True or False Ecumenism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic4Jesus

Guest
Does Pope Pius XI’s encyclical ‘Mortalium Animos’ condemn ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue?
 
Catholic4Jesus said:
Does Pope Pius XI’s encyclical ‘Mortalium Animos’ condemn ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue?
Click to expand...
No. It does condemn relativism. It also sets disciplinary rules, and disciplinary rules are subject to change and or repeal.

Did you find this document on your own, or did someone else refer you to it?
 
otjm said:
No. It does condemn relativism. It also sets disciplinary rules, and disciplinary rules are subject to change and or repeal.

Did you find this document on your own, or did someone else refer you to it?
Click to expand...
wow.
 
No. Read it yourself on the Vatican website. It does not “condemn ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue.”

Remember the situation in 1928 when the Church was much persecuted in the Protestant countries. Pius XI was criticizing liberal protestant groups like the World Council of Churches.
 
otjm said:
No. It does condemn relativism. It also sets disciplinary rules, and disciplinary rules are subject to change and or repeal.

Did you find this document on your own, or did someone else refer you to it?
Click to expand...
A Traditionalist brought it up to prove that “Catholics are the only ones going to heaven and that if you’re not a baptized Catholic, you’re going to hell.”
 
Catholic4Jesus said:
A Traditionalist brought it up to prove that “Catholics are the only ones going to heaven and that if you’re not a baptized Catholic, you’re going to hell.”
Click to expand...
I would think (at least initially) that a true Traditionalist would understand some basics that were in place before Vatican 2.
  1. The Holy spirit guides the Church and protects it from errors when it speaks of faith and morals.
  2. The pope lead the bishops in the Vatican 2 Council, and the documents while not announcing any new doctrine, spoke about faith and morals.
  3. No Pope has ever had the authority to bind the next Pope on matters of discipline.
As I noted, “initially”.

I was an altar boy while Pope Pius 12th was alive; we all learned that well before Vatican 2 occurred. That is why I continue to be baffled by all the self-anointed (pseudo) theologians running around trying to find some contradiction between Vatican 2 documents and prior documents.

Or maybe I missed something - perhaps all these who do so learned their faith after Vatican 2, and like the liberals, have constructed a theology of their own making with its own set of rules. Sorry, I am being harsh. I am just frustrated by how many people want so badly to find that the documents of Vatican 2 are somehow a break with the past. Has anybody been listening to Benedict 16 (and John Paul 2) when they have said, repeatedly, that the documents of Vatican 2 need to be read with the hermeneutic of continuity with the history of the Church?

Maybe it is the word “hermeneutic”…😊🤷
 
By the way, Father Feeney was excommunicated in 1953, if I recall; a tad bit before Vatican 2 was even an idea. So the strict interpretation that the Traditionalist proposed was asked and answered before Vatican 2. Either Pius 12th was wrong, or the Traditionalist doesn’t know much about doctrine as the Church defines it, and has well before Vatican 2.

And if we want to go down the path that Pius was wrong, we are wandering into the la la land of the sede’s. Not a good place to go, if one values one’s faith.

There are Traditionalists who highly appreciate the EF, and the form of the sacraments before Vatican 2, and the liturgical and para liturgical practices then.

And then there are those who deny church doctrines and style themselves as Traditionalists.

There is a marked difference between substance and style.
 
otjm said:
By the way, Father Feeney was excommunicated in 1953, if I recall; a tad bit before Vatican 2 was even an idea. So the strict interpretation that the Traditionalist proposed was asked and answered before Vatican 2. Either Pius 12th was wrong, or the Traditionalist doesn’t know much about doctrine as the Church defines it, and has well before Vatican 2.

And if we want to go down the path that Pius was wrong, we are wandering into the la la land of the sede’s. Not a good place to go, if one values one’s faith.

There are Traditionalists who highly appreciate the EF, and the form of the sacraments before Vatican 2, and the liturgical and para liturgical practices then.

And then there are those who deny church doctrines and style themselves as Traditionalists.

There is a marked difference between substance and style.
Click to expand...
What does Fr Feeney have to do with the thread? The question of the OP seems to be about Mortalium animos and V2 documents on ecumenism (probably with Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redingratio in mind). The answer is, yes, they can be reconciled.

The Fr Feeney controversy was never over ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue; it was over baptism by blood and baptism by desire. The Church has always taught that both are possible means of salvation. Mortalium animos does not speak about either of these teachings anywhere in the text, and thus the mention of Fr Feeney is irrelevant here.
 
IesumPerMariam said:
What does Fr Feeney have to do with the thread? The question of the OP seems to be about Mortalium animos and V2 documents on ecumenism (probably with Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redingratio in mind). The answer is, yes, they can be reconciled.

The Fr Feeney controversy was never over ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue; it was over baptism by blood and baptism by desire. The Church has always taught that both are possible means of salvation. Mortalium animos does not speak about either of these teachings anywhere in the text, and thus the mention of Fr Feeney is irrelevant here.
Click to expand...
Read post 6.
 
Until the advent of the internet very few Catholics could find, much less read the Encyclicals from previous Popes. Most Catechisms prior to the CCC were of the question/answer type and did not use references to Church Documents to expound on Doctrine and Tradition. Now we have several generations of both cradle Catholics and converts who are delving into the history of the faith and the teachings of the Church Fathers and the Popes through history. Some have received a rather poor Catechesis and are attempting to self-educate. This can be a very confusing enterprise if one does not understand the function and legal binding of an Encyclical on the Church and the Faithful. Add to that those who wish to use cut-and-paste to prove whatever point they wish to make and it becomes clear how confusing this can become to one who is attempting to learn the history of their Faith.
Charity in response to those questioning why one Encyclical or Council states a position which seems to be in contradiction to a newer Encyclical or Council is paramount. I would urge those who respond to questions such as the OP to be tactful and explanatory as opposed to going into a defense mode. Educate with Charity, while understanding that the questioner may have a limited knowledge of the functions of the documents in question.
 
Pulvis said:
Until the advent of the internet very few Catholics could find, much less read the Encyclicals from previous Popes. Most Catechisms prior to the CCC were of the question/answer type and did not use references to Church Documents to expound on Doctrine and Tradition. Now we have several generations of both cradle Catholics and converts who are delving into the history of the faith and the teachings of the Church Fathers and the Popes through history. Some have received a rather poor Catechesis and are attempting to self-educate. This can be a very confusing enterprise if one does not understand the function and legal binding of an Encyclical on the Church and the Faithful. Add to that those who wish to use cut-and-paste to prove whatever point they wish to make and it becomes clear how confusing this can become to one who is attempting to learn the history of their Faith.
Charity in response to those questioning why one Encyclical or Council states a position which seems to be in contradiction to a newer Encyclical or Council is paramount. I would urge those who respond to questions such as the OP to be tactful and explanatory as opposed to going into a defense mode. Educate with Charity, while understanding that the questioner may have a limited knowledge of the functions of the documents in question.
Click to expand...
I am a convert and appreciate being directed to TRUTH if for no other reason than I’m tired of having my mind messed with. I have tried to struggle my way through some of the Documents and come away confused.😊
 
Pulvis said:
Until the advent of the internet very few Catholics could find, much less read the Encyclicals from previous Popes. Most Catechisms prior to the CCC were of the question/answer type and did not use references to Church Documents to expound on Doctrine and Tradition. Now we have several generations of both cradle Catholics and converts who are delving into the history of the faith and the teachings of the Church Fathers and the Popes through history. Some have received a rather poor Catechesis and are attempting to self-educate. This can be a very confusing enterprise if one does not understand the function and legal binding of an Encyclical on the Church and the Faithful. Add to that those who wish to use cut-and-paste to prove whatever point they wish to make and it becomes clear how confusing this can become to one who is attempting to learn the history of their Faith.
Charity in response to those questioning why one Encyclical or Council states a position which seems to be in contradiction to a newer Encyclical or Council is paramount. I would urge those who respond to questions such as the OP to be tactful and explanatory as opposed to going into a defense mode. Educate with Charity, while understanding that the questioner may have a limited knowledge of the functions of the documents in question.
Click to expand...
I am not sure if you are directing this to me or not. I felt that I was giving a straight-up answer although it was rather short.

My next answer (as the OP indicated, as I suspected, that they were receiving some false information from a third party) was not directed to the OP so much as to the individual who was horsing the OP around. Thus my next post concerning the overly strict interpretation of Fr. Feeney. If that was not obvious, then perhaps I was too subtle. I wrote with the intent of charity. I do not, however, have much patience with those, like the person who spoke to the OP, who do not follow what the Church teaches (as opposed to someone - priest, bishop, theologian, or laity who will not accept the Church teachings).

You are correct that it can be very confusing to read one document, then another and not feel that they may be contradicting something. It helps at the very beginning to understand what while the documents are available to the faithful, they are written primarily for the bishops, who in turn are to see to the instruction of their priests; and for theologians who are involved in the area under consideration. That does not mean they may not be worthwhile to the faithful; but often it is much better to read them under the guidance of someone who is a) faithful to the Church and b) trained in theology somewhat farther than few classes in college (if that).
 
It helps at the very beginning to understand what while the documents are available to the faithful, they are written primarily for the bishops, who in turn are to see to the instruction of their priests; and for theologians who are involved in the area under consideration. That does not mean they may not be worthwhile to the faithful; but often it is much better to read them under the guidance of someone who is a) faithful to the Church and b) trained in theology somewhat farther than few classes in college (if that).
Click to expand...
I believe that Brother Jay said the same thing.

Also, I can’t seem to find your other post on another thread that was directed at what I had posted in which you mentioned “critical thinking.” Lack of critical thinking has led quite a few Catholics down the wrong road, myself included. :o
 
Lormar said:
I believe that Brother Jay said the same thing.

Also, I can’t seem to find your other post on another thread that was directed at what I had posted in which you mentioned “critical thinking.” Lack of critical thinking has led quite a few Catholics down the wrong road, myself included. :o
Click to expand...
I don’t recall exactly where, but yes, I have said that. It may be a bit unfair, as I have both a degree in philosophy and in law, and they have both forced me to look at issues from more than one perspective.

But as a child, years and years ago, I was taught that the Holy spirit guides the Church. It truly amazes me the knots people get themselves tied up in, when that simple line should put matters to rest.

“Hmmm… I don’t understand it. But the Holy Spirit guides the Church, so it must be my (lack of) understanding of the documents that is causing the problem here; perhaps I should ask someone loyal to the Church and trained in this to help me”.

We had a phrase in law: he who represents himself has a fool for a client. I also learned that the vast majority of people don’t really understand much of law, and likewise not a few attorneys - that is why we have judges (and I could say something about a couple of them, too). and that is not to say that I understand it; rather, I approach it as if I don’t understand it. But if I don’t understand it, I don’t ask the opinion of someone who was never trained in it for an answer.

I am not saying that anyone should not ask questions; what I am saying is they should be very careful who they ask for help.
 
otjm said:
Read post 6.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But what is written in post 6 is technically true, assuming it includes the possibilities of baptism by blood and baptism by desire within the realm of “baptised Catholics.” Fr Feeney, on the other hand, would have said “if you’re not a baptized Catholic, you’re going to hell, and only baptism by water is valid.”

Yes, it is absolutely true that all salvation comes through the Church, and thus the Church has dogmatically proclaimed: extra ecclesiam nulla salus (“outside the Church there is no salvation”) – cf. Fourth Council of the Lateran, Canon 1. But it is also absolutely true that one can be within the realm of the Church on account of desire or martyrdom without having “formally” entered the Church by the traditional water-baptism. They are two very different discussions.
 
IesumPerMariam said:
Fair enough. But what is written in post 6 is technically true, assuming it includes the possibilities of baptism by blood and baptism by desire within the realm of “baptised Catholics.” Fr Feeney, on the other hand, would have said “if you’re not a baptized Catholic, you’re going to hell, and only baptism by water is valid.”

Yes, it is absolutely true that all salvation comes through the Church, and thus the Church has dogmatically proclaimed: extra ecclesiam nulla salus (“outside the Church there is no salvation”) – cf. Fourth Council of the Lateran, Canon 1. But it is also absolutely true that one can be within the realm of the Church on account of desire or martyrdom without having “formally” entered the Church by the traditional water-baptism. They are two very different discussions.
Click to expand...
You and I do not disagree. My response was because the OP was being tackled by someone who was trying to show that ecumenism goes against prior Church teaching.

That’s all.
 
A pamphlet of the encyclical published by the Catholic Truth Society contains some interesting introductory remarks by the Archbishop of Westminster, Francis Cardinal Bourne.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top