Statement of Pope Benedict XVI and Ecuminism of Return

[ready]

Sorry, I wasn’t meaning to come across as hostile. What do you find strange about this thread?

 

[hawkeye125646]

One can retain what is true and good from one’s faith while embracing the truths of Catholicism.

We see it all the time here in the South. Baptists bring great zeal for Jesus and hatred of sin into the Church. Evangelicals bring a great love of scripture. All bring a love for evangelization which the Church desperately needs.

All these unite thier faith to Catholic truth and the sacraments, and when these Churches finally unite under the Holy Father, they will bring great gifts into the Church.

That’s my guess.

-Tim-

that is a very good point of view… I definitely concur with that, because loving sacred scripture and bringing zeal are two wonderful qualites or Christian brethren have in abundance! May God bless you!

 

[TrueLight]

Sorry, I wasn’t meaning to come across as hostile. What do you find strange about this thread?

Okay, since you asked, but I’m going to leave after this.

I found Bartolome’s posts mysterious. It felt like there was an underlying meaning beneath his posts. I could be wrong.

 

[ready]

Okay, since you asked, but I’m going to leave after this.

I found Bartolome’s posts mysterious. It felt like there was an underlying meaning beneath his posts. I could be wrong.

I liked JReducation’s understanding of the Pope’s statement. Did the Pope’s statement mean anything different when you read it? I’d love to hear your point of view.

 

[TimothyH]

that is a very good point of view… I definitely concur with that, because loving sacred scripture and bringing zeal are two wonderful qualites or Christian brethren have in abundance! May God bless you!

I have this fantasy that all the Jehovah’s Witnesses convert, and instead of handing out Watchtower booklets as they go door-to-door, they hand out those little plastic ziplock bags with a rosary and instructions on how to pray it.

-Tim-

 

[martininthefiel]

I have this fantasy that all the Jehovah’s Witnesses convert, and instead of handing out Watchtower booklets as they go door-to-door, they hand out those little plastic ziplock bags with a rosary and instructions on how to pray it

-Tim-

I love it!

 

[Cat]

Okay, since you asked, but I’m going to leave after this.

I found Bartolome’s posts mysterious. It felt like there was an underlying meaning beneath his posts. I could be wrong.

I kind of got that same feeling. I felt like he didn’t care for J.R.Education’s very insightful answer, and that he knows something that we don’t know, and is keeping it a secret.

Bartolome, maybe you could explain your post a little. Thanks.

Here’s my contribution to the thread. After my husband and I converted, we DID harbor a lot of resentment towards our Protestant roots, mainly becaues for 47 years, we had been kept away from the Catholic Church and all Her treasures, mainly the True Presence of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Of course in our case, we had reason to be resentful, as we were kicked out of our last evangelical Protestant church, and there was a huge amount of hurt after that happened. It was very traumatic and horrific.

But it was more than that. We resented all the very smart teachers and preachers in the Protestant church who somehow, in spite of all their scholarship and Doctor of Divinity degrees and their study of Scripture in their own language and also in the original Greek and Hebrew, had somehow completely missed the truth of the Catholic Church.

I’m talking about immensely-intellectual Protestants who I loved and respected and TRUSTED–people like John R.W. Stott, Josh McDowell, Dr. Bill Bright, J.I. Packer, and even the Dr. Billy Graham. All of these people were not only intellectuals, but they went beyond the college campus and reached out to the people in the pews by writing books that became popular and are still popular among evangelical Protestants.

(Please remember, back when my husband and I were evangelical Protestant, there was no internet, or at best, a very limited version of the internet, so their primary method of reaching out with their teachings was through publishing books.)

These same intellectuals also missed an honest study of Church history and instead, had propagated the version that after Christ ascended into heaven, the New Testament church continued in the Truth until John the Beloved died in exile. The the Church was led into apostacy by the “Catholics,” who took much of their theology from the Babylonian mystery religions (especially the Marianism), and continued to mislead the Church for 1500 years until Martin Luther came along and re-discovered the Truth.

**I want to make it very clear that the version of history that I describe above is what we were taught through our Protestant years by Protestant teachers! I do NOT want anyone to get offended at CAT and report me because they think that I am trying to teach this false version of history! **Please read what I am saying–this is the version of history that our Protestant teachers taught us! I’m very sorry that it is offensive to Catholics–it should be, because it’s false!

So perhaps you can see why my husband and I were upset over our Protestant teachers and preachers misleading us. No one wants to be lied to, even if the liar doesn’t realize that they are telling a big one. The result was that my husband and I were deprived for the first 47 years of our life of the Truth and especially the Eucharist! Of course we were mad! Wouldn’t you be?

But we’ve mellowed quite a bit as we’ve gotten a little more mature in our Catholicism. In fact, I’ve come back to the policy of defending Protestantism on CAF, which sometimes upsets some of the more traditional-leaning Catholics who tell me that I must reject all vestiges of Protestantism and fully embrace my Catholicism. I’m not sure that will ever happen.

Maybe I will become a “Total Catholic” in all my thoughts and deeds if I’m allowed to live on this earth for several more decades, but even then, I think that there will always be remnants of my Protestantism, especially when it comes to the music. That great Gospel music, especially the kind that has piano, guitar, and drums, and those wonderful American hymns (e.g., Fanny Crosby, Ira Sankey/Phillip Bliss, etc.) really gets into your heart and soul, and as far as I’m concerned, represent reverence and worship and heaven to me more than any other kind of music. Maybe it’s like this for me because I actually played this music when I was Protestant (and I still play it in private and family worship times), and so it’s more part of me. I actually am praying for the day when the Catholic Church recognizes the value of these styles of music and encourages including them in the Holy Mass. I miss it.

I’m glad to see this thread, because it is comforting to see that Pope Benedict XVI, whom I respect immensely because of his powerful intellect, is encouraging ex-Protestants to consider their Protestantism to be part of their journey to faith. Very refreshing and uplifting to all, especially those of us who’ve been there.

 

[Cat]

Please allow me to add a few more thoughts to my post above. There was not enough space.

Another reason we were upset was more practical. My husband and I had been taught all our lives that artificial contrapception was no sin, but indeed, was a very practical and responsible action. So after two children, my husband had a vasectomy, and we had stopped any attempts to have more children. After becoming Catholic, we learned more about the evil of contraception, and we were angry about being deceived. We still regret not having more children, but we thought we were doing the right and responsible thing. Sigh.

A third reason we were upset–and still are–is that we were taught to not spend a lot of time thinking about our sins, as they were all forgiven, past, present, and future. We should instead concentrate on Jesus and forget about ourselves and our sins, because they were forgiven anyway. What this did to my husband and me (remember, 47 years of this!) is made our consciences very dull. While cradle Catholics experience guilt over the smallest infraction, we feel no guilt, or very little guilt, because we’re not even aware of our own sin (unless it’s masturbation, which we were taught all our lives was normal and healthy). This has been very difficult for me and my husband, and we wish that we had a little more of that “Catholic guilt” to convict us of our own sin. I think we are both guilty of a lot of “thought” sins, and also sins of omission, but it’s very very hard for us to be aware of sin after 47 years of ignoring them.

 

[ready]

Thanks, Cat, for sharing your story.

 

[martininthefiel]

One cannot reasonably expect the average Catholic to read those two documents, and, on his own, to interpret them outside the context of Church history, much less individuals, or even groups, contemplating incorporation into the Catholic Church.

As someone whose faith journey went from Reform Judaism to atheism to Low Church Anglicanism to Anglo-Catholicism to Catholicism, I clearly understand that all of those stops along the way in some way inform what I believe about God. The last of those was the least dramatic–as my catechist once said, “You were already a Catholic; you just didn’t know it yet.”

I always understood that from Baptism on, that the Episcopal Church was not a separate religion–that I belonged to "one Holy, catholic, and Apostolic church, and that many of the perceived differences among the various Christian denominations were more cultural accidents than clear doctrinal differences. I became an Episcopalian because I was Evangelized by an Episcopalian, not because I sat down with a catalog of world religions, and made a discerning, informed choice among them.

When I became a Catholic, I carried with me a 25+ years of Anglican patrimony–not all of it good orthodox Christianity, but most of it fully compatible with Catholic doctrine. I do not want to get into yet another discussion of the differences between TEC and the Catholic Church, but suffice it to say that most of what I know about Christianity was learned as an Episcopalian. I did not have to abandon that in its entirety; mostly I needed to add to it. It was, for me, clearly a trip forward, not a reversion. I did, indeed, come to believe that the Catholic Church is the full expression of Christian belief–that Anglicanism, even Anglo-Catholicism, lacks several elements; but that does not invalidate all of Anglican doctrine.

I a church as culturally diverse as the Catholic Church, there will always be room different expressions of the Catholic faith. We are much richer for that. There are over a billion Catholics in the world–the world’s largest religion. Still.

 

[clem456]

The Church has its own language. I don’t mean Latin. I mean language in the sense of shared meanings. Words that mean something in the secular world don’t always mean the same thing in the Church, because language in the secular world is always in a state of evolution. Language in the Church is static.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I think the word “subsists” causes problems for many people, myself included. I think people confuse “subsists” with “consists of”.
Would you be able to shed some light on the correct understanding of this term in the context we are discussing? Thanks

 

[hawkeye125646]

I have this fantasy that all the Jehovah’s Witnesses convert, and instead of handing out Watchtower booklets as they go door-to-door, they hand out those little plastic ziplock bags with a rosary and instructions on how to pray it.

-Tim-

HA HA HA HA! Oh man oh man oh man! That would be a very Funny show! HA HA HA!

 

[hawkeye125646]

"This is a concrete example of what the Pope is trying to tell Protestants. The fullness of the Christian Church subsists in the Catholic Church. Through Baptism, they are incorporated into that Church. However, they have to reach the fullness of faith, which will only happen in Catholicism. At the same time, he reminds then that they are not returning and turning their back. They are in fact moving forward, not regressing. They bring with them a faith tradition that is very much a part of their journey and which they must appreciate. That faith tradition inspired them to love and seek out the Fullness of Truth.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

That is beautifully articulated…there are also many other examples, of former Protestants, who become Catholic, that follow this example of ecunism… Bishop Fulton j Sheen once said “There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.”

 

[JReducation]

I think the word “subsists” causes problems for many people, myself included. I think people confuse “subsists” with “consists of”.
Would you be able to shed some light on the correct understanding of this term in the context we are discussing? Thanks

I’ll try, but I’m not sure if it will make a lot of sense. I find it easier to explain in Latin and Spanish than in English, because “subsists” is not a very common word.

In essence what it is saying is that the Church that Christ founded has never ceased to exist. This statement is very important, because it speaks the the argument that the Catholic Church came out Constintine’s reign or the argument that the Catholic Church abandoned the Christian faith and that it was not rediscovered until Luther came around.

Basically it’s saying that today’s Catholic Church did not pop out of the air. It is an outgrowth of the Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ rooted in the faith of the Apostles. While she may look different, speak differently and her rituals have evolved, it’s all growth, not someone inventing a new Church.

The early Church that Christ entrusted to the Apostles was like a seed in fertile soil. Today’s Catholic Church grows out of that. Saying it the other way around, the seed and the soil given to the Apostles are intact under the tree. There is no disconnect. Just because one can’t see the seed and the soil, does not mean that the tree is disconnected. Without that seed and soil, the tree would not exist. Hence the term subsists, that which gives existence to what comes out of it.

Just because we can’t see the early Church when we look at today’s Catholic Church, does not mean that we’re disconnected from it. Without it, today’s Catholic Church would not exist.

Think in biological terms. Substrate is the natural environment in which an organism lives or the medium on which an organism grows and is attached. We say that this environment subsists in the organism.

The Church founded on the faith of the Apostles constitutes the natural environment in which today’s Catholic Church has grown and remains attached to it. Therefore, the early Church or Christian Church is not lost in ancient history nor is she dead. She subsists in the Catholic Church. What you see in Catholicism is what has grown from that early Church. No other faith can claim to grow out of the see that Christ planted in the Apostles.

Even Protestantism, which can trace itself back to Christ, has to do so through Catholicism. The first Protestants were Catholics. It is through Catholicism that Protestantism finds its way back to the substrate, which is the Early Church founded by Christ.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[1AugustSon7]

Even Protestantism, which can trace itself back to Christ, has to do so through Catholicism. The first Protestants were Catholics. It is through Catholicism that Protestantism finds its way back to the substrate, which is the Early Church founded by Christ.

Explain that a little.

 

[choliks]

Explain that a little.

As I understand what Bro. JR was trying to tell… Protestants cannot claim to trace back to Christ without the Catholic Church. Reconciled? Full communion?

 

[JReducation]

I think the word “subsists” causes problems for many people, myself included. I think people confuse “subsists” with “consists of”.
Would you be able to shed some light on the correct understanding of this term in the context we are discussing? Thanks

Explain that a little.

In other words, had there been no Catholic Church, there would be no Protestantism, because Protestantism did not begin in the Early Church. It begins about 1500 years of Christ and the apostles. Once Protestantism finds its way back to its roots, it dead end in Catholicism, not at the Apostles. To get to the Apostles, it has to work its way back through Catholicism.

I hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[clem456]

Thank you Br Jr.

A few years back Pope Benedict was raked over the coals by the press and some religious leaders for saying that salvation subsists in the Catholic Church. The secular press, mistakenly in my opinion, misunderstood this to mean that in an exclusionary sense, a person must be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved. I believe many people understood the Pope to mean that salvation -consists of- one or another particular observance.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you Br Jr.

A few years back Pope Benedict was raked over the coals by the press and some religious leaders for saying that salvation subsists in the Catholic Church. The secular press, mistakenly in my opinion, misunderstood this to mean that in an exclusionary sense, a person must be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved. I believe many people understood the Pope to mean that salvation -consists of- one or another particular observance.

I don’t remember that. I must have been out of school that day.

That being said, I would not take that statement to mean as you said the press took it. Having been a former student of Cardinal Ratizinger, I would have said, “That’s not what he means, because I know that he does not believe this. He must mean something else.”

This goes back a very long time and you must factor in that I was a student, not a scholar. My frustration with Cardinal Ratzinger and many of our other professors in Rome was that they never made sense. Later, when I came back to America to continue my studies, I ran into more theologians who made no sense.

I finally decided to stop focusing on the fact that they did not make sense. In began to sit back and analyze these professors. I made what I believed to be a significant discovery. It was significant to me, because it helped me.

I discovered that these people are so bright that they can’t screw in a light bulb without studying the essence of the bulb and the origin of light. In other words, to understand them, you have to think like them. They don’t answer one question at a time. Every statement they make is a response to a set of questions, usually the kind that has a question within a question within another question. Like the light bulb example. You have the light bulb that needs to be screwed in. You have the matter out of which the bulb is made. And you have the light emanated by the bulb.

The question would go something like this. How is it possible that light can be contained in this glass apparatus and radiate enough watts to light up a room, yet not cause a fire? What is it about the structure of this thing that makes it safe and how do I use it?

Ans: Screw the stupid thing in and you’ll see how it works.

For the theologian that answer is too simplistic, because it doesn’t answer his other questions.

Many people believe that a theologian only teaches that which is already known about the faith. That’s partially correct. The theologian also has to ask what truth lies behind the truth that we know. In this sense, the work of the theologian never comes to an end and he is not reduced to a catechist or an apologist who simply teaches the faith. He is the analyst. Often, he is thinking aloud as he speaks. Like the man thinking about the light bulb.

Pope Benedict is very much the theologian. Sometimes he’ll say part of what’s going through his mind. but there is more to it. One has to learn to trust him that he has the whole picture in his head, even if he’s saying something that is incomprehensible to us. When he is asked a question, he breaks it down into three or four more questions that must be answered in order to answer your question. The answer that you get is a summary statement. The whole of it is very clear to him. This is what happened with that whole issue about condoms, AIDS and prostitutes. At face value, it sounded very strange. When the question behind the question, which was behind the other question in his head were put on the table, the answer made sense. The problem is that the receiver does not know the other questions in the man’s head. He only knows the question is he asked.

Once I figured out this way of thinking, I learned to love theologians like Pope Benedict, Pope John Paul II, and several others who are absolutely brilliant. The challenge is that they leave us with a lot of work to do. Because we have to figure out the a priori questions that led to the statement he made.

But the exercise can be fun, if we trust that the person is not mistaken and accept that we’re not as intelligent as he is. Then we sit down to learn their language. That’s where the fun is.

This was never done in the past. First, we didn’t have the means of communication to hear the pope speak daily, if we want to do so. Second, popes has to concise and concrete in their statements, because people did not have the resources that we have today to go back and review what has been said and where it fits in the big picture.

Today, we can go online and visit thousands of libraries and millions of books and articles without spending a penny. All we knee is the time, the interest and a guide.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Unrelated to Catholic tradition

CLOSED