Is Catholicism A Democracy?

[Brennan_Doherty]

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

I do mean that an attempt to just get along and avoid offending is effeminate and I do mean that as a bad thing. Femininity, however, is very good and is part of the nature of women. I also think femininity can seen as part of the nature of the Church in her care for the poor and in the beauty in her art and architecture (which is one reason why it is so wrong to eliminate beauty from the Church’s liturgy, art, and architecture).

I use the term effeminate primarily to characterize men (and I’m not pointing any fingers), who should be acting in a masculine manner, acting in a more feminine manner which is inappropriate.

St. Catherine of Siena was feminine, yet at the same time she was very clear and direct and said what needed to be said regardless of the circumstances. So, she was feminine, but not effeminate.

I do agree that in personal relationships one should not be a jerk. However, let’s just say I prefer the strong, direct manner (which is charitable) of encyclicals like Mortalium Animos or Pascendi.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

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.

I would note that statistically the number of converts is down since Vatican II. However, I am grateful for any Protestant convert (I am one myself). Nevertheless, I wouldn’t credit this to the ecumenical movement but rather to efforts by Catholics such as Scott Hahn or apostolates like Catholic Answers to attempt to convert them. I do remember the dearth of any materials or attempts to convert Protestants (I went to a Catholic high school while I was a Protestant).

The ecumenical efforts towards Protestant groups such as the Anglicans have seemed rather useless. The Anglicans have continued to move even farther from the Catholic Church in areas such as ordaining women and morality despite all the “dialogue” that is going on.

Nevertheless, I do think we should keep up attempts to reunite with the Orthodox as they have more of a hierarchical structure and we are much closer to them doctrinally.

 

[JReducation]

I do mean that an attempt to just get along and avoid offending is effeminate and I do mean that as a bad thing. Femininity, however, is very good and is part of the nature of women. I also think femininity can seen as part of the nature of the Church in her care for the poor and in the beauty in her art and architecture (which is one reason why it is so wrong to eliminate beauty from the Church’s liturgy, art, and architecture).

I use the term effeminate primarily to characterize men (and I’m not pointing any fingers), who should be acting in a masculine manner, acting in a more feminine manner which is inappropriate.

St. Catherine of Siena was feminine, yet at the same time she was very clear and direct and said what needed to be said regardless of the circumstances. So, she was feminine, but not effeminate.

I do agree that in personal relationships one should not be a jerk. However, let’s just say I prefer the strong, direct manner (which is charitable) of encyclicals like Mortalium Animos or Pascendi.

Thanks for the clarification. The other post left me scratching my head. If I understand your explanation, do you mean “weak”?

I do agree that the beautiful should be preserved. I also believe that we can add more beauty to anything in life.

Thanks again.

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

I would note that statistically the number of converts is down since Vatican II. However, I am grateful for any Protestant convert (I am one myself). Nevertheless, I wouldn’t credit this to the ecumenical movement but rather to efforts by Catholics such as Scott Hahn or apostolates like Catholic Answers to attempt to convert them. I do remember the dearth of any materials or attempts to convert Protestants (I went to a Catholic high school while I was a Protestant).

The ecumenical efforts towards Protestant groups such as the Anglicans have seemed rather useless. The Anglicans have continued to move even farther from the Catholic Church in areas such as ordaining women and morality despite all the “dialogue” that is going on.

Nevertheless, I do think we should keep up attempts to reunite with the Orthodox as they have more of a hierarchical structure and we are much closer to them doctrinally.

Ok, so when you think of Ecumenism, you think of wholesale conversions as being successful and less than that as not.

So because the whole Anglican Church didn’t unite with us, the thousands who are coming our way don’t count as part of the effort.

And you don’t then believe that the spirit behind Ecumenism has in any way contributed to the conversions that we see happening today, or as being responsible in any part for the CAF’s or the Scott Hahns or the EWTN’s that are effective in our current time. These efforts are completely separate and of a different spirit than the Ecumenical efforts of the last half century.

I’m just trying to sort all this out.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Thanks for the clarification. The other post left me scratching my head. If I understand your explanation, do you mean “weak”?

I do agree that the beautiful should be preserved. I also believe that we can add more beauty to anything in life.

Thanks again.

JR

Yes, “weak” would be a good word.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Ok, so when you think of Ecumenism, you think of wholesale conversions as being successful and less than that as not.

So because the whole Anglican Church didn’t unite with us, the thousands who are coming our way don’t count as part of the effort.

And you don’t then believe that the spirit behind Ecumenism has in any way contributed to the conversions that we see happening today, or as being responsible in any part for the CAF’s or the Scott Hahns or the EWTN’s that are effective in our current time. These efforts are completely separate and of a different spirit than the Ecumenical efforts of the last half century.

I’m just trying to sort all this out.

I think of any conversion to the Catholic faith, whether an individual or a group, as of inestimable value.

I think people convert when they are presented the truth of Catholicism strongly enough that they realize they need to make a decision. I see people such as Scott Hahn, CA and EWTN as aiding in that.

Interestingly, I see the Anglicans coming in (and even entire groups of them) not because of ecumenical efforts, but because of the continual abandonment by the Anglicans of Christian dogma and tradition such as ordaining women or even homosexuals (by the Episcopalians, the American branch of Anglicanism). This becomes too much for the more conservative Anglicans and they end up converting.

However, recently Pope Benedict (as I remember) sent a videotaped message of encouragement to some of the conservative Anglican groups who are thinking of converting and I think that is a good thing.

 

[DustinsDad]

Your tone is hostile…

I apologize. I will rephrase and edit so as not to offend…

…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.

Pope St. Pius X set the tone and context of the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis in the opening paragraphs.1…There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body, for owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things,”[1] “vain talkers and seducers,”[2] “erring and driving into error.”[3] It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ. Wherefore We may no longer keep silence, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be set down to lack of diligence in the discharge of Our office…2, That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. **We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, **animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man. I confused how you can read this as"looking back toward the age of Modernism and its impact on the world, good and bad" and an examination of “the remnants still left of that era.”

Modernism, as Pope St. Pius X defines, is not looked at as “an age”, but as a specific set of related theological and philosophical doctrines that he - as Vicar of Christ - condemns outright, even going so far as to say the holders and teachers of these condemned teachings are “the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church” (paragraph 3).

So what is the purpose of this encyclical? What does Pope St. Pius X intend to do here? He tells us in paragraph 4:4. It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast. For this reason it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out their interconnection, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil results. Your thoughts?

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

Modernism is never used to indicate an era of time, it is used to indicate a set of related condemned teachings. Now of course when something is taught, it is taught “in time”, but it’s never referred to as “the time”, as if a doctrine “is” an era. So I’m could you please elaborate?

Especially elaborate on, given the above quotes from Pascendi, the reasoning behind this statement of yours:"*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."*Thanks and peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

…And you don’t then believe that the spirit behind Ecumenism has in any way contributed to the conversions that we see happening today, or as being responsible in any part for the CAF’s or the Scott Hahns or the EWTN’s that are effective in our current time…

Actually, if you’ve heard Hahn’s conversion testimony (click here to listen), you’ll find that one of the hurdles he had to overcome in his journey to HMC was several clergy who told him he didn’t have to convert…since VII, one priest told him, all that changed and he’d serve the Church better by staying where he was.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[catharina]

I apologize. I will rephrase and edit so as not to offend…

Pope St. Pius X set the tone and context of the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis in the opening paragraphs.1…There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body, for owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things,”[1] “vain talkers and seducers,”[2] “erring and driving into error.”[3] It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ. Wherefore We may no longer keep silence, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be set down to lack of diligence in the discharge of Our office…2, That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. **We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, **animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man. I confused how you can read this as"looking back toward the age of Modernism and its impact on the world, good and bad" and an examination of “the remnants still left of that era.”

Modernism, as Pope St. Pius X defines, is not looked at as “an age”, but as a specific set of related theological and philosophical doctrines that he - as Vicar of Christ - condemns outright, even going so far as to say the holders and teachers of these condemned teachings are “the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church” (paragraph 3).

So what is the purpose of this encyclical? What does Pope St. Pius X intend to do here? He tells us in paragraph 4:4. It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast. For this reason it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out their interconnection, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil results. Your thoughts?

Modernism is never used to indicate an era of time, it is used to indicate a set of related condemned teachings. Now of course when something is taught, it is taught “in time”, but it’s never referred to as “the time”, as if a doctrine “is” an era. So I’m could you please elaborate?

Especially elaborate on, given the above quotes from Pascendi, the reasoning behind this statement of yours:"*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."*Thanks and peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

IMO, it is impossible to set asid the condemnation of modernism form the actual times that called for the response form Pius X. Within the oath against modernism from Pius himslef, was this: "I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day."The modern world of the industrial age (and now the technological age) most certainly led man to be impressed with himself and ‘his own’ scientific progress and his own creations and inventions in very new and very threatening and very GOD-less ways. Why are you arguing this point? What is your point? Is there a point?

 

[DustinsDad]

IMO, it is impossible to set aside the condemnation of modernism form the actual times that called for the response form Pius X.

As I said earlier, of couse all things that are taught, are taught “in time” - so of course you can’t separate it that way. But if the same things are being taught in a different time, they are still condemned.

In short, there is no “time limit” on Truth (aside from the time we have on this earth to accept it!)
.

Within the oath against modernism from Pius himslef, was this: “I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day.”

Yes -here’s the whole thing - beautiful isn’t it!

Notice it’s not an oath against an “era of time” or even an oath against technology or science in general, it’s an oath against a particular form of heresy (or as Pope Saint Pius X called modernism, the synthesis of all heresies).

The modern world of the industrial age (and now the technological age) most certainly led man to be impressed with himself and ‘his own’ scientific progress and his own creations and inventions in very new and very threatening and very GOD-less ways. Why are you arguing this point? What is your point? …

I am arguing againt the belief that the heresy of modernism is a thing of the past and no longer “relevant” to today’s world.

I’d also say that man simply being “impressed with himself and his own scientific progress and his own creations and inventions” isn’t exactly modernism, it can set the stage for the heresy of modernism, but it isn’t modernism itself.

I encourage you to read the encyclical. It lays the *synthesis of all heresies *out in great detail, very helpful in understanding alot of the problems of today.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[JReducation]

JUSTIN:

Thank you for your gracious response. I sincerely and with great joy accept your apology and the opportunity to continue our dialogue. Your message and the effort that you put into it shows that there is a heart of a good person behind it. I must confess that I am deeply moved by it, for I sincerely see the spirit of Christ in your post.

Regardless of our differences, the Holy Spirit’s work between us as well as behind us is worth more to me than any encyclical or document. In the end we are called to give account for our love, not our understanding. Your post and the effort that has gone into it shows an abundance of love and kindness. I know not what else to say, except thank you and beg your forgivenes if I said anything that may have offended you.

I’ll try to respond to your post in two parts.

PART I: Modernism as I know it is very different from what Pius X is speaking of, though there are carryovers that deeply infested the Church. Like many infestations, they can be difficult to erradicate. I have no problems with what Pius X was defending. It is exactly what I studied, the infestations that have contaminated the world and the Church as well as a call to respond. That leads me to my second part.

PART II: The errors that had crept into the Church as a result of Modernism came from a sociological movement. This sociological movement the Modernism to which I was refering and which I was saying was being used out of context, because it covers more than changes in liturgy or ecumenism. It introduced a new world view.

Modernism describes a series of reforming cultural movements in art and architecture, music, literature and the applied arts which emerged roughly in the period of 1884-1914.

The term covers many political, cultural and artistic movements rooted in the changes in Western society at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century.

It is a trend of thought that affirms the power of human beings to create, improve, and reshape their environment, with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical experimentation, which is good when we use these resources responsibly.

Modernism encouraged the re-examination of every aspect of existence, from commerce to philosophy, with the goal of finding that which was ‘holding back’ progress, and replacing it with new, progressive and therefore better, ways of reaching the same end, also acceptable as long as those ways do not violate moral law, human rights or deny truth.

In essence, the modernist movement argued that the new realities of the industrial and mechanized age were permanent and imminent, and that people should adapt their world view to accept that the new equaled the good, the true and the beautiful, which is true only some of the time. Not everything new is good.

Modern (quantum and relativistic) physics, modern (analytical and continental) philosophy and modern number theory in mathematics also date from this period. These were also good. They have proven most useful in understanding our world and the development of science and technology.

Embracing change and the present, modernism encompasses the works of thinkers who rebelled against nineteenth century academic and historicist traditions, believing the “traditional” forms of art, architecture, literature, religious faith, social organization and daily life were becoming outdated; they directly confronted the new economic, social and political aspects of an emerging fully industrialized world, which obviously leads to all kinds of abuses, not only against the faith, but also in the secular sphere. Communism was born from this philosophy.

Some divide the 20th Century into movements designated Modernism and Postmodernism, whereas others see them as two aspects of the same movement.

Personally, I subscribe to the idea of Postmodernism, because I’m seeing a tendency to return to basics, not only in the religious sphere, but in many other spheres. Are we going to return to all the basics? I think not. Nor is it always a good thing.

Some new ideas and methods of doing things, within the Church and in other domains are much better than the way we did them in the past. This may be a silly example, but I wouldn’t want to go back to writing the great American novel without a computer. LOL

On the flip side, I would like to go back to an era when we trusted the Church even when we didn’t understand her. This is why I stated this threat with its given name.

I hope this helps clarify things.

Peace and God’s blessing:

JR

 

[DustinsDad]

Thank you for your gracious response…

And you are very welcome .

…PART I: Modernism as I know it is very different from what Pius X is speaking of…

That’s explains why I was so surprised at the things you were saying - it didn’t seem to fit with Pope Saint Pius X’s (or traditional folks’ usage).

…The errors that had crept into the Church as a result of Modernism came from a sociological movement.

I’d say a theological / philosophical movement - but I suppose these could be thought of as a part of the sociological realm as well.

…This sociological movement the Modernism to which I was refering and which I was saying was being used out of context, because it covers more than changes in liturgy or ecumenism. It introduced a new world view.

Ok. I’m not sure what usage of it you are referring to as out of context, but a “new world view” is certainly an aspect of modernism as traditional folks use it. As a broad spectrum of interelated teachings, one of the hallmarks of modernism is it’s broadness (certainly one could call it a particular "world view)…one of the reasons why Pope Saint Pius X was compelled to lay it out in an organized way in Pascendi, and why he referred to it as the synthesis of all heresies:But it was necessary, both in order to refute their customary charge that We do not understand their ideas, and to show that their system does not consist in scattered and unconnected theories but in a perfectly organised body, all the parts of which are solidly joined so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all…And now, can anybody who takes a survey of the whole system be surprised that We should define it as the synthesis of all heresies?
(Pascendi, cf.39)

…Modernism describes a series of reforming cultural movements in art and architecture, music, literature and the applied arts which emerged roughly in the period of 1884-1914…

Okay - I see the problem then. We are referring to two different things. Though I think much of what you are describing are outward artistic and political expressions of the (condemned) philosophical and theological foundations of modernism as used by Pope Saint Pius X. …

…Some new ideas and methods of doing things, within the Church and in other domains are much better than the way we did them in the past. This may be a silly example, but I wouldn’t want to go back to writing the great American novel without a computer. LOL

Agreed. But we might be too busy writing on discussion boards to get around to novels . Ahhhhhh, technology!

…On the flip side, I would like to go back to an era when we trusted the Church even when we didn’t understand her.

I wholeheartedly share your concerns. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that we still can trust the Church, but we always need to be vigilant and seek to learn and understand our faith, for there has always been a battle on the outside and the inside of Holy Mother Church. And today there is a huge battle waging within - much confusion on the human side of the Church, even among the clergy. To say this is not to be disobediant or to encourage dissent, for Pope Saint Pius X warned us explicitly about such a reality in the very encyclical we were discussing.

Yes, the Church will prevail until Christ’s return - but there’s a battle for souls in the meantime. And at times of crisis (such as during the Arian heresy centuries ago), the faithful must be vigilant and really understand the faith as it has always been understood - so as to be on guard againt anything that might contradict it.

…I hope this helps clarify things.

It does. Thanks!

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[JReducation]

The reason I say that some people use the term “modernism” out of context, is beause to many people it only applies to the Church, especially the changes in liturgy.

Modernism was about math, philosophy, religion, art, politics, social justice, architecture, science, economics and political change. It covered a host of domains.

When people limit the concept of modernism to religion or liturgy, they are oversimplifying it.

There was some good that came from modernism. This good is not what the Holy Father (Pius X) was concerned about. He was concerned with its errors and he did a very good job at synthesizing them in his encyclicals and teachings.

I hope this makes more sense.

JR

 

[DustinsDad]

The reason I say that some people use the term “modernism” out of context, is beause to many people it only applies to the Church, especially the changes in liturgy…

I would only say that as it applies to the Chuch is as it concerns traditional (and alot of simply conservative) catholic folks…that’s why they use it as such.

That being said, according to the way you are using the term, most of the areas would also affect the Church in some way shape or form. (well, maybe not math).

This good is not what the Holy Father (Pius X) was concerned about. He was concerned with its errors and he did a very good job at synthesizing them in his encyclicals and teachings.

That would explain why Pope St. Pius X only applied the term as it directly applies to the Church (and why traditional folks follow his example), and you wouldn’t say he used the term out of context would you?

The reason you hear traditonal folks bring up modernism so often is because the crisis - the heresy and problems - laid out by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi, unfortunately, have not gone away. Such has affected (or infencted) alot of different areas of the Church. And we’ve got to resist them. It’s our duty as faithful catholics!

Anyway - I sense we may be getting over a language barrier here. And that’s a good thing!

Peace in Christ,

And goodnight!!!

DustinsDad

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

On the flip side, I would like to go back to an era when we trusted the Church even when we didn’t understand her. This is why I stated this threat with its given name.

Peace and God’s blessing:

JR

I think this is a key point. I think that sometimes traditionalists take issue with some of the disciplinary decisions or movements in recent times like liturgical changes, ecumenism, altar girls, communion in the hand, etc. precisely because they don’t make any sense.

That’s not to say that every earlier prudential decision, such as suppressing the Jesuits, made perfect sense either. However, in general, encyclicals like Pascendi, or the Oath against Modernism, which attack modernism make perfect sense and seem appropriate.

More modern prudential decisions don’t necessarily make as much sense. Rather they seem to be caving in to internal pressures, such as communion in the hand or altar girls, or imprudent, (to say the least), like the liturgical changes, or spinning its wheels like the ecumenical movement.

 

[stmaria]

=Jeanette L;3350977]

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.

How many are coming because of ecumenism and how many because of the total collapse of the Anglican beliefs in accepting women priests and homosexuality? And what happens to **true ecumenism **according to Cardinal Kasper?

thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002780.html
One of the Vatican’s most senior cardinals has dismissed the idea that a breakaway group of Anglicans might be received into the Catholic Church en masse – despite Benedict XVI’s personal support for such a move.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, told The Catholic Herald: “**It’s not our policy to bring that many Anglicans to Rome.”**The cardinal’s comments refer to the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), a rebel group which claims to represent 400,000 people. Its bishops sent a letter to Rome last month requesting “full, corporate and sacramental union”.

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 would love to see statistics that show how many Catholics have left the Church because of the belief that one religion is as good as another-a by-product of false ecumenism.

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.

No one opposes true ecumenism

Mortalium Animos Pope Pius XI"The unity of Christians cannot otherwise be obtained than by securing the return of the separated to the one true Church of Christ from which they once unhappily withdrew. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, that stands forth before all and that by the will of its Founder will remain forever the same as when He Himself established it for the salvation of all mankind."

“The decision of Vatican II, to which the Pope adheres and spreads, is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II”-Cardinal William Kasper

"Thus, it is indisputable that the Council consciously went beyond the defensive and prohibitive assertions of Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (1928) and, in this sense, made a qualitative leap." Cardinal William Kasper president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity,

 

[Jeanette_L]

How many are coming because of ecumenism and how many because of the total collapse of the Anglican beliefs in accepting women priests and homosexuality? And what happens to **true ecumenism **according to Cardinal Kasper?

thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002780.html
One of the Vatican’s most senior cardinals has dismissed the idea that a breakaway group of Anglicans might be received into the Catholic Church en masse – despite Benedict XVI’s personal support for such a move.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, told The Catholic Herald: “**It’s not our policy to bring that many Anglicans to Rome.”**The cardinal’s comments refer to the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), a rebel group which claims to represent 400,000 people. Its bishops sent a letter to Rome last month requesting “full, corporate and sacramental union”.

I think we are talking past each other because we are not seeing things on the same plain. What you see as statistical and happenstance, I see on a spiritual level, all things working together. Do you think that the Holy Spirit in His infinite wisdom did not see all this coming and had prepared the way?

I guess as long as we are each focused on different plains of reality, one strictly temporal, one a working union between temporal and Spirit, we will never agree as to what was cause and effect.

I would love to see statistics that show how many Catholics have left the Church because of the belief that one religion is as good as another-a by-product of false ecumenism.

No one opposes true ecumenism

Mortalium Animos Pope Pius XI"The unity of Christians cannot otherwise be obtained than by securing the return of the separated to the one true Church of Christ from which they once unhappily withdrew. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, that stands forth before all and that by the will of its Founder will remain forever the same as when He Himself established it for the salvation of all mankind."

“The decision of Vatican II, to which the Pope adheres and spreads, is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II”-Cardinal William Kasper

"Thus, it is indisputable that the Council consciously went beyond the defensive and prohibitive assertions of Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (1928) and, in this sense, made a qualitative leap." Cardinal William Kasper president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity,

Once again, I’m seeing a strictly temporal focus, my broader focus is this: what is the Holy Spirit trying to accomplish in this age? He moves in places we can’t see, and beyond our scope of understanding. To be alarmist at every turn is to question whether in fact we have faith that the Spirit is guiding the ship or has abdicated His role.

And to put the sole blame on the Ecumenical movement for the vast migration of Catholics to the Evangelical world I think is a stretch and a disservice to the Church. It is more reasonable and honest to admit that it was more a lapse in true Catholicism being taught and lived out daily in the hearts and minds of several generations of Catholics and the results being the eroding influence of the Faith on their children and grandchildren at the same time the culture around them was in a free fall. These lost generations in turn became enamored of a more vibrant faith lived out in other circles and emigrated there. It is a parent’s responsibility to teach the faith to their children and at the same time live it out in their midst. These cultural Catholics abdicated that responsibility because they gave in to the secular culture’s siren call and left their children at the doorstep of the Church who was ill prepared to fill that vital role entirely.

And don’t altogether discount these fallen away Catholics just yet, many are starting to return to their Mother…it’s too soon to be sounding the funeral march for these souls.

 

[chewchoo]

Once again, I’m seeing a strictly temporal focus, my broader focus is this: what is the Holy Spirit trying to accomplish in this age? He moves in places we can’t see, and beyond our scope of understanding. To be alarmist at every turn is to question whether in fact we have faith that the Spirit is guiding the ship or has abdicated His role.

bravo :clapping:
we are mearly instruments, and poor ones at that. we are just oars or maybe just a splinter in an oar. we can’t guide anything anywhere. we have to work on ourselves and hope and pray that we are good examples to those around us.

 

[Jeanette_L]

bravo :clapping:
we are mearly instruments, and poor ones at that. we are just oars or maybe just a splinter in an oar. we can’t guide anything anywhere. we have to work on ourselves and hope and pray that we are good examples to those around us.

Thank you Chewchoo. You understood the point exactly.

We as lay people and even religious have a grace that comes with our position in the Body of Christ. But we don’t have a grace to step above that position until we are in fact elevated there by God.

When we try to go beyond what is our role, we not only do ourselves a disservice, but the entire Body a disservice, we have become dysfunctional and tend to spread that dysfunction around.

God places people where he chooses, and gives them the grace and wisdom to operate in those places. It is not our jobs to go behind God and try to “clean up” His messes, He doesn’t make messes. We have to trust that He will lead and will correct in the proper time and order of things.

Our role is to grow where we are planted. To not be in harmony is to not be in our proper place focusing on what God has entrusted to us.

 

[JReducation]

I think this is a key point. I think that sometimes traditionalists take issue with some of the disciplinary decisions or movements in recent times like liturgical changes, ecumenism, altar girls, communion in the hand, etc. precisely because they don’t make any sense.

Brennan,

I appreciate your opinion and agree that many things do not make sense to many people. However, let’s take a broader look a the Church. Many things don’t always make sense at first and then they do with the passing of time.

When Jesus tells the Jews that he will give them his flesh and blood as food and drink, it made no sense to them and they walked away. Later it made perfect sense to the early Church.

As to the oath against Modernism, let’s remember that it is no longer required. Paul VI discontinued this practice in 1967. The reason didn’t make sense at first. Later it made sense. His feeling was that the conditions that required it had changed and that what was really needed was obedience to the Church and tradition, not an oath against anything that modernism proposed, as there has been some good that has come out of the era that we call Modernism, such as progress in science, math, architecture, economics, political science, and a greater awareness of human rights, especially the rights of the oppressed such as women and minorities.

Paul had no conflict with Pius X. He saw the problem from a different perspective. He saw the need for greater obedience, understanding of Church tradition and teaching, and a greater need for trust among people if we are to build up the Kingdom of God. It was his belief that the oath would not achieve this, even if it didn’t impair it. In other words, he saw that it had outlived its usefulness and that the errors that Pius had warned about could be addressed in a different manner.

This is what people need to understand. Paul VI did not undermine Pius. He wanted to take a different approach. This approach may or may not work, only history will tell for sure. Forty years is a relatively short time in the history of humanity. Even as we speak, the Church is tweaking this approach.

In the area of Ecumenism we saw Benedict XVI give Tony Blair communion while he was still an Anglican. His explanation was that it was the charitabe thing to do. We saw him welcome and celebrate Blair’s conversion to Catholicism, but also refrained from requiring Blair to recant his position on abortion or gay marriage. The Vatican’s response to this was that Blair has some growth to do in his spritual development.

Because the Church is not a democracy, it is not up to us to tell the Vatican or Benedict XVI that his idea of charity or spiritual growth is wrong. Nor is it our right to say that Paul VI had no right to discontinue the Oath Against Modernism in favor of obedience and deeper study of faith and tradition.

According to the UK press (these have to be read with caution) people were scandalized that Benedict would give Blair communion. Benedict pulled out an old belief that is in the books, though rarely used or remembered, that says that you can give communion to non-Catholics who truly believe in the Eucharist. To do so is an act of charity. I don’t believe it’s a law. I think it’s a theological concept; but I could be wrong.

Be all this as it may, we are still bound to believe and trust the Church and the Holy Spirit. Charity is what unites us, not the blame game. The blame game has never achieved anything. I’m not saying that you are doing this. But many people do. As a convert, I believe that it’s a shame. I walked into a church where everyone wants to point the finger at everyone else for what goes wrong.

People need to learn to accept that blaming has never solved a problem. Problems are solved when people put their heads together and try to figure out what can be done that is consistent with revealed truth, the direction that the Church wants us to go and consistent with love of God and neighbor.

Thanks for hearing me out.

JR