So, i hear...

  • Thread starter Thread starter wisdomseeker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
here is your answer.

Unitatis Redintegratio—Decree on Ecumenism

We saw earlier that the bishops at Vatican II, in their Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, did not hesitate to give “the whole truth and nothing but the truth” about who the Church is and how she sees herself. An equally forceful declaration finds its way into their Decree on Ecumenism:

“For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is ‘the all-embracing means of salvation,’ that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God” (UR 3).

Still, some would-be ecumenists encourage us to “just be nice.” In other words, don’t deal with any substantive issues, especially those that are theologically divisive. While the Council urged Catholics to present Catholic doctrine so that it is comprehensible to non-Catholics and in as palatable a manner as possible, it stressed that “it is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety” (emphasis mine). Then comes this outright condemnation of a less-than-forthright approach to ecumenical dialogue: “Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded” (11).

A writer has summed up in one line the principle the guides us: "The failure to live as one thinks leads to thinking according as one lives. The failure to pray in accord with one’s beliefs leads to believing according as one prays."
I agree with the above statement, but ignoring the truth of what Protestants have does not help Ecumenism. Furthermore, there are different ways of sharing the faith in Ecumenism. You can bury the truth in another person’s skull like an ax with malice and cruelty, or you can share the faith charitably as Pope Benedict XVI states. The choice is yours. I believe it all comes down to love. Do you love Protestants? Do you love them enough to charitable share the truth? It is not a matter of just being nice, for it is about loving the truth and loving them (love God and love others).
 
I agree with the above statement, but ignoring the truth of what Protestants have does not help Ecumenism. Furthermore, there are different ways of sharing the faith in Ecumenism. You can bury the truth in another person’s skull like an ax with malice and cruelty, or you can share the faith charitably as Pope Benedict XVI states. The choice is yours. I believe it all comes down to love. Do you love Protestants? Do you love them enough to charitable share the truth? It is not a matter of just being nice, for it is about loving the truth and loving them (love God and love others).
frankly, you are the one not being charitable here. i am sorry to have to tell you this.

didnt you just read what i posted? but yet you are trying to enterpret it for me. that is exactly what the document speaks against it.
 
frankly, you are the one not being charitable here. i am sorry to have to tell you this.

didnt you just read what i posted? but yet you are trying to enterpret it for me. that is exactly what the document speaks against it.
Yes I am being charitable, and thanks for once again not answering my questions.
 
Yes I am being charitable, and thanks for once again not answering my questions.
what questions?

you have done nothing here to defend the Faith but to agree with those who do not believe in the Church’s teachings.

the holy father has said: there is no charity without Truth.

i dont think you understand what i have posted.

you can be nice all you want, nobody is telling you not to be. be my guest.
 
My time is not limitless, so I will try to address your points:
what questions?
Are we on two different planets here?

I agree with the above statement, but ignoring the truth of what Protestants have does not help Ecumenism. Furthermore, there are different ways of sharing the faith in Ecumenism. You can bury the truth in another person’s skull like an ax with malice and cruelty, or you can share the faith charitably as Pope Benedict XVI states. The choice is yours. I believe it all comes down to love. Do you love Protestants? Do you love them enough to charitable share the truth? It is not a matter of just being nice, for it is about loving the truth and loving them (love God and love others).
you have done nothing here to defend the Faith but to agree with those who do not believe in the Church’s teachings.
Point of fact. I have not agreed with those who do not believe in the Church’s teaching, but have been simply pointing out obvious simple facts. After all who have I been talking to, and who has been ignoring my questions?
the holy father has said: there is no charity without Truth.
True, and you have been ignoring simple facts.
i dont think you understand what i have posted.
I’m sorry you feel that way. I will try to do better in the future.
you can be nice all you want, nobody is telling you not to be. be my guest.
It is not a matter of simply being nice.
 
i am sorry but i have to ask you, and what is their context?

happy to hear your grandson is doing much better.

Peace.
35"Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning, 36like men waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him. 37It will be good for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. I tell you the truth, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them. 38It will be good for those servants whose master finds them ready, even if he comes in the second or third watch of the night. 39But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. 40You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."
41Peter asked, “Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?”

42The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

47"That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Not Peace but Division

The context does NOT show Peter being given anything. this passage does not refer to the Lord returning after the reserection as it would have to to be taken the way you take it.
If it was then lets see. In the Lords absence Peter denied Jesus 3 times, hid, and went fishing. Sounds like an obvious choice!
Also notice that the opening point is referring to multiple people then he addresses to different categories of people. the faithful and the unfaithful
 
I agree with the above statement, but ignoring the truth of what Protestants have does not help Ecumenism. Furthermore, there are different ways of sharing the faith in Ecumenism. You can bury the truth in another person’s skull like an ax with malice and cruelty, or you can share the faith charitably as Pope Benedict XVI states. The choice is yours. I believe it all comes down to love. Do you love Protestants? Do you love them enough to charitable share the truth? It is not a matter of just being nice, for it is about loving the truth and loving them (love God and love others).
I certainly agree with this but I also see the point of wisdomseekr, If he truly believes Im headed for destruction the loving thing is to speak up. I dont feel attacked by wisdomseeker I just feel hes wrong.
 
The context does NOT show Peter being given anything. this passage does not refer to the Lord returning after the reserection as it would have to to be taken the way you take it.
If it was then lets see. In the Lords absence Peter denied Jesus 3 times, hid, and went fishing. Sounds like an obvious choice!
Also notice that the opening point is referring to multiple people then he addresses to different categories of people. the faithful and the unfaithful
The context of Matthew 16 is very clear. There seems to be a search for other scriptures that can be read to contradict what Matthew 16 tells us about Peter, the keys and the authority to bind and loose, or else what the Catholics say is true.

Yes, Christ told Peter he would deny Him three times, yet He still went to Peter, and singled Him out, once again after Peter had returned fishing. What did Christ tell him, three times, once He singled Him out again? Feed my lambs, feed my lambs, feed my sheep and follow me.

Christ forgave. He forgave Thomas’ doubting and He forgave Peter’s denial. Christ knew all men and all things, yet He gave Peter the keys to begin with.

Now, obvious choice you say? Did Christ know all things? Did Christ say what sins they forgave would be forgiven? In fact, show me one instance where Christ denied forgivness. Protestants debate once saved always saved and yet they say it’s ‘obvious’ that Peter was given nothing because he denied the Lord???

Oh, look the Lord talks about servants, servants can’t be leaders! Come on, the Apostles served God by answering their calling to lead His Church. These verses provided are being twisted to fit a theology while ignoring a much more clearly stated passage. These verses were posted without a detailed explanation to show there was no leadership, because a detailed explanation will not fit and hold.
 
One more time for those who can’t see it for what it is.

Mat 16:13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?
Mat 16:14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Mat 16:15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.


Peter was the only one to get it right. Christ tells us who revealed the answer to Peter. It was the Father in heaven.

**Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. **

Did Christ turn His attention to another, or to others, when He continued speaking? NO. He told them who revealed the answer to Peter and continued, ‘AND, I say to thee: Thou are Peter…’ Now that He clearly shows He is addressing Peter, what words does the Lord choose to continue speaking? ‘AND, I will give to thee…’ After that sentence our Lord continued a train of thought with, ‘AND, whatsover…’

When does the Lord address more than Peter?

Mat 16:20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

His diciples were witness to the discussion. After witnessing what Christ said to Peter, THEN He commanded His disciples…

But Peter denied Christ three times. Christ knew all men.

Joh 2:24 But Jesus did not trust himself unto them: for that he knew all men,

Christ knew all men and told them in advance that Peter would deny Him. Christ knew this before He gave the keys to Peter.

**Joh 21:1 After this, Jesus shewed himself to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias. And he shewed himself after this manner.
Joh 21:2 There were together: Simon Peter and Thomas, who is called Didymus, and Nathanael, who was of Cana of Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee and two others of his disciples.
Joh 21:3 Simon Peter saith to them: I go a fishing. They say to him: We also come with thee. And they went forth and entered into the ship: and that night they caught nothing.
**

Yes, Peter was crushed after denying Christ, after Christ had told him he would so. Not only had he denied Him, He had been crucified. Peter, being a man like everyone else, felt most unworthy and did indeed return fishing and through his decision, other Apostles followed him. But Christ appeared to him again, and again in front of witnesses.

Joh 21:4 But when the morning was come, Jesus stood on the shore: yet the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.
Joh 21:5 Jesus therefore said to them: Children, have you any meat? They answered him: No.
Joh 21:6 He saith to them: Cast the net on the right side of the ship; and you shall find. They cast therefore: and now they were not able to draw it, for the multitude of fishes.

Joh 21:11 Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred and fifty-three. And although there were so many, the net was not broken.


They caught nothing, until the Lord provided another miracle to drop the nets on the other side of the boat and filled the nets and once following His instructions again, the net was filled but not broken. What was bound, was bound.

Joh 21:15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
Joh 21:16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.


It was important for the author to tell us that Peter was grieved because He asked him a third time. Three times Christ told him to ‘tend His flock’.

Joh 21:22 Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? Follow thou me.

His last instructions, as recorded in John, were ‘Follow thou me.’

There is no mistaken Christ’s choosing of Peter and setting Peter on track with his calling. After this the Lord ascended. All was in order, His chosen key holder was on task.
 
Well.

Of course: “The meaning is clear to all those who agree with me and my group.”
Take the passage and break it down, word for word and verse by verse, with explanations how it means anything else.
 
**Joh 21:11 Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred and fifty-three. And although there were so many, the net was not broken. **

Simon Peter who Christ made fisher of men, whose strength of faith was so strong he was God’s choice to built His Church upon, drew the net to land, full of fishes, alone. And although there were so many, the net was not broken. What was bound, was bound, and even the natural forces of numbers did not prevail against the net.

I happened upon what Augustine wrote about the 153 fish caught in the net.
**AUG. In the draught before, the number of the fishes is not mentioned, as if in fulfillment of the prophecy in the Psalm, If I should declare them, and speak of them, they should be more than l am able to express, but here there is a certain number mentioned, which we must explain.
The number which signifies the law is ten, from the ten Commandments. But when to the law is joined grace, to the letter spirit, the number seven is brought in, that being the number which represents the Holy Spirit, to Whom sanctification properly belongs. For sanctification was first heard of in the law, with respect to the seventh day; and Isaiah praises the Holy Spirit for His sevenfold work and office. The seven of the Spirit added to the ten of the law make seventeen, and the numbers from one up to seventeen when added together, make a hundred and fifty-three.**
 
Take the passage and break it down, word for word and verse by verse, with explanations how it means anything else.
Which?

I looked over the entire chapter before I wrote me reply.

If you mean “the rock” verse, I have already commented on this and so have several other protestants here.

And, it does not matter at all what you or I think, right? Do you actually acknowledge that the “truth” is either in what you or I think? Are you actually acknowledging that IF I did this, that I might reveal a truth on this that you would have to acknowledge and then change your beliefs?

Or is this some other form of “exercise” for you?

I honestly think that I summarized your position EXACTLY CORRECTLY. I will try again: “Because the Catholic Church teaches this interpretation, it is true.”
 
Which?

I looked over the entire chapter before I wrote me reply.

If you mean “the rock” verse, I have already commented on this and so have several other protestants here.

And, it does not matter at all what you or I think, right? Do you actually acknowledge that the “truth” is either in what you or I think? Are you actually acknowledging that IF I did this, that I might reveal a truth on this that you would have to acknowledge and then change your beliefs?

Or is this some other form of “exercise” for you?

I honestly think that I summarized your position EXACTLY CORRECTLY. I will try again: “Because the Catholic Church teaches this interpretation, it is true.”
No, I want to see someone break it down and explain another view point by point. No one has done that and it seems to be an avoidance of discussing it further, which could imply they can’t find a way to make it say something else, but it seems they have no problem continuing to reject it without explanation. That leaves me concreted in my belief. If no one can show me different, I have to assume that I have it right.

Your rebuttal is overwhelming clear. You have no rebuttal to offer.

Your ‘anti-Catholic’ sentiments shine forth when you prefer to say, ‘because the Catholic Church teaches this interpretation, it is true’, instead of offering a point by point explanation of how it could mean anything else.

So, is being agnostic questioning the existence of God, or ONLY the Catholic Church?
 
I think that the fact that The Catholic Church has Mass everyday of the week, 365 days per year should alone put an end to this discussion, why would a Protestant even say such? Remember, We are The Church, they are the denominations…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top