Is Catholicism A Democracy?

[JReducation]

Many people are quoting what previous popes have said and written on this issue. But I notice that no one is debating the validity of this law.

Canon 333§3. “No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.”

I’m assuming that everyone agrees that there is no appeal or recourse against a sentence or decree by a pope.

Therefore, since everything that has been declared and authorized by Popes John XXIII through Benedict XVI has to be accepted without appeal or recourse, we are safe in following the Church’s current decrees on ecumenism.

In addition, there seems to be an assumption of guilt here that all Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Eastern Orthodox and other people of faith absolutely believe and understand the dogmas of the Catholic Church and are deliberately defying and rejecting them, thus making them inacapable of salvation.

This is the kind of uncharitable thinking that the Church is trying to protect us from. It is the same kind of uncharitabe thinking that it has protected us from when others accuse us of deliberately turning from truth without recognizing that we are not convinced of what they’re preaching or teaching. It’s a a two way street. There are probably more non-Catholics who are not convinced of our understanding of truth as there are Catholics who are not convinced of their undersanding of truth.

This is not deliberate defiance or rejection. This is how people feel, believe and are raised.

 

[DustinsDad]

…Therefore, since everything that has been declared and authorized by Popes John XXIII through Benedict XVI has to be accepted without appeal or recourse, we are safe in following the Church’s current decrees on ecumenism.

The ambeguity inherent in them means that there is more than one way to follow them…the right way (in light Tradition, and in accord with all that has been revealed to us in the deposit of faith), and the wrong way (opposed to the light of Tradition and the deposit of faith).

…In addition, there seems to be an assumption of guilt here that all Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Eastern Orthodox and other people of faith absolutely believe and understand the dogmas of the Catholic Church and are deliberately defying and rejecting them, thus making them inacapable of salvation.

Two things -

1. 
   *]No one is assuming all non-Catholics are culpable for their ignorance/rejection of Christ’s Church. Like the Church has approached the question since day one, we err on the side of caution.
   *]This assumes perfect belief and understanding is required before culpability for the ignorance and/or rejection of Christ’s Church is possible. This is logically untenable and in violation of the deposit of faith. It is the equivalent of saying “Outside the Church there is no salvation for anyone except those who believe otherwise.” Rather silly, no?
   

   …This is the kind of uncharitable thinking that the Church is trying to protect us from…There are probably more non-Catholics who are not convinced of our understanding of truth as there are Catholics who are not convinced of their undersanding of truth.

   Huh?
   

   …This is not deliberate defiance or rejection. This is how people feel, believe and are raised.

   What in the world are you trying to say? Lost me.
   
   Peace in Christ,
   
   DustinsDad

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Many people are quoting what previous popes have said and written on this issue. But I notice that no one is debating the validity of this law.

Canon 333§3. “No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.”

I’m assuming that everyone agrees that there is no appeal or recourse against a sentence or decree by a pope.

Therefore, since everything that has been declared and authorized by Popes John XXIII through Benedict XVI has to be accepted without appeal or recourse, we are safe in following the Church’s current decrees on ecumenism.

In addition, there seems to be an assumption of guilt here that all Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Eastern Orthodox and other people of faith absolutely believe and understand the dogmas of the Catholic Church and are deliberately defying and rejecting them, thus making them inacapable of salvation.

This is the kind of uncharitable thinking that the Church is trying to protect us from. It is the same kind of uncharitabe thinking that it has protected us from when others accuse us of deliberately turning from truth without recognizing that we are not convinced of what they’re preaching or teaching. It’s a a two way street. There are probably more non-Catholics who are not convinced of our understanding of truth as there are Catholics who are not convinced of their undersanding of truth.

This is not deliberate defiance or rejection. This is how people feel, believe and are raised.

How are documents like the “Principles and Norms on Ecumenism”

(vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html)

sentences or decrees of the Roman Pontiff? Sentences and decrees sounds more like a sentence such as excommunication or interdiction, or a decree that Anglican Orders are invalid.

 

[JReducation]

How are documents like the “Principles and Norms on Ecumenism”

(vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html)

sentences or decrees of the Roman Pontiff? Sentences and decrees sounds more like a sentence such as excommunication or interdiction, or a decree that Anglican Orders are invalid.

According to Canon Law, any decree, declaration or proclamation made by the pope or by any one or any group which he approves or delegates is to be accepted with the same obedience as anything that comes from his own pen. Therefore, the documents of Vatican II and those which flow from them and have papal authority carry the popes authority and require obedience by the faithful. It is not necessary for the Pope to declare something infallible to carry the weight of papal authority and require obedience to the Pope.

This is in the revised code of Canon Law.

JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

According to Canon Law, any decree, declaration or proclamation made by the pope or by any one or any group which he approves or delegates is to be accepted with the same obedience as anything that comes from his own pen. Therefore, the documents of Vatican II and those which flow from them and have papal authority carry the popes authority and require obedience by the faithful. It is not necessary for the Pope to declare something infallible to carry the weight of papal authority and require obedience to the Pope.

This is in the revised code of Canon Law.

JR

Terms like “sentence” and “decree” sound as if they would have very specific meanings and would not necessarily apply broadly to almost any document issued by the Vatican after Vatican II.

 

[JReducation]

The decrees of Vatican II were approved and ordered to be published by Pope Paul VI. Therefore, they comply with Canon Law and are thus to be obeyed as prescribed by Canon Law.

Anything that the college of bishops promulgates on their own has obligatory force if it is approved by the Pontiff. Everything that we’re talking about here has been approved by the reigning pope at the time.

Also, observe that Canon Law refers to the statements of an ecumenical council as “decrees.”

Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law.

**Can. 341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

§2. To have obligatory force, decrees which the college of bishops issues when it places a truly collegial action in another way initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff need the same confirmation and promulgation.**

The bishops who work on these documents are not ignorant people. To become a bishop they must meet age and character requirements. But they must also meet academic requirements. They are knowledgeable of previous encyclicals, previous councils, theology, scripture and Church law.

We have to be very careful when we challenge someone who has been endowed with authority from the Pope and who is far better qualified than we are to make such statements.

**Can. 378 §1. In regard to the suitability of a candidate for the episcopacy, it is required that he is:

5/ in possession of a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred scripture, theology, or canon law from an institute of higher studies approved by the Apostolic See, or at least truly expert in the same disciplines.**

I strongly recommend that those who feel that there have mistakes or ambiguities in these declarations send copies of what they have posted here to the Vicar of their Diocese and to the head of the Tribunal in their diocese. These are the people who have the authority and the training to respond expeditiously to your concerns. They do answer. I have asked questions and have gotten answers.

The only person in a diocese whom the faithful are not allowed to address directly is the Bishop. This has to do with the fact that a Bishop cannot keep up with all the communication that comes across his desk. Diocesan vicars and jurists and jurists do this job.

You may find satisfactory answers, if you don’t get a satisfactory response, at least you’ll get an authoritative response and then you have enough information to decide if the Catholic Church is for you or not.

As we said in the OP, it’s not a democracy. We can’t expect the Church leadership to respond to us as do our Congressional representatives.

God bless everyone

JR

 

[DustinsDad]

The decrees of Vatican II were approved and ordered to be published by Pope Paul VI. Therefore, they comply with Canon Law and are thus to be obeyed as prescribed by Canon Law.

When there is ambeguity in the documents, it is not whether or not they are to be obeyed - it is how to properly obey them. No offence, but I think you are kind of dodging the issue here.

Keeping in mind this from Pope John XXIII:
The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.

For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.
You must make very sure you are not confusing obediance to VII with obedience to the erroneous “Spirit of VII”, the latter of which almost everyone admits is a huge problem in the Church, as the slogan has become a cover for many false teachings in alot of areas.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[catharina]

You must make very sure you are not confusing obediance to VII with obedience to the erroneous “Spirit of VII”, the latter of which almost everyone admits is a huge problem in the Church, as the slogan has become a cover for many false teachings in alot of areas.

I’ve been a Catholic for more than 60 years, yet I’ve never even heard/seen the term “Spirit of Vatican II” until coming across it on this forum and that only in the last few weeks.

I believe it’s a recently coined term and has no relevance to Faith.

 

[stmaria]

=JReducation;3350539]B]
I strongly recommend that those who feel that there have mistakes or ambiguities in these declarations send copies of what they have posted here to the Vicar of their Diocese and to the head of the Tribunal in their diocese. These are the people who have the authority and the training to respond expeditiously to your concerns. They do answer. I have asked questions and have gotten answers.

JReducation, The debate over the ambiguity of the Vatican II documents have been going on for over 40years. Writing to the diocese would be a waste of time.
When Pope John Paul excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre he made this statement:– Apostolic Letter “Ecclesia Dei Afflicta,” Jul. 2, 1988 – Excommunicating Archbishop Lefebvre

5 b) Moreover, I should like to** remind theologians and other experts **in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves **called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine **which, perhaps **because they are new, **have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church."

Even Pope John Paul acknowledge that the Documents have not been understood and in fact led to the excommunication of the SSPX Bishops.

Here is an interesting article on the ambiguity.

The Incoherent Council
Vatican II and Religious Liberty
seattlecatholic.com/article_20030221.html

]

 

[JReducation]

There comes a moment when every human being must exercise his or her right to show some self-respect and ask that others treat him with the same respect. While most people here treat me with respect, there are some who have posted responses to my posts suggesting that I am ignorant of Church history or of certain ecclesial documents and pronouncements. Sometimes, that kind of assumption can be very wrong and sound offensive.

My reason for beginning this thread was to defend the Church’s authority, not refute it in any way. That’s why I called the thread by its given name. I will defend the Church’s authority from her birth to today. But I will not persevere responding to posts that question my knowledge of the Church or her history, without knowing me. I welcome questions and opinions. I will gladly respond to questions and to opinions that do not call into question my knowledge and experience in these matters. Though everyone is welcome to ask another poster how they know something or how they arrive at a certain conclusion. That is a valid question.

If anyone needs a confirmation that I am neither ignorant of or in conflict with the Catholic Church please allow me to share this. I don’t like the way that it may sound, because it is not my intention to toot my own horn, but to explain that what I am sharing comes form many years of experience and training. I spent eight years studying theology at a Pontifical University where I graduated. I have worked for four dioceses in various capacities, taught theology to seminarians and candidates to the permanent deaconate, trained pastors, religious educators and Directors of Religious Education, written pastoral proposals for parishes and executed them and currently have a pastoral project on the table for my diocese. In addition I served the Church in foreign missions for almost a decade. My record of fidelity to the Church speaks for itself.

In charity, I ask that you post your questions and opinions on the topic of the thread without making suggestions or insinuations that other posters are ignorant. There are many of us on these threads who are well versed and have much to share.

I believe that there are many legitimate concerns out there that we can discuss and try to clarify between us by putting hour heads together. We just have to open our hearts and our minds and believe that the Church is not into conspiracies and much less deliberately seeking to lead us astray. She is doing the best she can to give hope during the very complicated time in history in which we live. There are many people on these threads, besides me, who have worked very hard within the Church to help preserve the faith and bring souls to Christ. Therefore, every post deserves respectful responses.

Thank you and God bless

 

[DustinsDad]

I’ve been a Catholic for more than 60 years, yet I’ve never even heard/seen the term “Spirit of Vatican II” until coming across it on this forum and that only in the last few weeks.

I believe it’s a recently coined term and has no relevance to Faith.

Perhaps, but it’s now a pretty common term among both traditional type catholics and conservative catholics. If you’ve ever heard that “we dont’ believe in xyz since Vatican II” or something like that, you’ve been exposed to this phenomena. Most everyone has.

Here’s an article from This Rock dealing with this issue - though it is referred to as “The Post-Conciliar Spirit”.

Here’s another longer one by Michael Davies (posted on someone’s blog) that goes into more detail.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

The decrees of Vatican II were approved and ordered to be published by Pope Paul VI. Therefore, they comply with Canon Law and are thus to be obeyed as prescribed by Canon Law.

Anything that the college of bishops promulgates on their own has obligatory force if it is approved by the Pontiff. Everything that we’re talking about here has been approved by the reigning pope at the time.

Also, observe that Canon Law refers to the statements of an ecumenical council as “decrees.”

Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law.

**Can. 341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

**§2. To have obligatory force, decrees which the college of bishops issues when it places a truly collegial action in another way initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff need the same confirmation and promulgation.

The bishops who work on these documents are not ignorant people. To become a bishop they must meet age and character requirements. But they must also meet academic requirements. They are knowledgeable of previous encyclicals, previous councils, theology, scripture and Church law.

We have to be very careful when we challenge someone who has been endowed with authority from the Pope and who is far better qualified than we are to make such statements.

**Can. 378 §1. In regard to the suitability of a candidate for the episcopacy, it is required that he is:

5/ in possession of a doctorate or at least a licentiate **in sacred scripture, theology, or canon law from an institute of higher studies approved by the Apostolic See, or at least truly expert in the same disciplines.

I strongly recommend that those who feel that there have mistakes or ambiguities in these declarations send copies of what they have posted here to the Vicar of their Diocese and to the head of the Tribunal in their diocese. These are the people who have the authority and the training to respond expeditiously to your concerns. They do answer. I have asked questions and have gotten answers.

The only person in a diocese whom the faithful are not allowed to address directly is the Bishop. This has to do with the fact that a Bishop cannot keep up with all the communication that comes across his desk. Diocesan vicars and jurists and jurists do this job.

You may find satisfactory answers, if you don’t get a satisfactory response, at least you’ll get an authoritative response and then you have enough information to decide if the Catholic Church is for you or not.

As we said in the OP, it’s not a democracy. We can’t expect the Church leadership to respond to us as do our Congressional representatives.

God bless everyone

JR

JR,

I am not in the process of deciding whether the Catholic Church is for me or not. My hope and prayer is that the Church will show her true colors once again since she is for the entire world. Overall, it has been my impression that the entire ecumenical movement has done little more than help suck dry almost any evangelistic fervor which attempts to convert Protestants and others to the Catholic faith.

The impression is given (it seems) as if the ultimate goal of the Church’s mission is to get along with everyone else and avoid offending anyone. Which is rather effeminate. Now, with Pope Benedict XVI at the helm, I do believe things are getting better and I hope the impression is given once again that heretics and schismatics need to be convinced of their errors and join the one true Church. God bless.

 

[DustinsDad]

There comes a moment when every human being must exercise his or her right to show some self-respect and ask that others treat him with the same respect.

Fair enough. I hope I haven’t offended you anywhere, since this wasn’t my intent.

While most people here treat me with respect, there are some who have posted responses to my posts suggesting that I am ignorant of Church history or of certain ecclesial documents and pronouncements. Sometimes, that kind of assumption can be very wrong and sound offensive.

You need to have thick skin on discussion forums. When someone posts something, say from an encyclical or a council, it is not meant to make you look bad - it is made to defend their position. Rather than get offended, just simply engage in the discussion explain your position in light of whatever documents or pronouncements are provided.

This is a discussion thread after all, not a lecture thread .

… I don’t like the way that it may sound, because it is not my intention to toot my own horn, but to explain that what I am sharing comes form many years of experience and training. I spent eight years studying theology at a Pontifical University where I graduated. I have worked for four dioceses in various capacities, taught theology to seminarians and candidates to the permanent deaconate, trained pastors, religious educators and Directors of Religious Education, written pastoral proposals for parishes and executed them and currently have a pastoral project on the table for my diocese. In addition I served the Church in foreign missions for almost a decade. My record of fidelity to the Church speaks for itself.

Sounds great - thank you for your service to Holy Mother Church. That being said, you’ll have to understand and don’t take this personal, but being highly educated (especially these days!) is no guarantee that you are right on matters of faith…could mean you are more culpable for being wrong though .

… In charity, I ask that you post your questions and opinions on the topic of the thread without making suggestions or insinuations that other posters are ignorant.

Well, then I’m going to have to call you on the carpet for the statement:
“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 friend, when traditional catholics use the term modernism, it is in connection with the broad scope of the very serious heretical teachings and philosophy outlined and condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi* -* and such is not simply a condemnation of the “modern age or the contemporary age”…it’s a bit deeper than that…and a bit more serious. Give those - even those who you disagree with - a little more credit.

And with that said, peace in Christ! I look forward to continuing dialogue with you.

DustinsDad

 

[JReducation]

There is no argument that many of the statements in the documents of Vatican II and those that followed are often ambiguous and that many people still do not understand what they mean or what parts of them mean. I believe that unraveling them is going to take a long time. I agree with anyone who says this.

If I may add my opinion on this, I believe that much of the ambiguity comes from the fact that they were written with the intent of changing pastoral practices while leaving alone the deposit of faith. While trying to skirt the dogmatic tradition of the Church, because it was not the focus of the Council, it was often difficult to do without using language that was not very clear except to those who worked on these documents.

However, that being said let us not forget that people like John Paul II and Benedict XVI were some of the leading theologians at Vatican II. Therefore, their interpretations and their applications of the documents are going to be accurate, as they were there and they helped write these documents. They were among the many theologians who assisted the other bishops in this matter. John Paul II was a key figure in Vatican II.

While I may not understand why the Pope is doing something, if I’m looking at a Pope who was a leading theologian at the Council and who also was a consultant to his predecessor, such as Benedict XVI, then I am going to trust his knowledge and on the matter.

For example, many people seem to believe that John Paul II was wrong at so many levels and that Benedict XVI is going to right the wrongs of John Paul. But we must keep in mind that Ratzinger was his top theologian. It is unlikely that he is doing to declare wrong what his predecessor did or taught. He may make some additional changes, such as the case with the Latin Mass. But this does not imply that he believed that John Paul was wrong in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre. The fact is that John Paul was defending the unity of the temporal Church, something that Ratzinger supported.

The same is the case with Ecumenism. Ratzinger has always been a fervent supporter of ecumenism. He was the founder and is the President of the Committee on Muslim and Catholic Relations. He has gone to great lengths to insist that Muslims and Catholics do in fact worship the same God. He also opposes the use of language that is offensive to non-Christians, such as heretics. He and John Paul II denounced the American invasion of Iraq as immoral, but they did not call President Bush or our military men and women immoral.

There is confusion as to some of the content and intent of Vatican II and post Vatican II documents. As a result of the confusion there have been many abuses, not always with the intent to do harm. This is the part of that we have to take out of our minds. We have to stop thinking that every time there is a mistake it is with the conscious intent to do harm. Many mistakes have no intent to do harm, even though it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a mistake that has to be corrected.

Let’s focus on correcting the mistakes, clarifying the doubts, answering the questions and exercising charity toward all. Charity must be exercised in word and speech. If we take the example of the great saints of the Church, they avoided all forms of offense toward anyone, even those who were heretics. In the end, isn’t sanctity what we all want?

I remember a time when the Roman Catholic Church had excommunicated the Orthodox Churches and they had excommunicated us. Now, that excommunication has been lifted. The revised Canon Law even makes provisions for reception of communion by Roman Catholics at an Orthodox mass.

There is also a law that forbids non-Catholics from receiving communion at a Catholic mass. Benedict XVI gave Tony Blair communion at a mass at which he presided. He said that charity made it appropriate to do so. At the time, Blair had not yet converted to Catholicism. Blair also supported abortion and gay marriage. The Catholic Church received him as a new member. The Pope welcomed him. He was not required to recant his position. The Vatican’s response was that Blair still has a ways to go in his journey.

I trust Benedict XVI’s judgment on this, so should we all.

JR

 

[JReducation]

[/INDENT]My friend, when traditional catholics use the term modernism, it is in connection with the broad scope of the very serious heretical teachings and philosophy outlined and condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi* -* and such is not simply a condemnation of the “modern age or the contemporary age”…it’s a bit deeper than that…and a bit more serious. Give those - even those who you disagree with - a little more credit.

And with that said, peace in Christ! I look forward to continuing dialogue with you.

DustinsDad

Those who use the term as it was used by Pius X, then the term is correctly used and I accept that. Because Pius was looking back toward the Age of Modernism and its impact on the world, good and bad. He was also looking at the remnants still left of that era.

If people use modernism to mean the time from Vatican II forward or John Paul II forward, it is incorrectly used.

Thank you for your clarification.

As to whether I’m more culpable or less culpable, because I am well educated in theology, lets leave that up to God and my confessor. Thank you.

JR

 

[JReducation]

JR,

The impression is given (it seems) as if the ultimate goal of the Church’s mission is to get along with everyone else and avoid offending anyone. Which is rather effeminate. Now, with Pope Benedict XVI at the helm, I do believe things are getting better and I hope the impression is given once again that heretics and schismatics need to be convinced of their errors and join the one true Church. God bless.

Why do you call it effeminate as if it is a bad thing? Is that what you mean?

The ultimate mission is not just to get along and avoid offending. The beginning of ecumenism is charity. Once you have established a charitable and fraternal relationship, where there is trust, then you can proceed to deeper topics. You can’t have a conversation about something as serious as faith unless you have trust that the other side is not out to do you harm. We can’t just say, “Let’s sit down so that we can tell you how you’re wrong and we’re right.” This is not the way that human nature works. This will simply make people angry, offend them and less interested in hearing what you have to say. You have to build on common ground, that is charity and trust, plus whatever beliefs you share.

Whether this approach is effeminate or not, it doesn’t really matter. Afterall, we do call the Church “Mother”. In a sense, the Church is called to be effeminate. There is nothing wrong with being feminine. As the millions of Catholic women who have saved the Church from disaster, including Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Avila. Mother Teresa did more to promote the Catholic Church in India than most of her male counterparts.

I guess I’m confused as to why you call it “effeminate” and if you mean that being effeminate is a bad thing. I hope not. You may reconsider your wording as this is offensive to women.

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

JR,

I am not in the process of deciding whether the Catholic Church is for me or not. My hope and prayer is that the Church will show her true colors once again since she is for the entire world. **Overall, it has been my impression that the entire ecumenical movement has done little more than help suck dry almost any evangelistic fervor which attempts to convert Protestants and others to the Catholic faith. **

The impression is given (it seems) as if the ultimate goal of the Church’s mission is to get along with everyone else and avoid offending anyone. Which is rather effeminate. Now, with Pope Benedict XVI at the helm, I do believe things are getting better and I hope the impression is given once again that heretics and schismatics need to be convinced of their errors and join the one true Church. God bless.

I’m not sure I understand this part. Have you not been seeing the significant numbers of converts coming into the Church recently from the Protestant world, surprisingly many from the Evangelical/Fundamentalist world, and many many church pastors being among them. And then there are those coming in great numbers from the Anglican churches. And I know many people who were fallen away from their Catholic faith who have recently returned, and not just returned, but on fire with their love for our Lord and his Church. This is greatly in part to the prayers and careful groundwork laid by the ecumenical movement over the last half a century. To dismiss us all as being almost non existent or insignificant is rather heartbreaking.

I don’t think that the ecumenical movement has been a failure at all. It takes time for the fruits of these things to show themselves, but they are starting to abound. You just have to open your eyes and see them. And not just see them, but rejoice in them as all Heaven rejoices. I’m not seeing much rejoicing from a lot of people in the Church, almost as though they wish it weren’t so. But I have faith that the Holy Spirit will do his work in spite of this. I pray in the meantime that the hearts of those who oppose this move of the Spirit will soften and come into unity with the Church as they are called to.

 

[DustinsDad]

…Pius was looking back toward the Age of Modernism and its impact on the world, good and bad. He was also looking at the remnants still left of that era.

Are you serious? Have you read the document? Don’t make me start pulling quotes :tsktsk:

If people use modernism to mean the time from Vatican II forward or John Paul II forward, it is incorrectly used.

Modernism as used by Pius X is not an “era of time” - it is a set of realated errors, philosophical ideas and doctrines that were and still are condemned. Heretical. Serious errors that lead to the damnation of souls. Hell.

Errors that still exist and are taught this day in many ways, shapes and forms - inside and outside of the Church (as St. Pius X warned). To say that in the post Vatican II era such errors quietly went away would be laughable if the stakes weren’t so high.

I am legitimately shocked.

Please provide some sort of basis for your position here other - than the fact that you are “well educated.”

As to whether I’m more culpable or less culpable, because I am well educated in theology, lets leave that up to God and my confessor.

Again, just because you’ve had alot of education, doesn’t mean you are well educated. Demonstrate it.

And of course, if you don’t get yourself a sense of humor, these conversations won’t be nearly as enjoyable and edifying as they could be. Lighten up!

(Imagine that, a traditional fella telling someone to lighten up - that in and of itself is kinda funny!)

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[JReducation]

I have to agree with Jeanette on this one. There is a dismissive attitude in some of these posts. When I began my study of theology I set out to become a Rabbi. I was moved by the Capuchin-Franciscan Brothers who were very kind and encouraged my study of theology. I was even more encouraged when I visited the Angelicum and Gregorian Universities in Rome and found Rabbis teaching scripture, Methodists teaching moral theology and even atheists teaching the opposing view. I was impressed by the Church’s courage and enthusiasm to teach the truth. The Church was not afraid to engage these fine scholars, because it was sure of its footing and knew that these men would help prove the safety and grounding of the Church.

The two men who most inspired me were a Capuchin-Franciscan Brother, Cardinal Sean O’Malley and Rabbi Leon Klenicki. In Brother Sean I saw the image of St. Francis, the Mirror of Perfection.

Rabbi Kenicki has taught at the American College of the Immaculate Conception in Louven, Belgium — also known as The American College at Louvain — and various other Catholic seminaries. He has done studies on St. John of the Cross and Catholic scriptures. From his simple talks I heard the truth that was revealed to the mystics. I wish that I had been his student. Unfortunately, that was not possible at the time.

In October 2007 Pope Benedict the XVI conferred on Rabbi Kenicki the title, Papal Knight of the Order of St. Gregory the Great.

cardinalseansblog.org/?p=2193

These are the good fruits that the ecumenical movement of the 20th century has produced and like this there are many more stories. It has been kindness and trust that has brought many non-Catholics to the Catholic faith. Once you show kindness, the next step is trust. Dialogue and inquiry follow trust.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Are you serious? Have you read the document? Don’t make me start pulling quotes :tsktsk:

Modernism as used by Pius X is not an “era of time” - it is a set of realated errors, philosophical ideas and doctrines that were and still are condemned. Heretical. Serious errors that lead to the damnation of souls. Hell.

Errors that still exist and are taught this day in many ways, shapes and forms - inside and outside of the Church (as St. Pius X warned). To say that in the post Vatican II era such errors quietly went away would be laughable if the stakes weren’t so high.

I am legitimately shocked.

Please provide some sort of basis for your position here other - than the fact that you are “well educated.”

Again, just because you’ve had alot of education, doesn’t mean you are well educated. Demonstrate it.

And of course, if you don’t get yourself a sense of humor, these conversations won’t be nearly as enjoyable and edifying as they could be. Lighten up!

(Imagine that, a traditional fella telling someone to lighten up - that in and of itself is kinda funny!)

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Dustin:

Your tone is hostile and neither I nor anyone else on this thread has to respond or prove themselves to you.

If you disagree with my interpretation of a particular position or document, that is your right, as it is my right to understand it how I learned it.

You do not have the right to post back to anyone in such a demeaning or disrespectful manner.

If you wish to continue a dialogue with me, I would welcome it. But I will not engage with you if you attack my person or my convictions. You have no right to do so and I have no obligation to engage.

Sorry and God bless you.

JR