Son is confused

[Yerusalyim]

Where in Church history, Church documents, or even the CCC, does it state that it is permissable for a Catholic to participate in (as in not attend strictly for observance, and this being someone grounded in the Faith) or become Protestant?

Where does the Church state that it is NOT ALLOWED to practice Ecumenism?

It seems Bishop Sheridan in Colorado also says you’re wrong on this issue. But you know more than a Bishop about what the Church teaches…correct?

www2.gazette.com/display.php?id=1311452&secid=1

Colorado Springs’ Catholic bishop has issued an apology after his assistant angered local Catholics by saying they shouldn’t attend services at Protestant churches.

In a letter released Tuesday, Bishop Michael Sheridan, head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs, said his executive assistant, Peter Howard, was out of line when he talked to The Gazette for an Oct. 17 story.

Howard told The Gazette that Catholics should not attend Protestant worship services even if they also celebrate Catholic Mass, saying such services could “confuse” some Catholics and that their participation denigrates the Catholic faith.

Howard wrote a column in a similar vein for the Oct. 7 issue of the diocesan newspaper, saying attending Protestant services is contrary to church teaching.

Sheridan wrote that Howard’s comments to The Gazette caused “a great deal of distress and hurt” among Christians and non-Christians — though he believes the hurt was unintentional.

“While Mr. Howard is free to ex- press his opinions as a Catholic layman, it is important that it be known that the interview was done without my knowledge or direction and does not represent my thinking on the subject,” Sheridan wrote. “Nevertheless, I am deeply sorry for any hurt or insult that has been experienced, and I humbly ask that all men and women of good will accept my apology.”

 

[latinmasslover]

Where does the Church state that it is NOT ALLOWED to practice Ecumenism?

It seems Bishop Sheridan in Colorado also says you’re wrong on this issue. But you know more than a Bishop about what the Church teaches…correct?

www2.gazette.com/display.php?id=1311452&secid=1

Bishops in the Church, esp. the US are not usually reliable, and in many cases not even Catholic except in name. Bishop Sheridan is not God. The number of bishops that oppose the Truth doesn’t change the Truth. Some support abortion, birth control, divorce…are they right because they’re bishops? No!

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos:

"…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 ar invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ…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…Those who hold such a view are not only in error; they distort the true idea of religion, and thus reject it, falling gradually into naturalism and atheism. To favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God…of Our Apostolic office…avert this evil…Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems in his Gospel to have revealed the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and who never ceased to impress upon the memory of his disciples the new commandment ‘to love one another,’ nevertheless strictly forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching…(2 John 1:10)…

Any Catholic who has a problem with this obviously has a false understanding of ecumenism and what it’s all about. The Pope says it, Scripture, the inallible word of God, says it, the Saints say it…what more do you need?

This is why the father is right in telling his son that he cannot be Catholic and whatever, and why he must discourage his son, forbid if necessary (with explanations that his son will understand) from attending any nonCatholic service.

At Confirmation he will have to choose, for Christ and His Church, or away from Christ and His Church; however, he needs to understand the consequence of **leaving **the Church.

 

[rr1213]

Bishops in the Church, esp. the US are not usually reliable, and in many cases not even Catholic except in name. Bishop Sheridan is not God. The number of bishops that oppose the Truth doesn’t change the Truth. Some support abortion, birth control, divorce…are they right because they’re bishops? No!

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos:

"…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 ar invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ…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…Those who hold such a view are not only in error; they distort the true idea of religion, and thus reject it, falling gradually into naturalism and atheism. To favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God…of Our Apostolic office…avert this evil…Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems in his Gospel to have revealed the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and who never ceased to impress upon the memory of his disciples the new commandment ‘to love one another,’ nevertheless strictly forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching…(2 John 1:10)…

Any Catholic who has a problem with this obviously has a false understanding of ecumenism and what it’s all about. The Pope says it, Scripture, the inallible word of God, says it, the Saints say it…what more do you need?

That’s apparently not the thinking of your Church anymore. Please take a look at the Vatican Document set forth in the link below:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_25031993_principles-and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html

 

[latinmasslover]

That’s apparently not the thinking of your Church anymore. Please take a look at the Vatican Document set forth in the link below:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_25031993_principles-and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html

I have all the documents of Vatican II which I’m currently reading, and the one on Ecumenism I read this morning. If you note, it is directed to those who are competant to discuss differences without being scandalized, and let’s face it, many Catholics today are ignorant of the teachings of the Church. It also says, essentially, that if this approach is unsuccessful it should be rectified. I’d like to ask where in any V-II document does it permit exposing an ignorant person to error. I could minister on the streets to prostitutes, but I wouldn’t dare take my brother or son with me and expose them to temptations they don’t totally know how to fight. **It’s the same situation with the father and his son.**Keep in mind that Paul VI and JPII have stated that V-II is not dogmatic, and it stayed that way on purpose. And that Paul VI himself said that the smoke of Satan has entered the Church. Pope Benedict, when a Cardinal, said the Apostacy will begin at the top as predicted by Our Lady of Fatima. I am not a “Consiliarist;” I am Roman Catholic. We’ve had Popes in the past that have made poor decisions for the Church, so it shouldn’t be a surprise when it happens now. See the bold; the Pope can only be infallible when speaking on faith or morals…the direction he takes the Church isn’t always where God wants. As a perfect example of this, think of the Crusades and the Inquisition that I’m sure you don’t support.

 

[rr1213]

I have all the documents of Vatican II which I’m currently reading, and the one on Ecumenism I read this morning. If you note, it is directed to those who are competant to discuss differences without being scandalized, and let’s face it, many Catholics today are ignorant of the teachings of the Church. It also says, essentially, that if this approach is unsuccessful it should be rectified. I’d like to ask where in any V-II document does it permit exposing an ignorant person to error. I could minister on the streets to prostitutes, but I wouldn’t dare take my brother or son with me and expose them to temptations they don’t totally know how to fight. **It’s the same situation with the father and his son.**Keep in mind that Paul VI and JPII have stated that V-II is not dogmatic, and it stayed that way on purpose. And that Paul VI himself said that the smoke of Satan has entered the Church. Pope Benedict, when a Cardinal, said the Apostacy will begin at the top as predicted by Our Lady of Fatima. I am not a “Consiliarist;” I am Roman Catholic. We’ve had Popes in the past that have made poor decisions for the Church, so it shouldn’t be a surprise when it happens now. See the bold; the Pope can only be infallible when speaking on faith or morals…the direction he takes the Church isn’t always where God wants. As a perfect example of this, think of the Crusades and the Inquisition that I’m sure you don’t support.

All I know is that you stated categorically that a Catholic is forbidden to participate in a Protestant service under “pain of mortal sin”. It is abundantly clear that your assertion is incorrect–unless you also believe that the Church in its pronouncements on ecumenicalism is thereby counseling faithful Catholics to engage in mortal sin–which, IMHO, would be an absurd conclusion and accusation to make about the Catholic Church.

 

[latinmasslover]

All I know is that you stated categorically that a Catholic is forbidden to participate in a Protestant service under “pain of mortal sin”. It is abundantly clear that your assertion is incorrect–unless you also believe that the Church in its pronouncements on ecumenicalism is thereby counseling faithful Catholics to engage in mortal sin–which, IMHO, would be an absurd conclusion and accusation to make about the Catholic Church.

It is still a sin to participate in the service. Mere attendence for serious reasons (wedding, funeral, etc) was always permitted, but participation was not.

**Vatican II is not considered a dogmatic Church council **(Paul VI and John Paul II state this), meaning no infallible declarations. No infallibility means mistakes are possible.

Pope Liberius (with most of the bishops of the time) accepted for a while the Arian heresy and condemned St Athanasius for going against it. (First Pope that’s **not **a Saint!)

Pope Honorius I reigned from 625-638 AD. After his death, he was condemned as a heretic. Pope Honorius was condemned not because he taught heresy, but because of his permissive attitude toward the heresy of Monothelitism. When Pope Leo II confirmed the anathema borne by the 6th Ecumenical Council ( Constantinople II – 680-681 ) against Pope Honorius, he taught us that the crime consists in this: Honorius did not extinguish the fire of heresy at its beginning as was fitting for Apostolic Authority to do, but on the contrary he fomented it by his guilty negligence. [New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 7, p. 123; Vol. 8, p. 639].

“On that day I will carry out in full against Eli everything I threatened against his family. I announce to him that I am condemning his family once and for all, because of this crime: though he knew his sons were blaspheming God, he did not reprove them. Therefore, I swear to the family of Eli that no sacrifice or offering will ever expiate its crime.” [1 Sam 3:12-14]

“Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not
the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass
from the law, until all things have taken place.” [Mt 5:18]
Old Testament Scripture cannot be set aside [Jn 10:35]

Saint Bridget of Sweden did not fear to denounce a pope (Urban V) “as a murderer of souls, more unjust than Pilate and more cruel than Judas.” [Butler’s Lives of the Saints, Vol. 4, p. 55-56]

“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” The spirits include everyone regardless of rank or status. We should trust the word of God (Sacred Scripture) while understanding that it can be further developed but can never be diminished or reversed.

Nothing infallible means mistakes can be made. V-II, although the intentions of some were very good, did not bear good fruit because the manner in which it went about was already condemned. The end does not justify the means, and because some felt it could, we now have the crisis of faith. You will find nothing before that Council that supports what it does. What Vatican II approves, or appears to approve, has already been condemned. Check out any papal encyclical before John XXIII and you’ll see what I mean.

I’ll put stock into what the Church (and the Lord) has always said opposed to what **some **say is the will of God in this liberal and permissive age.

“When the Son of Man comes again, will He find faith on earth?”

 

[Yerusalyim]

Latinmass,

I think you need to read the documents of V2 a bit closer, here let me help…for the CLEARLY SHOW that Catholics are in NO WISE forbidden to attend worship with other Christians…but I suppose you know better than the Magesterium of the Church

DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF
PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM
102. Christians may be encouraged to share in spiritual activities and resources, i.e., to share that spiritual heritage they have in common in a manner and to a degree appropriate to their present divided state.113

1. The term “sharing in spiritual activities and resources” covers such things as prayer offered in common, sharing in liturgical worship in the strict sense, as described below in n. 116, as well as common use of sacred places and of all necessary objects.

1. In some situations, the official prayer of a Church may be preferred to ecumenical services specially prepared for the occasion. Participation in such celebrations as Morning or Evening Prayer, special vigils, etc., will enable people of different liturgical traditions—Catholic, Eastern, Anglican and Protestant—to understand each other’s community prayer better and to share more deeply in traditions which often have developed from common roots.

1. In liturgical celebrations taking place in other Churches and ecclesial Communities, Catholics are encouraged to take part in the psalms, responses, hymns and common actions of the Church in which they are guests. If invited by their hosts, they may read a lesson or preach.

1. Regarding assistance at liturgical worship of this type, there should be a meticulous regard for the sensibilities of the clergy and people of all the Christian Communities concerned, as well as for local customs which may vary according to time, place, persons and circumstances. In a Catholic liturgical celebration, ministers of other Churches and ecclesial Communities may have the place and liturgical honors proper to their rank and their role, if this is judged desirable. Catholic clergy invited to be present at a celebration of another Church or ecclesial Community may wear the appropriate dress or insignia of their ecclesiastical office, if it is agreeable to their hosts.

If you note, it is directed to those who are competant to discuss differences without being scandalized

Let’s see a direct quote and I bet this is directed toward those who attend OFFICIAL ECUMENICAL CONFERENCES.

 

[rr1213]

It is still a sin to participate in the service. Mere attendence for serious reasons (wedding, funeral, etc) was always permitted, but participation was not.

**Vatican II is not considered a dogmatic Church council **(Paul VI and John Paul II state this), meaning no infallible declarations. No infallibility means mistakes are possible.

Pope Liberius (with most of the bishops of the time) accepted for a while the Arian heresy and condemned St Athanasius for going against it. (First Pope that’s **not **a Saint!)

Pope Honorius I reigned from 625-638 AD. After his death, he was condemned as a heretic. Pope Honorius was condemned not because he taught heresy, but because of his permissive attitude toward the heresy of Monothelitism. When Pope Leo II confirmed the anathema borne by the 6th Ecumenical Council ( Constantinople II – 680-681 ) against Pope Honorius, he taught us that the crime consists in this: Honorius did not extinguish the fire of heresy at its beginning as was fitting for Apostolic Authority to do, but on the contrary he fomented it by his guilty negligence. [New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 7, p. 123; Vol. 8, p. 639].

“On that day I will carry out in full against Eli everything I threatened against his family. I announce to him that I am condemning his family once and for all, because of this crime: though he knew his sons were blaspheming God, he did not reprove them. Therefore, I swear to the family of Eli that no sacrifice or offering will ever expiate its crime.” [1 Sam 3:12-14]

“Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not
the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass
from the law, until all things have taken place.” [Mt 5:18]
Old Testament Scripture cannot be set aside [Jn 10:35]

Saint Bridget of Sweden did not fear to denounce a pope (Urban V) “as a murderer of souls, more unjust than Pilate and more cruel than Judas.” [Butler’s Lives of the Saints, Vol. 4, p. 55-56]

“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” The spirits include everyone regardless of rank or status. We should trust the word of God (Sacred Scripture) while understanding that it can be further developed but can never be diminished or reversed.

Nothing infallible means mistakes can be made. V-II, although the intentions of some were very good, did not bear good fruit because the manner in which it went about was already condemned. The end does not justify the means, and because some felt it could, we now have the crisis of faith. You will find nothing before that Council that supports what it does. What Vatican II approves, or appears to approve, has already been condemned. Check out any papal encyclical before John XXIII and you’ll see what I mean.

I’ll put stock into what the Church (and the Lord) has always said opposed to what **some **say is the will of God in this liberal and permissive age.

“When the Son of Man comes again, will He find faith on earth?”

Ok, you’re one of those folks that don’t believe that Catholics need to affirm Vatican II. It makes sense now. Sometimes I get confused trying to keep all the different types of Catholics straight. Do you believe that Benedict is the Pope?

 

[latinmasslover]

Latinmass,

I think you need to read the documents of V2 a bit closer, here let me help…for the CLEARLY SHOW that Catholics are in NO WISE forbidden to attend worship with other Christians…but I suppose you know better than the Magesterium of the Church

Let’s see a direct quote and I bet this is directed toward those who attend OFFICIAL ECUMENICAL CONFERENCES.

My last post says what needs to be said. Vatican II did not define anything, but only made things worse for the Church. The enemies of the Church support it, therefore we know there’s something wrong. Popes have been wrong before, and will surely be wrong again. I don’t have time to continually repeat myself so again, see the previous post. Vatican II is what is called a Coward Council for a weak papacy. It defined nothing, meaning nothing is infallible from that Council, as the popes already said. This thread will be closed soon as we’re off topic. You can agree or not agree…in the “spirit of vatican II” (puke) believe what you want. The truth doesn’t change, pariticipation in nonCatholic services is condemned by many popes and only recently (after the smoke of satan infiltrated the Church, as Paul VI said) approved. What does that say?

 

[latinmasslover]

Ok, you’re one of those folks that don’t believe that Catholics need to affirm Vatican II. It makes sense now. Sometimes I get confused trying to keep all the different types of Catholics straight. Do you believe that Benedict is the Pope?

Of course he’s the Pope, I am not a sedevacantist. I’m truly sorry that you favor Protestant-Catholicism. I’ll pray for you. Like I said earlier though, the Popes declared that it was not dogmatic, and as it says in the doc. on Ecumenism, we must distinguish between actual dogma and doctrine formulation, which can change, and if it can change, it can err. Try reading the whole doc, as well as broaden your understanding of Catholic teaching as taught since Christ founded the Church, and not what some liberal Cardinals agreed upon in the name of an ecumanism that was already condemned.

 

[rr1213]

Of course he’s the Pope, I am not a sedevacantist. I’m truly sorry that you favor Protestant-Catholicism. I’ll pray for you. Like I said earlier though, the Popes declared that it was not dogmatic, and as it says in the doc. on Ecumenism, we must distinguish between actual dogma and doctrine formulation, which can change, and if it can change, it can err. Try reading the whole doc, as well as broaden your understanding of Catholic teaching as taught since Christ founded the Church, and not what some liberal Cardinals agreed upon in the name of an ecumanism that was already condemned.

You still haven’t admitted that your statement that a Catholic who attends a Protestant service commits mortal sin is, well, incorrect and contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him take a bath…

 

[rr1213]

Of course he’s the Pope, I am not a sedevacantist. I’m truly sorry that you favor Protestant-Catholicism.

No, I’m a Protestant. I’m just trying to understand all the conflicting flavors of Catholicism. Sometimes I just get confused by all the varieties…

 

[latinmasslover]

You still haven’t admitted that your statement that a Catholic who attends a Protestant service commits mortal sin is, well, incorrect and contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him take a bath…

Because it’s not. I’m not the one contradicting constant Church teaching. Like I said, find something that supports otherwise written before that pathetic excuse of a Council messed everything up, approved by the Church.

 

[latinmasslover]

No, I’m a Protestant. I’m just trying to understand all the conflicting flavors of Catholicism. Sometimes I just get confused by all the varieties…

There aren’t “conflicting flavors of Catholicism.” There’s Catholic, and there’s “Cafeteria Catholic,” which is essentially a Protestant in Catholic clothing, Catholic in name only.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Because it’s not. I’m not the one contradicting constant Church teaching. Like I said, find something that supports otherwise written before that pathetic excuse of a Council messed everything up, approved by the Church.

And you have the nerve to call others on this board “pick and choose” Catholics? Yet here you are picking and choosing which teaching from the Magesterium YOU accept. Pot, meet Kettle.

To the OP, I stick by my advice and have even shown Church documents that say it’s OK to do so.

 

[rr1213]

There aren’t “conflicting flavors of Catholicism.” There’s Catholic, and there’s “Cafeteria Catholic,” which is essentially a Protestant in Catholic clothing, Catholic in name only.

Yeah, I know. And, the funny thing is, nobody can seem to agree as to just whom the label applies.

 

[lukewarm]

There aren’t “conflicting flavors of Catholicism.” There’s Catholic, and there’s “Cafeteria Catholic,” which is essentially a Protestant in Catholic clothing, Catholic in name only.

I don’t buy that, at least not from the way people label cafeteria Catholicism. I’ve tried for a couple days now for other Catholics to give me a list of infallible Catholic teachings to no avail.

I’ve had other Catholics call me a cafeteria Catholic because I think the vast majority if not all private revelation “miracles” are a load of rubbish. Even though they are not of the deposit of faith at all.

Catholic means “universal”, in a universal religion you will not have 1.5 billion people toeing the company line. As long as people are adhering to the deposit of faith, they’re Catholic, and if they aren’t or are unsure about a doctrine or two they’re just doubting Catholics. I’m a Catholic unless I proceed with becoming E.O. which I’m torn about.

 

[latinmasslover]

tjomar,

Well, you’ve heard Catholic advice “Catholic” advice, and nonCatholic advice. What to do, what to do?!

Imitate the Saints whom the Church has declared to be in Heaven, they obviously knew what they were doing. They held to the teachings of the Church even when we had not so good priests, bishops, etc in charge. They did not support compromising the Faith, or endangering the faith of their children by allowing them to think that the world knows better than Almighty God. There are two choices, follow Jesus or the world. I don’t know if you’re a liberal Catholic or not, but you did, as you said, make a vow before God to raise your children in His Church. Therefore you must do everything you can to strengthen his faith in that Church. Don’t bash the other communities, but do explain to him why he shouldn’t attend, explain to him why their theology is erroneous. Allowing him to attend just tells him that the nonCatholic “church” is just as good as the Catholic, the worship is only different. There’s a book, “The Popes Against Modern Errors,” that you would find helpful, as it’s very clear and uncompromising, but very loving as well. Persevere in the Holy Faith! God Bless, you and your family are in my prayers.

LAUDETUR JESUS CHRISTUS ET MARIA MATER EJUS!!!

 

[RobHom]

No, I’m a Protestant. I’m just trying to understand all the conflicting flavors of Catholicism. Sometimes I just get confused by all the varieties…

Actually there are very very few “varieties”. There are just some opinions. There is far less conflict among us than it appears. For instance, I may opine occasionally, but at my core I am “militantly Roman Catholic”, and I suspect that far more of us are…than one could ever imagine.

We see the thousands of “flavors and varieties” in protestantism. How many different “churches” do y’all have now? 66,000 or more all declaring to possess the Truth and nothing less than the actual TRUTH??? Said in a friendly joshing manner…

 

[RobHom]

tjomar,

Well, you’ve heard Catholic advice “Catholic” advice, and nonCatholic advice. What to do, what to do?!

Imitate the Saints whom the Church has declared to be in Heaven, they obviously knew what they were doing. They held to the teachings of the Church even when we had not so good priests, bishops, etc in charge. They did not support compromising the Faith, or endangering the faith of their children by allowing them to think that the world knows better than Almighty God. There are two choices, follow Jesus or the world. I don’t know if you’re a liberal Catholic or not, but you did, as you said, make a vow before God to raise your children in His Church. Therefore you must do everything you can to strengthen his faith in that Church. Don’t bash the other communities, but do explain to him why he shouldn’t attend, explain to him why their theology is erroneous. Allowing him to attend just tells him that the nonCatholic “church” is just as good as the Catholic, the worship is only different. There’s a book, “The Popes Against Modern Errors,” that you would find helpful, as it’s very clear and uncompromising, but very loving as well. Persevere in the Holy Faith! God Bless, you and your family are in my prayers.

LAUDETUR JESUS CHRISTUS ET MARIA MATER EJUS!!!

DITTO!! WELL SAID!!