Reformation part deux

[Contarini]

Edwin, that was a very Christian, forgiving & charitable response and I commend you for it.

However, to be honest, and this is meant in no offence to you, I am really getting sick and tired of these type of responses in cases such as this.

Bear in mind that I’m an Episcopalian. It isn’t really about being Christian, forgiving, and charitable, though I try to do that too. It’s about trying to figure out whether in fact I am obligated to seek union with Rome in order to have the fullness of the Faith, or whether the Church presently exists only in fragments, each of which has part of the truth.

If the kinds of concerns reflected in the document cited in the OP (not necessarily all the specific positions like the ordination of women or the remarriage of divorced persons, but the general approach) have no place within Catholicism, then I have to conclude that the second option is the correct one. Because I have no doubt whatever that these concerns are valid ones and address real problems within Catholicism (which, again, is not to say that all the proposals in the manifesto are correct, let alone all the other parts of the liberal Catholic agenda).

What these Priests are proposing is Protestant.

Precisely how? What does “Protestant” mean in this context?

Allowing a married priesthood was certainly one of the things the Protestants argued for. Does that make it wrong?

Are they seriously suggesting the Church should change to adopt Protestant practises?

Are you seriously suggesting that the fact that Protestants do something makes it bad?

My argument is twofold. Firstly, why do they want to change the one true Catholic and Apostolic Church into a Protestant church when there is already a Protestant church? They already have something they are looking for.

It would appear that they don’t. Perhaps you might inquire why, instead of simply assuming that they are irrational or hypocritical. Perhaps they are not as Protestant as they appear to you?

Secondly, I am amazed at the hypocrisy amongst Catholics at the moment. Many show sympathy towards Priests who want to be Protestant but have condemnation for Priests who want to remain purely Catholic.

Perhaps your notion of what it means to be “purely Catholic” is just that–your notion–and not the same thing as the divinely revealed teaching of the Church?

Perhaps schismatic traditionalism isn’t “purely Catholic” at all?

Forgive me for speaking this way, as a non-Catholic. I do so only because I take the truth claims of Catholicism seriously. If I didn’t, I would let you guys fight it out among yourselves, as I exhort others to do with regard to Islam (though of course in both cases I would hope that the “nicer” interpretation would win).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

They are already in schism with their heart.

So the Church really is invisible after all?

The canonical pronouncement would aid to avoid scandalising the faithful.

There’s a big difference between urging the Church authorities to declare someone a heretic (which is necessary at times, though I admit that my blood runs cold when I see how eager many folks are on this forum to urge such a drastic step, when I would hope that instead they would thank God for giving this terrible responsibility to the Pope and bishops rather than to them) and urging the alleged heretics to go into schism (which is surely always the wrong approach).

Luther et. al. should have bowed their necks to authoritative Church teaching regarding the Sacraments etc. and stayed to work true reform of the individual sinful men in the Church.

But when they attacked the authority of the Church, the Sacraments etc. they cut themselves off from the Church.

That is certainly one way Catholics seem to like to talk about it. As I said above, I find this to smack too much of the “invisible Church” concept, and frankly to be an attempt at avoiding disciplinary responsibility.

If Luther had held all the views he held about the sacraments, but had refused to break with the hierarchical authority of the Church, he would have had a much harder time of it. Given the climate, he might well have been burned at the stake. Or perhaps, if he was meek enough (which is hard to imagine), but simply averred his inability to see the Biblical evidence behind the Church’s position, he might have ended his days silently in a monastery.

Certainly I agree with you that a much better approach would have been for him to acknowledge that his radical theology was just his opinion, and to accept correction in dialogue with the Church authorities and the historic Catholic tradition. Then he could, perhaps, have become one of the great Doctors of the Church, and certainly contributed to real theological renewal.

But even accepting that Luther simply could not see his way to do this, I still think that he was wrong to defy the Magisterium and redefine the true Church as consisting of those who agreed with his theological opinions.

Modern “dissenters” are far more pious and orthodox than Luther in this at least–they recognize that the Church matters even when it disagrees with them. Perhaps for some of them it really is just about having a platform to air their opinions, but I’m confident that this isn’t true for all or even for most of them.

The Holy Ghost is not inspiring people to assault the Sacraments of the Church (Matrimony and Holy Orders).

No dispute there. But several of the points raised are points of discipline, not attacks on the Sacraments. I’m not sure that any of the points are assaulting the Sacraments, but I can see why you would say that two of them (ordination of women and remarriage of the divorced) are.

Christ speaks through His Church, not heretics.

I see no reason to limit Christ in the way you do.

Edwin

 

[Dirt]

"In 1075 Pope Gregory VII forbade any further lay investiture, declaring it a form of simony. Moreover, he also declared that any secular leaders who tried to invest someone with a clerical office would suffer excommunication. Henry IV, who had long seethed under the pressures from the church, refused to accept this change which undercut significant aspects of his power. " Research: newadvent.org/cathen/08084c.htm

Imho, the lay movement now being pushed to the forefront is similar to the issue addressed by H.H. Pope Gregory VII, but instead of Kings and wealthy barrons, we see neoliberals and “spirit” of Vatican II types using this tactic to usurp the control of Holy Mother Church from The Pope and the Magesterium. This is a power play, period. And should one want to see how this will play out, just look at any of our seperated bretheren in the protestant sects and how their church councils govern their respective churches. And how easily one can modify/reject faithful teaching. As someone else posted, “there is nothing new under the Sun”.

Second Epistle Of Saint Paul To Timothy , Ch 4
"[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. " From:
drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=62&ch=4&l=3#x

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

I’m sorry Cont’, my internet is off and I am using a Blackberry so I won’t be able to answer you point for point.

Regarding the “invisible Church” comment, this isn’t either-or. Catholic teaching is that HMC is both visible and invisible. A visible authority etc. And when a man sins, he cuts Himself off from the Church by that sin, he closes the channels of grace to himself.

Regarding the Sacraments being assaulted, it’s not just down to women priests and divorced communicants, But even the call for “lay pastors” etc., is an attack again Holy Orders and the perogatives of the sacred priesthood.

It’s just simple. Holy Church must declare them in schism for their own good and the good of the faithful. People, heretics and lay faithful, cannot believe what these people are doing is okay.

 

[fred_conty]

I think Dirt is right on the money. The tradition of the church is the teaching of the church especially when it comes to holy orders. There never has been priests who marry. There never has been women who were ordained. There never has been laymen who have been pastors of churches. This is part of the sacred tradition.

And one idea, this isn’t about routing at a football game. And even at a football game they must stick to the rules. That is why we are one and not many.

Just a little thought.

 

[Boulder257]

I think Dirt is right on the money. The tradition of the church is the teaching of the church especially when it comes to holy orders. There never has been priests who marry. There never has been women who were ordained. There never has been laymen who have been pastors of churches. This is part of the sacred tradition.

And one idea, this isn’t about routing at a football game. And even at a football game they must stick to the rules. That is why we are one and not many.

Just a little thought.

Well, I think we need to be careful how we group and describe these things.
There are certainly Priests who marry. Maybe not in the Roman Catholic Church, but in other rites there certainly are. I believe some of the disciples were married. We have a married Catholic Priest who came from the Anglican Church right here in Greenville, SC. So this is a small “t” tradition, or some might effectively argue it’s a discipline. This most certainly could be changed and would remain within the teachings of the Church. Will it be changed? I HIGHLY doubt it, because it is a cherished discipline in the Western Rite.

The idea of women priests however is a capital “T” tradition in that it is has been passed down that way from Christ. This is the way he ordained it and we have no right to change it. That one will never change…period. It can’t, we just don’t have the right to do so.

As for laymen becoming pastors, I think you would have to define a pastor’s responsibility. Can laymen provide spiritual direction, Manage finances, organize schedules, teach RCIA, serve at Mass (as altar servers), read at Mass, distribute Holy Communion? Than maybe pastor is the wrong word, but maybe there is another post that could be created where laymen take a more active role in the oversight of the Church. Certainly they adhere to the direction of the Priest who is the shepherd of the flock. Do I think that would happen? No I don’t. But, it doesn’t necessarily contradict Church teaching. It would only be changing a discipline.

 

[Boulder257]

I don’t think we are limiting Christ at all. I think we are just recognizing His nature and His own words. He said a Kingdom divided against intself cannot stand. To suggest that he would speak through heretics is contradictory to the instructions he already left us. We are certainly not limiting Him, just sharing what he already warned us about.

 

[Boulder257]

I see no reason to limit Christ in the way you do.

Edwin

I don’t think we are limiting Christ at all. I think we are just taking Him at His word. He said a Kingdom divided against intself cannot stand. He warned of those that would try to lead us astray. To suggest that he would speak through heretics is contradictory to the instructions he already left us. We are certainly not limiting Him, just sharing what he already warned us about.

I get really put off when people say we “limit” God. No, we certainly do not Limit Him. We believe He can do anything. He created everything that exists just through thinking it. But, we also take Him at His word. We do not limit Him. Rather He chooses to makek Himself known so that we may follow Him.

By the way, I get put off by the argument, but not by you Cont. It’s the argument I hear from my moral relativist cafeteria non practicing Catholic mother when she has no other argument, so you bear the brunt of what I won’t say to her face in trying to honor the fourth commandment, lol

 

[fred_conty]

Well, I think we need to be careful how we group and describe these things.
There are certainly Priests who marry. Maybe not in the Roman Catholic Church, but in other rites there certainly are. I believe some of the disciples were married. We have a married Catholic Priest who came from the Anglican Church right here in Greenville, SC. So this is a small “t” tradition, or some might effectively argue it’s a discipline. This most certainly could be changed and would remain within the teachings of the Church. Will it be changed? I HIGHLY doubt it, because it is a cherished discipline in the Western Rite.

The idea of women priests however is a capital “T” tradition in that it is has been passed down that way from Christ. This is the way he ordained it and we have no right to change it. That one will never change…period. It can’t, we just don’t have the right to do so.

As for laymen becoming pastors, I think you would have to define a pastor’s responsibility. Can laymen provide spiritual direction, Manage finances, organize schedules, teach RCIA, serve at Mass (as altar servers), read at Mass, distribute Holy Communion? Than maybe pastor is the wrong word, but maybe there is another post that could be created where laymen take a more active role in the oversight of the Church. Certainly they adhere to the direction of the Priest who is the shepherd of the flock. Do I think that would happen? No I don’t. But, it doesn’t necessarily contradict Church teaching. It would only be changing a discipline.

Well thank you for your response.

But I would repeat what I mentioned before without qualification. Priests do not mary.
Deacons do not marry. I’m talking about the Catholic Church, because we have no way of defining what other churches do. In all Catholic churches, priests do not marry.

What I’m guessing what you are thinking is that there are priests that you know who are married. And that is correct. We have married priests. We’ve always had them since the time of St. Peter who was married. But Peter was married before he became the “rock”.
All married priests in the Catholic church are married men before their ordination not after. And if their current wife passes away unto the Lord, they understand that they will remain single until death. So it is correct to say that priests (Catholic) may not marry and that has been the tradition from the beginning. This also holds true for the Orthodox Catholics in the east. And for the Orthodox non-Catholic church, I believe this same commitment holds true. But thank you for bringing this up because this is so misunderstood by so many and this will help to clear that up.

Now as far as the term “Pastor”, it is my understanding that this is a historical name which was reserved to the Bishop and to those whom he appointed in his place to serve. Priests, or those made pastors, are really the extension of the arm of the Bishop to help pastor his people. It is a way for him to multiply himself since he is limited as a human being. Right now, our parish has a spiritual director who is a woman. And as far as I know, that is fine. Many great women in the history of our church were directors. We also have administrators. But Pastor is reserved to the sacramental action.

The idea of the layity helping as much as possible in their own rite is a great idea.
But we must always make a distinction between the clergy and laity and their specific functions. Otherwise, it won’t be long, and their will be confusion just who does what and who should be doing what. We need order and also the order Christ established himself in his church.

These are just a few ideas, what do you think?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Truth is truth.

Or are you one of those evil relativists we are always hearing about from conservatives?

You don’t have to like discussing with me. You don’t have to discuss these matters with me.

But I care what happens in Catholicism. Whether Catholicism is really Catholic–really capable of embracing the fullness of the truth and allowing unity with diversity–or just a very big confessional sect is a matter of great importance to non-Catholic Christians.

Edwin

You are the one who think relativism. I believe what the CC teaches, you dont. You want the Church to embrace all kinds of different teachings. obviously since you are not a Catholic you are going to advocate for rebellious inside the Church. God forbid and protect HIs Holy Church. She is being attacked from all sides. Make no mistake the Truth in teh Church is protected. Like the Holy Father said, we will start small again, but with the Truth that she always tought. No amount of opposition will prevail against the Holy Church of God.

 

[wisdomseeker]

"In 1075 Pope Gregory VII forbade any further lay investiture, declaring it a form of simony. Moreover, he also declared that any secular leaders who tried to invest someone with a clerical office would suffer excommunication. Henry IV, who had long seethed under the pressures from the church, refused to accept this change which undercut significant aspects of his power. " Research: newadvent.org/cathen/08084c.htm

Imho, the lay movement now being pushed to the forefront is similar to the issue addressed by H.H. Pope Gregory VII, but instead of Kings and wealthy barrons, we see neoliberals and “spirit” of Vatican II types using this tactic to usurp the control of Holy Mother Church from The Pope and the Magesterium. This is a power play, period. And should one want to see how this will play out, just look at any of our seperated bretheren in the protestant sects and how their church councils govern their respective churches. And how easily one can modify/reject faithful teaching. As someone else posted, “there is nothing new under the Sun”.

Second Epistle Of Saint Paul To Timothy , Ch 4
"[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. " From:
drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=62&ch=4&l=3#x

Yes, and we cannot expect a protestant not to agree with these groups who rebel against the Church when they are rebellious themselves. Only faithfull Catholics are counted among those who will fight for the Church, to keep her intact until our Lord comes again. the enemy of God is sure raging against the Holy Church.

 

[Dragonslayer]

Bear in mind that I’m an Episcopalian. It isn’t really about being Christian, forgiving, and charitable, though I try to do that too. It’s about trying to figure out whether in fact I am obligated to seek union with Rome in order to have the fullness of the Faith, or whether the Church presently exists only in fragments, each of which has part of the truth.

If the kinds of concerns reflected in the document cited in the OP (not necessarily all the specific positions like the ordination of women or the remarriage of divorced persons, but the general approach) have no place within Catholicism, then I have to conclude that the second option is the correct one. Because I have no doubt whatever that these concerns are valid ones and address real problems within Catholicism (which, again, is not to say that all the proposals in the manifesto are correct, let alone all the other parts of the liberal Catholic agenda).

Precisely how? What does “Protestant” mean in this context?

Allowing a married priesthood was certainly one of the things the Protestants argued for. Does that make it wrong?

Are you seriously suggesting that the fact that Protestants do something makes it bad?

No it is not “bad”. But neither it is right. I am a Catholic and believe the Catholic Church is the one true, holy and Apostolic church. As a Catholic I also believe there is no salvation outside the Church. The exceptions are baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, something that is very difficult if not impossible.

Protestants did not accept some of the teachings of the Catholic Church and broke away to do their own thing. Fair enough, but in the eyes of Catholic teaching, in doing so they have placed their souls at risk. God will be their judge, good luck to them.

It would appear that they don’t. Perhaps you might inquire why, instead of simply assuming that they are irrational or hypocritical. Perhaps they are not as Protestant as they appear to you?

They are advocating amongst other things that “As quickly as possible, both married men and women be admitted to the priesthood”. This is not Catholic, it is Protestant.

If you support a football team you don’t try and convince fellow supporters to start supporting a different team.

Perhaps your notion of what it means to be “purely Catholic” is just that–your notion–and not the same thing as the divinely revealed teaching of the Church?

Perhaps schismatic traditionalism isn’t “purely Catholic” at all?

Now, these are just your notions. And there is no such thing as schismatic traditionalism. If there was it would mean the fathers of the church were also schismatics, or even heretics. No, I don’t think so.

Forgive me for speaking this way, as a non-Catholic. I do so only because I take the truth claims of Catholicism seriously. If I didn’t, I would let you guys fight it out among yourselves, as I exhort others to do with regard to Islam (though of course in both cases I would hope that the “nicer” interpretation would win).

Edwin

Your forgiven . I also take the truth claims of Catholicism seriously. That is why it is disheartening to witness the decline of Catholicism, which is slowly being attacked and eaten away, especially over the last 50 years or so. And yes, I do get annoyed when people want to see the church Protestantized even further. It is half understandable coming from Protestants, but when it comes from so-called Catholic Priests…

 

[wisdomseeker]

I disagree. I always appreciate Edwin’s insightful (name removed by moderator)ut, even if it’s critical. And even if I don’t agree. And he’s a baptized believer, so he IS of our faith, so .

He even made see when I was wrong once. Once.

No, he is not of our Faith. He is not a Catholic. Make no mistake, the heresies of protestantism has been passed on to this generation. That is why they are not Catholics. They dont believe in the Church and continuously work to bring the Church down. And if a protestant has to correct you in your own faith, that should tell you something.

Obviously they are going to support rebellious in the Church. This is a Catholic matter…for Catholics only.

I cannot expect him to defend the Truth of the CC since he doesnt believe the CC anyway. I dont mind talk him in matters of protestantism but not when it is a Catholic matter alone.

 

[wisdomseeker]

No it is not “bad”. But neither it is right. I am a Catholic and believe the Catholic Church is the one true, holy and Apostolic church. As a Catholic I also believe there is no salvation outside the Church. The exceptions are baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, something that is very difficult if not impossible.

Protestants did not accept some of the teachings of the Catholic Church and broke away to do their own thing. Fair enough, but in the eyes of Catholic teaching, in doing so they have placed their souls at risk. God will be their judge, good luck to them.

They are advocating amongst other things that “As quickly as possible, both married men and women be admitted to the priesthood”. This is not Catholic, it is Protestant.

If you support a football team you don’t try and convince fellow supporters to start supporting a different team.

Now, these are just your notions. And there is no such thing as schismatic traditionalism. If there was it would mean the fathers of the church were also schismatics, or even heretics. No, I don’t think so.

Your forgiven . I also take the truth claims of Catholicism seriously. That is why it is disheartening to witness the decline of Catholicism, which is slowly being attacked and eaten away, especially over the last 50 years or so. And yes, I do get annoyed when people want to see the church Protestantized even further. It is half understandable coming from Protestants, but when it comes from so-called Catholic Priests…

Well said.

 

[Boulder257]

No, he is not of our Faith. He is not a Catholic. Make no mistake, the heresies of protestantism has been passed on to this generation. That is why they are not Catholics. They dont believe in the Church and continuously work to bring the Church down. And if a protestant has to correct you in your own faith, that should tell you something.

Obviously they are going to support rebellious in the Church. This is a Catholic matter…for Catholics only.

I cannot expect him to defend the Truth of the CC since he doesnt believe the CC anyway. I dont mind talk him in matters of protestantism but not when it is a Catholic matter alone.

I think Jesus may have spent some time with people of other faiths discussing religion and religious differences. I think our Pope does the same thing today. It’s through this dialogue that we all grow spiritually and grow closer to our Lord.

Let’s not forget this is a forum for discussion open to all people. If you don’t agree with what Edwin says than by all means tell him what you disagree with. But, to suggest he doesn’t have a right to make a post on an open forum when he is following forum rules completely dismisses the reason for the existence of these forums.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Have another another read of that article, then look at the comments. It’s hard to believe these people are not joking.

Like, the solution to the Church’s current crisis is … more liberalism?

I think the laypeople, after the Protestant Reformation, thought they were still Catholic. It took a couple of generations before it sunk in.

So, if the parents are liberal Catholics
And their children are fairly liberal (contracepting, living in sin, no confession, miss Mass, casual approach to the Host, ‘freedom of conscience’)
Then it wont be long before their great grandchildren will be no different to the Protestants down the road.

**What makes a Catholic, Catholic?

• Belief in transubstantiation, a clergy set apart, the authority of the Pope and the necessity and efficacy of the sacraments. All under attack.**

 

[manualman]

No, he is not of our Faith. He is not a Catholic. Make no mistake, the heresies of protestantism has been passed on to this generation. That is why they are not Catholics. They dont believe in the Church and continuously work to bring the Church down. And if a protestant has to correct you in your own faith, that should tell you something.

Got a catechism? Look it up. You’ll find his Anglican baptism is a perfectly valid means by wich Edwin has (however imperfectly) entered the family of believers, the Church. There IS a separation due to the rejection of the visible portion of the Church Christ established.

Edwin implied that the Church must be either visible or invisible and that the former is the catholic position and the latter protestant. But that’s not quite right. The catholic explanation is that the Church is BOTH visible and invisible. Like a sacrament, the church has a visible, tangible manifestation but is not limited to only that which is visible and tangible. The problem with the protestant position is that it rejects the reality of the visible, recognizable Church and thus loses the benefits of unity, endurance and consistancy with which God endowed it.

The problem he is not addressing (which admittedly I’m extrapolating from the original article since I admit I haven’t met any Flemish catholics) is that there really has been a 5th column of sorts for generations now attempting to usurp the visible structures of unity and teaching authority of the church, even though they themselves have rejected much of the substance of the true, but invisible aspects of the church. Many of these people have even held positions of some authority (lay and ordained) within the Church. Edwin may be right in some cases that these people genuinely love Christ and believe they are following Him to the best of their understanding. But in other cases, I truly believe that many of these people name Christ as Lord with their tongues, but have never known him. They see the Church as a useful pre-existing vehicle they can usurp and use to forward their own opinions and convictions about how the world should be ordered and people should think.

As for the married clergy issue, I see it as obvious. It’s no coincidence that agitation for abolition of priestly celibacy is coinciding with the most sexually depraved culture in a millenia. A celibate priesthood now, more than perhaps ever, stands as a sign of contradiction over and against the hedonism that undlies modern sexual attitudes.

And the last line in your quote above? Really sad way of thinking, man. Really.

 

[Boulder257]

Have another another read of that article, then look at the comments. It’s hard to believe these people are not joking.

Like, the solution to the Church’s current crisis is … more liberalism?

I think the laypeople, after the Protestant Reformation, thought they were still Catholic. It took a couple of generations before it sunk in.

So, if the parents are liberal Catholics
And their children are fairly liberal (contracepting, living in sin, no confession, miss Mass, casual approach to the Host, ‘freedom of conscience’)
Then it wont be long before their great grandchildren will be no different to the Protestants down the road.

**What makes a Catholic, Catholic?

• Belief in transubstantiation, a clergy set apart, the authority of the Pope and the necessity and efficacy of the sacraments. All under attack.**

These things have always been under attack. From the point Jesus said to eat his flesh it was under attack. Just because some laity have different ideas doesn’t mean they will overpower the Church. Remember, we already know she survives! Certainly we must protect it, but to suggest that “liberals” are going to overrun and destroy the Church just seems like an exaggeration since she has been under attack since the day she was formed…yet 2,000 years later here She stands with the same Dogma, Doctrine, and Tradition!

 

[jmj1984]

I think Jesus may have spent some time with people of other faiths discussing religion and religious differences. I think our Pope does the same thing today. It’s through this dialogue that we all grow spiritually and grow closer to our Lord.

If I may make some points, in all charity.

We have no evidence that Jesus spent any time with people of other faiths discussing religion and religious differences, indeed this would contradict what Christ said where he said 'And he answering, said: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel’ Matthew Chapter 15:24

Yes Jesus did speak to those of other faiths, such as the Samaritan woman (though they were an offshoot from the jews and in that conversation he corrected her) and the centurion, but in these cases he corrects their error or praises their faith, which in the case of the centurion was praising the centurions faith in him.

Reading our current obsession with ‘ecumenicism’ and ‘dialogue’ back into history is anachronism plain and simple.

Jesus’ discussion with the jewish priests and keepers of the law was again driven by the need to proclaim the truth and correct errors, not dialogue for the sake of dialogue.

This obsession with the dialogue amongst many in the modern church is exactly what has helped foster situations like the one in belgium and austria at the moment and france and the netherlands during much of the 60’s-90’s. Dialogue is not an absolute good, it is a relative good depending on the aim it is subordinated to, dialogue with other faiths and branches of christianity is ultimately a dialogue with error. In that case the only legitimate aim can be to convert those who are in error back to the truth, to suggest that the church can learn something from error is blasphemous in as much as it suggests that the church is not 'The pillar and foundation of the truth’ *1 Timothy 3:15 *and 'the spotless bride of Christ’ Ephesians 5:27. It suggests that the church must look outside of itself for part of the truth or to improve itself both of which contradict the above truths of faith.

If those in error are obstinate, we must then condemn them in order to protect the Church from them and entrust them to Gods mercy. In terms of baptised christians, this can take the form of excommunication and other eclessiastical censures. Mere dialogue will never suffice, as some people as so deeply set in their errors that they will not change their minds and thus condemnation and punishment, in the interests of justice and mercy are required. Indeed the church continously hopes that those excommunicated or otherwise censured will retract their errors and come back to embrace their loving and faithful mother. This is in fact what the church has done since the beginning, every ecumenical council from nicea to Vatican I contained canons which declared anathemas or excommunications. The Church still practices this today catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican_supports_excommunication_of_call_to_action_group/

St Thomas Aquinas speaking on the subject says this '**It seems that heretics ought to be tolerated…

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Titus 3:10-11): “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted.”

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. …

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.”
**

and later he states '**According to Decret. (xxiv, qu. iii, can. Notandum), “to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted.” A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 5:5) that his “spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord.” **

Both these quotes are from the Summa, second part of the second part, Question 11, Article 3.

The solution to this problem is to ‘to call back the mutinous and the wandering to the bosom of the Church’ Pope Leo XIII ‘Christi Nomen’ and if after dialogue, that is showing them why their errors are wrong, they still refuse, eclessiastical censure whether it be excommunication or something less severe. The church has tolerated manifest heresies such as these for far too long in the interest of false charity and ecumenicism.

 

[Boulder257]

If I may make some points, in all charity.

We have no evidence that Jesus spent any time with people of other faiths discussing religion and religious differences, indeed this would contradict what Christ said where he said 'And he answering, said: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel’ Matthew Chapter 15:24

Yes Jesus did speak to those of other faiths, such as the Samaritan woman (though they were an offshoot from the jews and in that conversation he corrected her) and the centurion, but in these cases he corrects their error or praises their faith, which in the case of the centurion was praising the centurions faith in him.

Reading our current obsession with ‘ecumenicism’ and ‘dialogue’ back into history is anachronism plain and simple.

Jesus’ discussion with the jewish priests and keepers of the law was again driven by the need to proclaim the truth and correct errors, not dialogue for the sake of dialogue.

This obsession with the dialogue amongst many in the modern church is exactly what has helped foster situations like the one in belgium and austria at the moment and france and the netherlands during much of the 60’s-90’s. Dialogue is not an absolute good, it is a relative good depending on the aim it is subordinated to, dialogue with other faiths and branches of christianity is ultimately a dialogue with error. In that case the only legitimate aim can be to convert those who are in error back to the truth, to suggest that the church can learn something from error is blasphemous in as much as it suggests that the church is not 'The pillar and foundation of the truth’ *1 Timothy 3:15 *and 'the spotless bride of Christ’ Ephesians 5:27. It suggests that the church must look outside of itself for part of the truth or to improve itself both of which contradict the above truths of faith.

If those in error are obstinate, we must then condemn them in order to protect the Church from them and entrust them to Gods mercy. In terms of baptised christians, this can take the form of excommunication and other eclessiastical censures. Mere dialogue will never suffice, as some people as so deeply set in their errors that they will not change their minds and thus condemnation and punishment, in the interests of justice and mercy are required. Indeed the church continously hopes that those excommunicated or otherwise censured will retract their errors and come back to embrace their loving and faithful mother. This is in fact what the church has done since the beginning, every ecumenical council from nicea to Vatican I contained canons which declared anathemas or excommunications. The Church still practices this today catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican_supports_excommunication_of_call_to_action_group/

St Thomas Aquinas speaking on the subject says this '**It seems that heretics ought to be tolerated…

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Titus 3:10-11): “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted.”

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. …

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.”
**

and later he states '**According to Decret. (xxiv, qu. iii, can. Notandum), “to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted.” A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 5:5) that his “spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord.” **

Both these quotes are from the Summa, second part of the second part, Question 11, Article 3.

The solution to this problem is to ‘to call back the mutinous and the wandering to the bosom of the Church’ Pope Leo XIII ‘Christi Nomen’ and if after dialogue, that is showing them why their errors are wrong, they still refuse, eclessiastical censure whether it be excommunication or something less severe. The church has tolerated manifest heresies such as these for far too long in the interest of false charity and ecumenicism.

Thank you, and if I may offer something, in charity: So Jesus only spent his time with other Jews? He never spoke to people of other faiths? He never spoke about faith? He never spoke about faith to people of other faiths? You really think that the only discussions he had were those that specific discussions accounted for in the gospel accounts? To suggest that he never had a discussion with a person about religion isn’t anachronism it’s blatently disregarding history! He may have come for the lost sheep of Israel, but his forgiveness, message, love, and Church were open to all.

Having said that you completely gloss over or ignore the point of my post which states that this is a public message board about religion. Whether you agree with his point or not, he definitely has a right to be here and say his peace. I know plenty of people who list their religion as Catholic on this board but spout incorrect teaching. They have more of a right to share their opinion than Edwin because he lists his religion as something not Catholic?