decisions that are prudential (and fallible) such as whether to allow the vernacular in the liturgy or whether to change the liturgy, and teachings of the Church which are on faith and morals and infallible such as the teaching against homosexual acts.

 

[RLT]

The OP reminds me of something I read in an article called Cooper’s Other Americans: Cultural Diversity and American Homogeneity.

It covers some of Last of the Mohicans author James Fenimore Cooper’s attitude towards Catholics.

It states he warned that Catholicism and democracy may be incompatible because “monks, nuns and Catholics revere authority”
An attitude that seems to be prevalent in early America.

 

[JReducation]

But using terms like “so-called traditionalists”, and saying you don’t understand why Catholics debate certain trends and directions in which the Church is heading, while adding non Catholics blindly obey their powers that be, kind of waters down your point.

I know you meant no ill intent, but some are going to feel you are saying we can learn from the protestants.

Blind obedience is hard to swallow as long as Modernism is in the equation.

I don’t recall where I said this. But if I did, I don’t mean that we learn from Protestants. In fact, Proestantism never attracted my attention because it’s too chaotic from my Jewish perspective.

I know Jews who have converted to Protestantism, because they were looking for this kind of freedom to have a private line with God. I don’t mean this at all.

Can we learn respect for authority and obedience from other people, regardless of their faith, of course we can. Good can be learned from anyone.

I’m not so sure that modernism is correctly understood by the average person. Originally, modernism referred to the age of scientific skepticism and inquiry. This is not longer the case in the scientific community. I believe that most scientists agree that the supernatural is not within the domain of science and refrain for analyzing it. Einstein said it best when he said, “I only want to know how God did it. The rest are just details.” He paved the way for a new generation of scientific inquiry that was very different from modernism.

I believe that what people refer to as modernism, is really the modern age or the contemporary age. It goes to show how poorly educated we are that we can’t even use terms correctly. It is little wonder how we fail at logic.

My question on this thread has little to do with the modern age, more with logic.

Logic says that if we spend more time and energy cultivating prayer, penance, asceticism, detachment from material things and prestige, practicing mercy and compassion toward everyone, regardless of who they are or what they believe, we would be much closer to being the people that Christ calls us to be.

As a convert I have a special attachment to St. Elizabeth Ann Seton and St. Edith Stein (Benedicta). Once they discovered the wealth of Catholcism they threw themselves fully into prayer, penance, charity, the Sacraments, sharing their joy and their experience with others.

Neither of these women lacked intelligence. Stein was a PhD in philosophy and Elizabeth well educated in Episcopalian theology. They saw the weaknesses of the Church, but they also saw the Holy Spirit at work through the clouds. They clung to that vision. They nurtured it in their hearts in and in everyone whom they encountered. Above all, they never uttered a complaint against the Church. Their conversion was so profound that they believed in the power of the Spirit to heal the weaknesses of the Chuch. They embraced the Holy Spirit’s healing power by beginning with their own souls, because they saw themselves as weak links in Church, as links that needed strengthening. There was no sense of entitlement on their part. They had been brought to the Church through the merits of Christ, not their own.

Regardless of the conditions of the house, they knew they were home. They dedicated their lives to hearing the voice of the master of the house, rather than debating withth housekeeper.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Yes, and I agree completely with von Hildebrand’s point here. If I don’t like the New Mass and greatly prefer the TLM (which I do), that does not mean I can run off and found my own church with the TLM. The Pope and Bishops do have the authority. Von Hildebrand once put it more succinctly: “We obey, but do not agree.”

Again, I think the big distinction is between decisions that are prudential (and fallible) such as whether to allow the vernacular in the liturgy or whether to change the liturgy, and teachings of the Church which are on faith and morals and infallible such as the teaching against homosexual acts.

If we take our cue from the Saints, such as Basil the Great, no one says that we have to like it. We just have to love the Church and hang in there.

As I have always taught my children, “You don’t have to like it. You just have to do it.” Today they are two very healthy, productive and moral adults.

JR

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t understand how anyone can call Catholicism a democracy or a republic. Catholics don’t vote at the polls. They don’t even decide who their priests or bishops are.

We either accept our priests, bishops, or Pope, or we don’t. We are baptized as Christians but choose to follow the path of Catholicism or what we see as Catholicism. Excommunication isn’t even an issue anymore. The Church accepts almost anyone who wants to be Catholic. Sometimes I don’t even know if I’m attending Mass with Catholics as many of them don’t follow Church rules, but I still have to see where someone actually gets physically kicked out of attending Mass.

The Church has its own government but it is hardly a democracy, unless you count voting with your feet.

 

[revelations]

They let me in!

JR, another solid post. You’ve been on fire the last couple of days!

As for all the debate, it’s in the North American culture. I think it’s a bit of a perversion of “free speech!” and right to democracy. Everything is up for debate these days, because everyone is their own judge!

At university, the first week is spent arguing with the teacher about the mid term dates.

Why should anyone tell me what i can/can’t do? [sarcasm]

-revelations

trust in the Holy Spirit…he will heal all wounds

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I don’t recall where I said this. But if I did, I don’t mean that we learn from Protestants. In fact, Proestantism never attracted my attention because it’s too chaotic from my Jewish perspective.

I know Jews who have converted to Protestantism, because they were looking for this kind of freedom to have a private line with God. I don’t mean this at all.

Can we learn respect for authority and obedience from other people, regardless of their faith, of course we can. Good can be learned from anyone.

I’m not so sure that modernism is correctly understood by the average person. Originally, modernism referred to the age of scientific skepticism and inquiry. This is not longer the case in the scientific community. I believe that most scientists agree that the supernatural is not within the domain of science and refrain for analyzing it. Einstein said it best when he said, “I only want to know how God did it. The rest are just details.” He paved the way for a new generation of scientific inquiry that was very different from modernism.

I believe that what people refer to as modernism, is really the modern age or the contemporary age. It goes to show how poorly educated we are that we can’t even use terms correctly. It is little wonder how we fail at logic.

My question on this thread has little to do with the modern age, more with logic.

Logic says that if we spend more time and energy cultivating prayer, penance, asceticism, detachment from material things and prestige, practicing mercy and compassion toward everyone, regardless of who they are or what they believe, we would be much closer to being the people that Christ calls us to be.

As a convert I have a special attachment to St. Elizabeth Ann Seton and St. Edith Stein (Benedicta). Once they discovered the wealth of Catholcism they threw themselves fully into prayer, penance, charity, the Sacraments, sharing their joy and their experience with others.

Neither of these women lacked intelligence. Stein was a PhD in philosophy and Elizabeth well educated in Episcopalian theology. They saw the weaknesses of the Church, but they also saw the Holy Spirit at work through the clouds. They clung to that vision. They nurtured it in their hearts in and in everyone whom they encountered. Above all, they never uttered a complaint against the Church. Their conversion was so profound that they believed in the power of the Spirit to heal the weaknesses of the Chuch. They embraced the Holy Spirit’s healing power by beginning with their own souls, because they saw themselves as weak links in Church, as links that needed strengthening. There was no sense of entitlement on their part. They had been brought to the Church through the merits of Christ, not their own.

Regardless of the conditions of the house, they knew they were home. They dedicated their lives to hearing the voice of the master of the house, rather than debating withth housekeeper.

JR

And dear God how I pray that one day all Catholics may once again have access to the liturgy that helped make them Saints.

 

[catharina]

But using terms like “so-called traditionalists”, and saying you don’t understand why Catholics debate certain trends and directions in which the Church is heading, while adding non Catholics blindly obey their powers that be, kind of waters down your point.

I know you meant no ill intent, but some are going to feel you are saying we can learn from the protestants.

Blind obedience is hard to swallow as long as Modernism is in the equation.

---

I’m certain that JR did not even imply that since he wouldn’t - so what gives you the impression that he did?

 

[JReducation]

My position is based on obedience to the Church’s wishes and law.

This is what the Ecumenical Directory which was promulgated by the Church wants us to do.

III-b) When speaking of other Churches and ecclesial Communities, it is important to present their teaching correctly and honestly. Among those elements by which the Church itself is built up and given life, some—even many and very valuable ones—are to be found outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church. The Spirit of Christ therefore does not refuse to use these communities as means of salvation. Doing this also puts in relief the truths of faith held in common by various Christian confessions. This will help Catholics both to deepen their own faith and to know and esteem other Christians, thus making easier the search in common for the path of full unity in the whole truth.

III-67 a) Catholics should also give value to certain elements and goods, sources of spiritual life, which are found in other Churches and ecclesial Communities, and which belong to the one Church of Christ: Holy Scripture, the sacraments and other sacred actions, faith, hope, charity and other gifts of the Spirit.78 These goods have borne fruit for example in the mystical tradition of the Christian East and the spiritual treasures of the monastic life, in the worship and piety of Anglicans, in the evangelical prayer and the diverse forms of Protestant spirituality.

III-68-a) The spirit of charity, of respect, and of dialogue demands the elimination of language and prejudices which distort the image of other Christians. This holds especially for Catholic schools where the young must grow in faith, in prayer, in resolve to put into practice the Christian Gospel of unity. They should be taught genuine ecumenism, according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

This is what Canon Law tell us about the authority of the Pope on these and all matters.

Canon 333

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

As you see, I’m not making up my own rules or encouraging anyone else to do that. I am encouraging union with the Church and her mission.

JR

 

[stmaria]

=JReducation;3330168]My position is based on obedience to the Church’s wishes and law.

This is what the Ecumenical Directory which was promulgated by the Church wants us to do.

III-b) When speaking of other Churches and ecclesial Communities, it is important to present their teaching correctly and honestly. Among those elements by which the Church itself is built up and given life, some—even many and very valuable ones—are to be found outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church. The Spirit of Christ therefore does not refuse to use these communities as means of salvation. Doing this also puts in relief the truths of faith held in common by various Christian confessions. This will help Catholics both to deepen their own faith and to know and esteem other Christians, thus making easier the search in common for the path of full unity in the whole truth.

You’re definition please of “means of salvation”

III-68-a) The spirit of charity, of respect, and of dialogue demands the elimination of language and prejudices which distort the image of other Christians. This holds especially for Catholic schools where the young must grow in faith, in prayer, in resolve to put into practice the Christian Gospel of unity. They should be taught** genuine ecumenism**, according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

And your definition of “genuine ecumenism”
Thanks

 

[JReducation]

You’re definition please of “means of salvation”

It is not up to me to define “means of salvation”. It is up to the Magisterium. Neither you or I have such authority. What the Magisterium has determined is that people of other faiths can find salvation through their faith, even if they possess only part of the truths revealed by Christ, because God can save and wants to save those who are living faithful to the truths that they posess, even if they only posess part of the truth. My understanding of what the Church is saying is that we cannot put limits on God’s saving grace.

And your definition of “genuine ecumenism”
Thanks

Genuine ecumenism is defined in the first paragraph of the Directory, the recognition that there is truth to be found in other faith communities; the recognitiion that they are not intrinsically evil; the recognition that they share certain truths with the Catholic Church and the recognition that we are united by the bonds of charity and are bound by charity to speak respectfully to and about our separated brothers and sisters.

As I said before, you or I cannot redefine any of these terms. We must take the definitions as they are given to us by the Magisterium. We do not have that authority.

As canon law says, we do not have the authority to question the authority of the Church, especially the Pope.

I will not define what has already been defined by the Church. For a better understanding of these definitions I suggest that you read the Ecumenical Directory and Lumen Gentium.

Thanks for asking.

JR

 

[stmaria]

=JReducation;3330575]It is not up to me to define “means of salvation”. It is up to the Magisterium. Neither you or I have such authority.

What the Magisterium has determined is that** people of other faiths can find salvation through their faith, even if they possess only part of the truths revealed by Christ, **

because God can save and wants to save those who are living faithful to the truths that they posess**, even if they only posess part of the truth**. My understanding of what the Church is saying is that we cannot put limits on God’s saving grace.

This is confusing to me. How can only 10% or 30% of the truth gain salvation? Was this ever taught by the Magisterium before Vatican II? Why urge someone to convert? They should just stay Protestant.

Wouldn’t you agree that without all of the sacraments the members of these other faiths are going to have a very difficult path to salvation? How will they have a mortal sin removed from their soul? Through a perfect confession they know nothing about? Invincible Ignorance can only go so far.

Genuine ecumenism is defined in the first paragraph of the Directory, the recognition that there is truth to be found in other faith communities; the recognitiion that they are not intrinsically evil; the recognition that they share certain truths with the Catholic Church and the recognition that we are united by the bonds of charity and are bound by charity to speak respectfully to and about our separated brothers and sisters.

In your opinion is Ecumenism of the “return” to Holy Mother Church no longer necessary?

I believe that “Genuine Ecumenism” also needs to say this"
“First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth and to their most loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them lovingly back into her fold. Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal salvation.”
(QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE, Pope Pius IX, 1863)

MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI
Encyclical of Pope Pius XII “On the Mystical Body of Christ” on June 29, 1943
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM

"Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond. …Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. "