D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
I have got to remember this line. It will be excellent to use in talks, homilies etc. Thank you so much.
Deacon Ed B
- Status
Deacon Ed B
C
catharina
Guest
re “Mama, I just have to cry until I’m done.”
I agree. It’s still teaching me truth, thirty years later.
What a lesson!
J
JReducation
Guest
If you are truly enjoying the exchange on this thread, please keep it civil and charitable. There is not need to attack each other.
If you’re not enjoying it, please move on and do not ruin it for others. It’s not fair.
JR
If you’re not enjoying it, please move on and do not ruin it for others. It’s not fair.
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
Deacon:
I was going to start with your other title, Rev. Mr. Ed and then it reminded me an old sitcom. I thought, “That doesn’t sound right.”
I have a question and a difference of opinion.
Frist, my question. You’re probably younger than I and have a more modern perspective on this.
When I studied theology, back in the 1970s and 80s, we considered Islam a religion, even though it is founded by Mohammed, because of its monotheistic faith and the fact that it takes many of its teachings from the OT and even from the NT. I realize that Islam is a strange salad of OT, NT and Mohammedism. But we always considered it one of the three monotheistic religions of the world. Has this perspective changed? I though this was still held by the Church. I get this impression by all of the dialogue that Popes John and Benedict have tried to establish with Islam. If I’m not mistaken, Benedict founded an organization for Muslim and Christian dialogue. Its name escapes me now. That’s my question.
Second, my difference of opinion. While I understand your statement re: KISS, there are themes and topics that have many pespectives or history behind them. I believe that people really want to know the big picture. These big pictures are not always easy to provide in a short paragraph. Some people who come to CAF will not go out and purchase some of the books that you and I read through while we were in theology. Sometimes an condensced version is helpful to many people. Just my opinion, no disrepect intended. I would never do that to a member of the clergy. I would certianly give serioius thought to any suggestion posted by a cleric. In this regard I am very traditional and very Franciscan too.
Thanks.
JR
D
DustinsDad
Guest
For the record, the reason I PMed you was to not bring bad behavior public, that is this sad notion you kept trying to bring upon me (at least twice in 24 hours) that converts or reverts have no right to speak of anything regarding their heartfelt concern for Holy Mother Church.
You say you had 24-hour amnesia or some such thing. Fine. I’ll leave it at that.
Just wanted to post this “publically” so that you know the PM wasn’t intended as anything other than keeping such ugliness off the boards. Alas, it didn’t work, but you can’t say I didn’t try.
DustinsDad
D
DustinsDad
Guest
And here’s where I’m going to ask you a few follow up questions, and make a few observations. Rest assured this is not a personal attack on you or the homilist.
Since the tone of the homily was very ecumenistic, from the very modern approach to ecumenism, I think the picture above and your comments on it are very illustrative of something and relative to this discussion, so bear with me.
What I see above is not the a humble Fransicsan praying with sinners, praying with them for the most important thing of all - their conversion to the Truth. I see a humble Franciscan being blessed by false shepherds. Leaders, if you will, of heretical groups.
I completely and totally understand his intention here, and your intention in praising such actions…but the message given does not coorelate. The message is that these are leaders of true religions bestowing God’s grace on an equal. It’s dangerous. It blurrs the line. I would go so to say that it is scandalizes many of the faithful…it leads folks within the Church to think the Church is not the One True Church “anymore”…and it leads those in these protestant groups to think that the Catholic Church flip-flopped on it’s most basic and unique and infallible “claim”.
(continued…)
D
DustinsDad
Guest
(continued from above…)
Now actually, I think the “intention” is a good one - on the surface it sounds great. Who could argue with it? But this is why I asked about Pope Pius XI and Moratalium Animos, since it addresses this sort of thing explicitly. For instance…
…they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.
But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.
And Pope Pius XI admits that come Catholics have “bought into” these practices out of misplaced compassion…Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one."1] And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another”?[2] All Christians, they add, should be as “one”: for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.
Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians. Sorry for such long quotes, but I can’t bring myself to edit much. In the rest of the encyclical, he goes on to lay out just precisely where and how the errors of this “appraoch” are and exactly how they manifest themselves, and how, in the end, they will not be fruitful and in fact, will harm the Church. What is especially interesting to me, is that the opposing arguments laid out and decimated by the Holy Father here are exactly those used by the majority of ecumenists today.
(continued…)
Now actually, I think the “intention” is a good one - on the surface it sounds great. Who could argue with it? But this is why I asked about Pope Pius XI and Moratalium Animos, since it addresses this sort of thing explicitly. For instance…
…they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.
But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.
And Pope Pius XI admits that come Catholics have “bought into” these practices out of misplaced compassion…Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one."1] And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another”?[2] All Christians, they add, should be as “one”: for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.
Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians. Sorry for such long quotes, but I can’t bring myself to edit much. In the rest of the encyclical, he goes on to lay out just precisely where and how the errors of this “appraoch” are and exactly how they manifest themselves, and how, in the end, they will not be fruitful and in fact, will harm the Church. What is especially interesting to me, is that the opposing arguments laid out and decimated by the Holy Father here are exactly those used by the majority of ecumenists today.
(continued…)
D
DustinsDad
Guest
(continued from above…)
Earlier you asked me if any of the “later” popes disregarded Pius XI. Well, honestly, I’d have to say yeah. In this practice, in this approach, it looks like they do to a certain extent. But an approach isn’t dogma, it’s prudential. Also, I think there’s a certain inertia to it all that will make a return to a more traditional approach come about, if it is to come about, slowly and steadily.
So an approach itself isn’t infallible “dogma” since we are now going against the prescripts of Pope Pius XI and the entirety of Church history prior to about 40 years or so ago. Therefore, the new “approach” would seem to be a prudential matter, and therefore, can be good or not-so-good or really bad. Thing is, if a prudential decision turns out to be really bad, in a case such when so much has been built into it (all the good intentions notwithstanding), it becomes really hard to pull the reigns so to speak. We start to be afraid to even dare question the approach - even when all the evidence is to the contrary. But if the house is on fire, will someone please grab a bucket?
Anyway, the new approach to ecumenism does seem to disregard the tradtional “approach” of the Church. And to what end? In all the ecumenism, is it more of those outside of HMC coming in? Or is it more of those within being “converted” away? It’s a fair question that must be looked at beyond personal anecdotes and in the realm of real numbers and statistics. In conversions, in vocations, in baptisms, etc.
So, if I, as a faithful Catholic, charitably voice my concerns for HMC in this prudential matter - I humbly ask you to not take it personal and not to accuse me (or other likeminded folks) of wanting to turn the Church into some sort of democracy - God forbid! Understand that we love the Church, and I believe it was St. Thomas Aquainis who stated that the faithful do have the right to voice their concerns charitably and with all due repespect to their prelates. I’ll have to look for the exact quote if you want me to.
By all means, take it with a grain of salt - I’m a lowly laymen in the pew after all. But more importantly perhaps, ponder not my words, but the immemorial words of the Church in which light we must read current words and actions of individuals within the Church.
And peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
Earlier you asked me if any of the “later” popes disregarded Pius XI. Well, honestly, I’d have to say yeah. In this practice, in this approach, it looks like they do to a certain extent. But an approach isn’t dogma, it’s prudential. Also, I think there’s a certain inertia to it all that will make a return to a more traditional approach come about, if it is to come about, slowly and steadily.
So an approach itself isn’t infallible “dogma” since we are now going against the prescripts of Pope Pius XI and the entirety of Church history prior to about 40 years or so ago. Therefore, the new “approach” would seem to be a prudential matter, and therefore, can be good or not-so-good or really bad. Thing is, if a prudential decision turns out to be really bad, in a case such when so much has been built into it (all the good intentions notwithstanding), it becomes really hard to pull the reigns so to speak. We start to be afraid to even dare question the approach - even when all the evidence is to the contrary. But if the house is on fire, will someone please grab a bucket?
Anyway, the new approach to ecumenism does seem to disregard the tradtional “approach” of the Church. And to what end? In all the ecumenism, is it more of those outside of HMC coming in? Or is it more of those within being “converted” away? It’s a fair question that must be looked at beyond personal anecdotes and in the realm of real numbers and statistics. In conversions, in vocations, in baptisms, etc.
So, if I, as a faithful Catholic, charitably voice my concerns for HMC in this prudential matter - I humbly ask you to not take it personal and not to accuse me (or other likeminded folks) of wanting to turn the Church into some sort of democracy - God forbid! Understand that we love the Church, and I believe it was St. Thomas Aquainis who stated that the faithful do have the right to voice their concerns charitably and with all due repespect to their prelates. I’ll have to look for the exact quote if you want me to.
By all means, take it with a grain of salt - I’m a lowly laymen in the pew after all. But more importantly perhaps, ponder not my words, but the immemorial words of the Church in which light we must read current words and actions of individuals within the Church.
And peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
C
catharina
Guest
You alone know your reasons, including why your continue your ugly harping now. As to this from YOU: “… that is this sad notion you kept trying to bring upon me (at least twice in 24 hours) that converts or reverts have no right to speak of anything regarding their heartfelt concern for Holy Mother Church” - I never said or implied such a thing. Please indulge your angst at the expense of someone else. " … 24 hour amnesia?" Again, you twist words and invent concepts. That’s your thing. Live with it. Don’t bother me with it.
C
catharina
Guest
JR, as much as I’ve enjoyed being a part of this thread, I’m taking another break from it. Being the favored target of DD is a bit much for me now. I’m hoping you understand my decision. Later.If you are truly enjoying the exchange on this thread, please keep it civil and charitable. There is not need to attack each other.
If you’re not enjoying it, please move on and do not ruin it for others. It’s not fair.
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t know the original source of the pic so I can’t say if they are blessing or praying for the friar.
But I can say this with certainty, the Franciscan tradition of praying with non Catholics, even non Christians has been around for 800 years and has taken many forms. It was around before Pius XI.
Now, as I have said, you must also consider that many religious communities, such as the Capuchins, have traditions of their own which the popes have allowed because they respond to a need within the Church or because they believe that these are truly inspired by the Holy Spirit.
What you have in the picture is one of those traditions that has been around and no one in the Vatican has ever asked the friars to suspend. It began with Francis when he kissed a leper on the lips and asked the leper to bless him, because he believed that Christ was also present in lepers. To this day no one knows if the leper was even a believer.
Canon Law does allow excempt religious orders to follow the rules of their founders as approved by the pope and which only a pope can change. There are only four in the Western Church that enjoy this privilege: Franciscan, Benedictine, Augustinian and Caremlite. Then there is the rule of Basil in the Easten Church.
Also, remember what I posted before. The Franciscan order includes Anglican and Lutheran friars. Even though they have separate governments to avoid confusion and conflict, they are considered a valid part of the Order. I may be mistaken on this, but they and the Benedictines are the only ones whom I think have this interesting mix of members and have had it for several hundred years.
This is picture is consistent with a custom that has never been revoked even by Pius XI. He had the authority to do so.
J
JReducation
Guest
DunstinsDad:
With all due respect, you have to admit that your posts are not promoting the love of Christ as you may have hope. Instead, they are resulting confrontational and circling around the same issue to which you have received many responses, some that support you and some that disagree with you.
In the interest of charity and true brotherhood I ask that you drop this subject or that you create a thread of your own where you can discuss this subject as you please. I started this thread to bring about a greater understanding between traditionalists and non traditionalists Catholics, as well as to educate those who are looking for education.
As St. John Baptiste de La Salle, the patron saint of teachers once said,” you cannot educate with a whip. The only thing that you teach with a whip is fear. Christian education is Christian because it focuses on Christ, not on fear.”
I have seen several attempts, including on my part to ask you to stop and to communicate with you that you have been heard, even if there are people here who disagree or have yet to make up their minds. You have failed to acquiesce to this request. True fraternal bonds require that each of us recognize when the other person is feeling bullied instead of enlightened.
The mere fact that you bring up the same picture of the Capuchin friar with a three page post on why it disturbs you is a sign that you are not listening to the rest of us. We heard you the first time. We do not feel the same way as you do on this issue. Some people are still processing what you and others have posted. You should understand this. You do not sound like an unintelligent man.
If you do understand this and still proceed on posting this topic over and over again, then you are bullying. No one has the right to bully. Let it go. Everyone heard you. People are sending signals to let it go. The thread is turning into an arena DunstinsDad vs. Everyone else. This is not fair. This will only succeed in destroying the thread.
Please stop and move on to something else. I even tried to introduce the Mystics into this thread, but you would not shift from the topic on the liturgy and the previous popes. Move on to a topic that is more agreeable to all of us or start a thread on this topic if you feel that it’s so important that it needs to be discussed over and over.
Thank you for your understanding.
JR
With all due respect, you have to admit that your posts are not promoting the love of Christ as you may have hope. Instead, they are resulting confrontational and circling around the same issue to which you have received many responses, some that support you and some that disagree with you.
In the interest of charity and true brotherhood I ask that you drop this subject or that you create a thread of your own where you can discuss this subject as you please. I started this thread to bring about a greater understanding between traditionalists and non traditionalists Catholics, as well as to educate those who are looking for education.
As St. John Baptiste de La Salle, the patron saint of teachers once said,” you cannot educate with a whip. The only thing that you teach with a whip is fear. Christian education is Christian because it focuses on Christ, not on fear.”
I have seen several attempts, including on my part to ask you to stop and to communicate with you that you have been heard, even if there are people here who disagree or have yet to make up their minds. You have failed to acquiesce to this request. True fraternal bonds require that each of us recognize when the other person is feeling bullied instead of enlightened.
The mere fact that you bring up the same picture of the Capuchin friar with a three page post on why it disturbs you is a sign that you are not listening to the rest of us. We heard you the first time. We do not feel the same way as you do on this issue. Some people are still processing what you and others have posted. You should understand this. You do not sound like an unintelligent man.
If you do understand this and still proceed on posting this topic over and over again, then you are bullying. No one has the right to bully. Let it go. Everyone heard you. People are sending signals to let it go. The thread is turning into an arena DunstinsDad vs. Everyone else. This is not fair. This will only succeed in destroying the thread.
Please stop and move on to something else. I even tried to introduce the Mystics into this thread, but you would not shift from the topic on the liturgy and the previous popes. Move on to a topic that is more agreeable to all of us or start a thread on this topic if you feel that it’s so important that it needs to be discussed over and over.
Thank you for your understanding.
JR
J
Jeanette_L
Guest
DD:
One thing that bothers me about your post concerning the Franciscan Friar in prayer with obvious Evangelicals is this: you are assuming an awful lot by a picture without having all the facts, as in, is what you are supposing (blessings being made by non-Catholics) even true? It could very well all be for nothing.
Having been an Evangelical all my life until my recent conversion, I can tell you that it looks like they are Charismatic in persuasion, and that is the posture they use almost always when praying.
I have, unfortunately, seen these kind of assumptions many many times over the years, usually by Protestants when attacking Catholics. They take pictures or videos and make wild claims about what is taking place in them, and then spread false rumors or teachings about the whole thing, and they are more times than not completely off the mark.
Just wanted to point out that it is not a fair thing to do when you don’t know the whole scenario. You don’t really want to be in the same company of the people with whom you so obviously take great offense, by making such assumptions and then building your case around them.
One thing that bothers me about your post concerning the Franciscan Friar in prayer with obvious Evangelicals is this: you are assuming an awful lot by a picture without having all the facts, as in, is what you are supposing (blessings being made by non-Catholics) even true? It could very well all be for nothing.
Having been an Evangelical all my life until my recent conversion, I can tell you that it looks like they are Charismatic in persuasion, and that is the posture they use almost always when praying.
I have, unfortunately, seen these kind of assumptions many many times over the years, usually by Protestants when attacking Catholics. They take pictures or videos and make wild claims about what is taking place in them, and then spread false rumors or teachings about the whole thing, and they are more times than not completely off the mark.
Just wanted to point out that it is not a fair thing to do when you don’t know the whole scenario. You don’t really want to be in the same company of the people with whom you so obviously take great offense, by making such assumptions and then building your case around them.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
- You are likely to be younger if you received your first communion before 1947
- The name of the organization escapes me also. I know I heard of it, but don’t remember it.
- The last I understood, and I believe it is 100% correct, my opinion was NOT infallible.
- I do remember Mr Ed. I enjoyed that sitcom very much.
God Bless
Deacon Ed B
J
Jeanette_L
Guest
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
I started to add that, but in a senior moment, I was not sure. Thanks for the confirmation.Willlllllbur!
Deacon Ed B
R
Richie_Nelson
Guest
So funny…that’s what we call the wife’s brother Will…you beat me to it
thanks, Richie
J
Jeanette_L
Guest
Finally, someone who gets my warped humor!So funny…that’s what we call the wife’s brother Will…you beat me to it
thanks, Richie
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Y’all better watch out before I end up with a new handle.So funny…that’s what we call the wife’s brother Will…you beat me to it
thanks, Richie
Deacon Ed B
J
Jeanette_L
Guest
I have a feeling you would wear it well!
- Status