Unitatis Redintegratio-In light of tradition?

[T_More]

The holy father has stated on a few occasions that the documents of Vatican II must be read in light of tradition (hermneutic of continuity). What is the proper way for Catholics to apply this in regards to:

UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

CHAPTER II

THE PRACTICE OF ECUMENISM

1. In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers “for unity,” and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren.

By comparison, in the past, councils, popes and a doctor of the church have stated this in regards to the subject:

No one must either pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: Let him be excommunicated. Council of Carthage

If any clergyman or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meetings of heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of Communion. III Council of Constantinople

• That the faithful and clergy should pray for Christian unity under the leadership of heretics can in no way be tolerated. Ven. Pope Pius IX*

*Is it permitted for Catholics to be present at, or take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement all who in any way lay claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! It is clear, therefore, why this Apostolic See **has never allowed its subjects **to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is only one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from her. Pope Pius XI *

*No one shall pray in common with heretics or schismatics. Council of Laodicea *

*God will have the Paraclete only in those who worship Him in perfect Faith. St. Cyril of Alexandria *

 

[JReducation]

The holy father has stated on a few occasions that the documents of Vatican II must be read in light of tradition (hermneutic of continuity). What is the proper way for Catholics to apply this in regards to:

UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

CHAPTER II

THE PRACTICE OF ECUMENISM

1. In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers “for unity,” and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren.

By comparison, in the past, councils, popes and a doctor of the church have stated this in regards to the subject:

No one must either pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: Let him be excommunicated. Council of Carthage

If any clergyman or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meetings of heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of Communion. III Council of Constantinople

• That the faithful and clergy should pray for Christian unity under the leadership of heretics can in no way be tolerated. Ven. Pope Pius IX*

*Is it permitted for Catholics to be present at, or take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement all who in any way lay claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! It is clear, therefore, why this Apostolic See **has never allowed its subjects ***to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is only one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from her. Pope Pius XI

*No one shall pray in common with heretics or schismatics. Council of Laodicea *

*God will have the Paraclete only in those who worship Him in perfect Faith. St. Cyril of Alexandria *

Slow down here, because you have several things happening.

First, we must read this document in the light of tradition.

Second, if we go back and look at all of these statements, they are laws, not doctrines. In light of tradition, laws are binding until the pope, who has the authority to bind and unbind does one or the other.

Third, Canon Law has changed. When these statements were made, Protestants were considered to be heretics. Canon Law no longer applies the term heretic to Protestants. It only applies to Catholics who engage in heresy. If were to embrace Methodism, I would be a heretic. Why? Because I’m a Catholic. If I were born into Methodism I would not be a heretic. Why not? Because I was never a Catholic.

Fourth, the Church makes an important distinction between praying with Christians of other faiths and embracing erroneous doctrines. Prayer is never in error. If five Christians from five different Christian traditions gather to pray the Lord’s Prayer: Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican and Pentecostal, it is still the Lord’s Prayer and it is error free. The law cannot be applied here.

If we look at these four points alone and there are more, there is no break with tradition.

Tradition:

1. The Church can make any law that is necessary for the salvation of souls.

Tradition:

1. The law can be applied to everyone or to some.

Tradition:

1. The law must respond to a situation that is current, such as the Protestant Reformation.

Tradition:

1. The law must be as flexible as possible in favor of the individual and as rigid as possible in defining. The definition of heretic has to be very rigid. The Church has reduceed it to Catholics only. The Code of Canon Law starts out by saying that the law only applies to Latin Catholics. It doesn’t even apply to Eastern Catholics. It’s in the Code of Canon Law where one finds the term heretic. The law is being very narrow in its use of the word heretic. This was also the case when it was used in the past. The term was not used to identify those who had never been Catholic.

Tradition:

1. No law, no pope, no council, no saint, no miracle, no doctor of the Church, no interpretation of scripture other than that which is infallible, can bind a pope. This was established in the Church during the papacy of St. Boniface. Tradition allows for the current Magisterium to rework these laws. They what binds us is what is law today, not what was law yesterday.

Tradition:

1. There is a difference between church law and revealed law. Revealed law is found only in divinely revealed natural law, the Magisterium when it states that the law has been revealed, and in scripture, but only according to the interpretation of the Magisterium, not personal interpretation. The Church has never said that any of these positions regarding non Catholics are divinely revealed. Just as it never said that the Feast of the Immaculate Conception is a Holy Day of obligation, because it’s divinely revealed. In the USA, it’s a holiday of obligation and a mortal sin to miss mass. In Franciscan houses around the world, it’s a holy day of obligation and a mortal sin to miss mass. In the rest of the world, it’s not a holy day of obligation. Traditionally, laws can be binding to the point that if we do not comply we commit mortal sin and we can even be excommunicated. But that is the Church making that choice. Since the Church made the choice, the Church also has the authority to revise it.

 

[JReducation]

This is what the Holy Father means when he speaks of reading these documents in light of tradition. One has to see where previous documents came from and whether they are divinely revealed or Church disciplines. The only place to find out is by going back and looking at tradition. One also has to go back into tradition and see what it is that popes have the authority to change and what is off limits even to the pope.

Praying with non Catholics is not divinely revealed. Therefore, revising the rules is not off limits to the pope or to a council. The council is acting according to tradition, since it is part of Catholic tradition that many councils make laws, revise laws and abrogate laws. That is one of the many areas that a council can address.

Reading the documents in light of a hermaneutic of continuity is a fascinating task. The problem is that to do so, one must think like Joseph Ratzinger. Hermaneutic of continuity is his term. He defined it. If one does not know how he defines it or how he describes it, one can get caught in a web that only makes life more confusing.

I had the benefit and privilege of taking a course with him on Theology of History, many many years ago. In his work on Theology of History is where he coins “hermaneutic of continuity”. He derives it from Bonaventure who taught that the Church could change, while the faith remained constant. He went into many of these points about disciplines, laws and even variations in theology such as the differences between Eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics. We are equally Catholic and part of the same Catholic Church; however, we DO NOT have identical theology. We disagree on some key points. Bonventure points out that agreement is not always necessary, because disagreement is part of tradition.

Fraternally,

Br JR, FFV

 

[missadeangelis]

This is what the Holy Father means when he speaks of reading these documents in light of tradition. One has to see where previous documents came from and whether they are divinely revealed or Church disciplines. The only place to find out is by going back and looking at tradition. One also has to go back into tradition and see what it is that popes have the authority to change and what is off limits even to the pope.

Praying with non Catholics is not divinely revealed. Therefore, revising the rules is not off limits to the pope or to a council. The council is acting according to tradition, since it is part of Catholic tradition that many councils make laws, revise laws and abrogate laws. That is one of the many areas that a council can address.

Reading the documents in light of a hermaneutic of continuity is a fascinating task. The problem is that to do so, one must think like Joseph Ratzinger. Hermaneutic of continuity is his term. He defined it. If one does not know how he defines it or how he describes it, one can get caught in a web that only makes life more confusing.

I had the benefit and privilege of taking a course with him on Theology of History, many many years ago. In his work on Theology of History is where he coins “hermaneutic of continuity”. He derives it from Bonaventure who taught that the Church could change, while the faith remained constant. He went into many of these points about disciplines, laws and even variations in theology such as the differences between Eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics. We are equally Catholic and part of the same Catholic Church; however, we DO NOT have identical theology. We disagree on some key points. Bonventure points out that agreement is not always necessary, because disagreement is part of tradition.

Fraternally,

Br JR, FFV

So how about non-Catholic assemblies as quoted in the OP?

“… agreement is not always necessary, because disagreement is part of tradition.” Is that a direct quote from St. Bonaventure?

mda

 

[mgsk]

When these statements were made, Protestants were considered to be heretics. Canon Law no longer applies the term heretic to Protestants. It only applies to Catholics who engage in heresy. If were to embrace Methodism, I would be a heretic. Why? Because I’m a Catholic. If I were born into Methodism I would not be a heretic. Why not? Because I was never a Catholic.

This seems to be a specious distinction. The one baptism which we all confess incorporates us into Christ’s Mystical Body, the Catholic Church. We can begin to make some sort of material distinction once the baptized individual gives assent to Protestant beliefs (at least the heretical components), but we all receive the same indelible mark on our souls. That’s why we can be morally certain that a baptized Methodist child who (God forbid) dies before the age of reason will go to Heaven - we know that he was brought into the One True Church by his valid baptism.

I don’t deny that the terms are currently being used differently, but that doesn’t really change the nature of the situation.

 

[poche]

Those were matters of discipline, not divine law. We can pray with our seperated bretheren in some circumstances now.

 

[JReducation]

This seems to be a specious distinction. The one baptism which we all confess incorporates us into Christ’s Mystical Body, the Catholic Church. We can begin to make some sort of material distinction once the baptized individual gives assent to Protestant beliefs (at least the heretical components), but we all receive the same indelible mark on our souls. That’s why we can be morally certain that a baptized Methodist child who (God forbid) dies before the age of reason will go to Heaven - we know that he was brought into the One True Church by his valid baptism.

I don’t deny that the terms are currently being used differently, but that doesn’t really change the nature of the situation.

Church law and revealed dogma are not always the same. In this case, the dogma of one baptism, does not imply that every baptized Christian is a member of the Catholic Church. Every baptized Christian is a member of the Christian Church. The fulness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church. However, not every Christian is a Catholic.

Therefore, the Church does not apply her laws to non-Catholic Christians. She has no authority do to so.

As Pope Benedict XVI said when he visited Luther’s home. We must understand Protestantism, not as a form of heresy, but as a faith tradition that’s a complicated branch of Christianity. It’s too easy to retain the early definitions of heretics and Catholics. But those definitions don’t work because those people are dead. Their ancestors and our ancestors are here and now.

We’re Catholic and they’re Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, etc. The Church no longer uses the term Protestant, because the Protestant Reformation is over. The Church uses a more descriptive term, other Christian ecclesial communities. This describes exactly what they are. They are other. They are ecclesial and they are communities.

In their faith tradition there are errors, which if subscribed to by a Catholic would be heresy. But that’s because the term heresy is allowed to be applied to Catholics. It’s not allowed to be applied to non-Catholics. The first law in the Latin Code of Canon Law limits the content of that code to Latin Catholics. It does not even apply that code of Law to other Catholics. Each Catholic Church uses either the Code of Canon Law for the Oriental Churches or has its own code. As we can see, the Catholic Church has not a unified definition and application of certain terms even among Catholics. But one thing is common to all 23 Catholic churches, they only apply the term heretic to Catholics.

Heresy is any error that a Catholic embraces, which makes him a formal heretic.

Did the early Protestants embrace heresy? Yes. Were they formal heretics? Yes. Why? Because they were Catholics. Some of those beliefs were held by Jews and Muslims, but they were never branded as heretics.

We have to be very careful in our use of language to ensure that it properly describes the world, the Church and other people as the Church sees them today, not as she saw them 500 years ago. They were not the same people and the events were very different.

You may like reading this which just came out today. It’s a statement by Pope Benedict on ecumenism.
**
“we, believers in Christ, are called upon to return to the essential, to the heart of our faith, to bear witness to the living God before the world. … We must not forget what it is that unites us: our faith in God the Father and Creator, revealed in His Son Jesus Christ, effusing the Spirit which revives and sanctifies. This is the faith we received in Baptism and it is the faith that, in hope and charity, we can profess together.”**

vis.va/vissolr/index.php?vi=all&dl=3537c2f7-47ce-9ed4-6721-50a4e8eb5794&dl_t=text/xml&dl_a=y&ul=1&ev=1

This, along with the fact that that pope has already said that the Council documents must be accepted in their entirety along with the CCC, set the compass for our interaction and our attitudes toward non-Catholic faith traditions. We have to change our attitudes, even if they continue to stick to their own. At the end of the day, it’s as St. Francis said to our brothers. When we die, God will look at our hearts, not our achievements and much less at now our neighbor treated us. That’s for our neighbor to deal with.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Eufrosnia]

Slow down here, because you have several things happening.

First, we must read this document in the light of tradition.

Second, if we go back and look at all of these statements, they are laws, not doctrines. In light of tradition, laws are binding until the pope, who has the authority to bind and unbind does one or the other.

Third, Canon Law has changed. When these statements were made, Protestants were considered to be heretics. Canon Law no longer applies the term heretic to Protestants. It only applies to Catholics who engage in heresy. If were to embrace Methodism, I would be a heretic. Why? Because I’m a Catholic. If I were born into Methodism I would not be a heretic. Why not? Because I was never a Catholic.

Fourth, the Church makes an important distinction between praying with Christians of other faiths and embracing erroneous doctrines. Prayer is never in error. If five Christians from five different Christian traditions gather to pray the Lord’s Prayer: Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican and Pentecostal, it is still the Lord’s Prayer and it is error free. The law cannot be applied here.

If we look at these four points alone and there are more, there is no break with tradition.

Tradition:

1. The Church can make any law that is necessary for the salvation of souls.

Tradition:

1. The law can be applied to everyone or to some.

Tradition:

1. The law must respond to a situation that is current, such as the Protestant Reformation.

Tradition:

1. The law must be as flexible as possible in favor of the individual and as rigid as possible in defining. The definition of heretic has to be very rigid. The Church has reduceed it to Catholics only. The Code of Canon Law starts out by saying that the law only applies to Latin Catholics. It doesn’t even apply to Eastern Catholics. It’s in the Code of Canon Law where one finds the term heretic. The law is being very narrow in its use of the word heretic. This was also the case when it was used in the past. The term was not used to identify those who had never been Catholic.

Tradition:

1. No law, no pope, no council, no saint, no miracle, no doctor of the Church, no interpretation of scripture other than that which is infallible, can bind a pope. This was established in the Church during the papacy of St. Boniface. Tradition allows for the current Magisterium to rework these laws. They what binds us is what is law today, not what was law yesterday.

Tradition:

1. There is a difference between church law and revealed law. Revealed law is found only in divinely revealed natural law, the Magisterium when it states that the law has been revealed, and in scripture, but only according to the interpretation of the Magisterium, not personal interpretation. The Church has never said that any of these positions regarding non Catholics are divinely revealed. Just as it never said that the Feast of the Immaculate Conception is a Holy Day of obligation, because it’s divinely revealed. In the USA, it’s a holiday of obligation and a mortal sin to miss mass. In Franciscan houses around the world, it’s a holy day of obligation and a mortal sin to miss mass. In the rest of the world, it’s not a holy day of obligation. Traditionally, laws can be binding to the point that if we do not comply we commit mortal sin and we can even be excommunicated. But that is the Church making that choice. Since the Church made the choice, the Church also has the authority to revise it.

I have always had this variation of the question asked from me.

Can one disagree with the current Church position based on prudence and conscience in the matter of ecumenism?

So to clarify, the statement of Vatican II is as follows as quoted in the OP

“In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers “for unity,” and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren.”

Could one disagree on the grounds that such special circumstances cannot be carried out?

To explain why I am sympathetic to this question, I know that in my parish, 90% of the parishioners have faith maturity equal to a five year old child. Looking around my diocese, this is not much different. My parish priest is also not the most well informed and makes many doctrinal errors in statements he makes during homilies as well as during other events. He also discourages traditional Catholic devotions (devotions to saints or the blessed mother and instead emphasizes them as only worthy of imitation) in order to better facilitate ecumenism.

In such a setting, I have come to question whether Ecumenical work is even possible. Most faithful think that all roads lead to salvation. They do not see anything wrong with promoting either version of Christianity. They do not see the errors of these faiths as any obstacle to attaining salvation. The importance of the sacraments too are marginalized (you can see how it automatically follows). Some do not even know what the errors are. To me it is as clear as day that in such a scenario, ecumenical work at the laity level should at least be halted till Catholics have been properly catechized. After all, ecumenical work is meant to lead to discussion. This just leads to indifference.

So in such a background, am I justified in opposing any ecumenical work that involves the laity based on the grounds of prudence and conscience with respect to not leading my sisters and brothers to error?

 

[JReducation]

I have always had this variation of the question asked from me.

Can one disagree with the current Church position based on prudence and conscience in the matter of ecumenism?

So to clarify, the statement of Vatican II is as follows as quoted in the OP

“In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers “for unity,” and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren.”

Could one disagree on the grounds that such special circumstances cannot be carried out?

To explain why I am sympathetic to this question, I know that in my parish, 90% of the parishioners have faith maturity equal to a five year old child. Looking around my diocese, this is not much different. My parish priest is also not the most well informed and makes many doctrinal errors in statements he makes during homilies as well as during other events. He also discourages traditional Catholic devotions (devotions to saints or the blessed mother and instead emphasizes them as only worthy of imitation) in order to better facilitate ecumenism.

In such a setting, I have come to question whether Ecumenical work is even possible. Most faithful think that all roads lead to salvation. They do not see anything wrong with promoting either version of Christianity. They do not see the errors of these faiths as any obstacle to attaining salvation. The importance of the sacraments too are marginalized (you can see how it automatically follows). Some do not even know what the errors are. To me it is as clear as day that in such a scenario, ecumenical work at the laity level should at least be halted till Catholics have been properly catechized. After all, ecumenical work is meant to lead to discussion. This just leads to indifference.

So in such a background, am I justified in opposing any ecumenical work that involves the laity based on the grounds of prudence and conscience with respect to not leading my sisters and brothers to error?

The simple answer is that ecumenism is neither a dogma nor a moral law. It’s a program toward the unification of all Christians. Therefore, it would be safe to say that one will participate in this and not that.

If the bishop or the pope orders it, then it is no longer an option. One is bound to obey legitimate authority. The authority comes from the office, not from the subject matter, unless one is ordered to violate the commandments.

As to how much faith formation Catholics have or need, were I in your position, I would suspend that kind of judgment. If you’re in a position where you’re part of the parish’s faith formation team or the diocesan faith formation team, then you have every right to make this assessment. How else can you help, if you don’t assess first. To make this kind of assessment for no reason at all can be very dangerous. It can lead to spiritual pride. You don’t want to go there. Spiritual pride is much more dangerous than poor faith formation. I always stay clear of these kinds of judgment, when I don’t have to make them. I pretend that I saw nothing.

Another suggestion that I can make is that you read what the Holy Father said this morning about Ecumenism. He’s not letting the laity off the hook, with or without good faith formation. Obviously, putting ecumenism on hold is not in the stars for this papacy.
**
"In this context, we believe in Christ are asked to return to the essentials, to the heart of our faith, to make both witness to the world of the living God (…) We must not forget what unites us, that is, faith in God, Father and Creator, who revealed himself in his Son Jesus Christ, pouring out the Spirit who gives life and holiness. This is the faith that we have received Baptism and faith, hope and charity, together we profess. "**
vis.va/vissolr/index.php?vi=all&dl=86405088-d967-dca0-45fb-50a4e9cce780&dl_t=text/xml&dl_a=y&ul=1&ev=1

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Eufrosnia]

The simple answer is that ecumenism is neither a dogma nor a moral law. It’s a program toward the unification of all Christians. Therefore, it would be safe to say that one will participate in this and not that.

If the bishop or the pope orders it, then it is no longer an option. One is bound to obey legitimate authority. The authority comes from the office, not from the subject matter, unless one is ordered to violate the commandments.

As to how much faith formation Catholics have or need, were I in your position, I would suspend that kind of judgment. If you’re in a position where you’re part of the parish’s faith formation team or the diocesan faith formation team, then you have every right to make this assessment. How else can you help, if you don’t assess first. To make this kind of assessment for no reason at all can be very dangerous. It can lead to spiritual pride. You don’t want to go there. Spiritual pride is much more dangerous than poor faith formation. I always stay clear of these kinds of judgment, when I don’t have to make them. I pretend that I saw nothing.

Another suggestion that I can make is that you read what the Holy Father said this morning about Ecumenism. He’s not letting the laity off the hook, with or without good faith formation. Obviously, putting ecumenism on hold is not in the stars for this papacy.
**
"In this context, we believe in Christ are asked to return to the essentials, to the heart of our faith, to make both witness to the world of the living God (…) We must not forget what unites us, that is, faith in God, Father and Creator, who revealed himself in his Son Jesus Christ, pouring out the Spirit who gives life and holiness. This is the faith that we have received Baptism and faith, hope and charity, together we profess. "**
vis.va/vissolr/index.php?vi=all&dl=86405088-d967-dca0-45fb-50a4e9cce780&dl_t=text/xml&dl_a=y&ul=1&ev=1

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I understand what you mean. Good advise Brother on pride.

The thing is, I am not part of the faith formation team. I only raised the point about spiritual maturity because it is somewhat true. If I ever raise an objection on something that is very much part of common sense within communities I have lived in other parts of the world, I get people who see things intuitively. But in my parish, people just do not care.

They do not see any church doctrine as binding. Rather, they see all of it as up for discussion. My priest rarely comments about sin. He avoids it altogether. I attend mass daily other than on Saturdays and he has never spoken outright against any sin or even mentioned anything as sin. It is always about love, peace and ignoring differences.

I do not know what to say other than it is frustrating. I live a life where I am tempted to sin most of the time. Sometimes after listening to the homily, I feel like what is the point of even struggling. I sometimes feel like walking up to my parish priest and telling him privately after mass how I feel. But why would he even listen. There is no enthusiasm regarding the faith. No one cares if its error anymore. Then when it comes to issues of ecumenism, I hear things like we are all the same. Or there are no differences. I have seen those who leave the church because the music service in the Protestant church down the road is better or they allow gay marriage. No one objects. No one cares.

There just seems to be zero exercise of prudence. No prevention.

I know all of this might sound like pride. But honestly, it is frustrating. I am imperfect. I want others who are willing to run the race together, helping each other out. Right now, I feel like I am running out of partners to run the race with. That is a very scary feeling for me

 

[Sirach2]

Eufrosnia:

But in my parish, people just do not care.

They do not see any church doctrine as binding. Rather, they see all of it as up for discussion. My priest rarely comments about sin. He avoids it altogether. I attend mass daily other than on Saturdays and he has never spoken outright against any sin or even mentioned anything as sin. It is always about love, peace and ignoring differences.

I do not know what to say other than it is frustrating.

Dear friend in Christ,

It pains me a little to bring this to your attention, but I speak in love and pray you will discern my true heart in this matter. St. Teresa of Avila, to whom I am devoted by my vocation, had this to say in her Life, Chapter XIII, Section 14:
14. There is another temptation—we ought to be aware of it, and be cautious in our conduct: persons are carried away by a zeal for virtue, through the pain which the sight of the sins and failings of others occasions them.

Satan tells them that this pain arises only out of their desire that God may not be offended, and out of their anxiety about His honour; so they immediately seek to remedy the evil. This so disturbs them, that they cannot pray. The greatest evil of all is their thinking this an act of virtue, of perfection, and of a great zeal for God. I am not speaking of the pain which public sins occasion, if they be habitual in any community, nor of wrongs done to the Church, nor of heresies by which so many souls are visibly lost; for this pain is most wholesome, and being wholesome is no source of disquiet. The security, therefore, of that soul which would apply itself to prayer lies in casting away from itself all anxiety about persons and things, in taking care of itself, and in pleasing God. This is the most profitable course.

1. If I were to speak of the mistakes which I have seen people make, in reliance on their own good intentions, I should never come to an end. Let us labour, therefore, always to consider the virtues and the good qualities which we discern in others, and with our own great sins cover our eyes, so that we may see none of their failings. This is one way of doing our work; and though we may not be perfect in it at once, we shall acquire one great virtue—we shall look upon all men as better than ourselves; and we begin to acquire that virtue in this way, by the grace of God, which is necessary in all things—for when we have it not, all our endeavours are in vain—and by imploring Him to give us this virtue; for He never fails us, if we do what we can.
   Brother JR has spoken to you of his concern earlier, and I picked up the same sense that you may be dealing with temptation. Be assured, I struggle also, and am not speaking as one who is entirely free from this temptation — maybe that’s why I recognize it.

May God give you His peace and help you to keep your eyes solely on Him.

 

[T_More]

Those were matters of discipline, not divine law. We can pray with our seperated bretheren in some circumstances now.

So when a ecumenical council threatens excommunication, this is merely a discipline?

 

[JReducation]

So when a ecumenical council threatens excommunication, this is merely a discipline?

Excommunication is always a discipline. Canon Law defines it as a medicinal act. A council can attach the penalty of excommunication to anything that it deems requires such severe action. However, the excommunication itself is not a dogmatic statement. It’s a disciplinary statement. The Church looks at certain acts and logically concludes that the natural result of an act is excommunication.

In every case, excommunication is the consequence of an action. Consequences are part of discipline. Discipline is not merely rules and canons. It also includes consequences, protocols and systems.

We have to go gently to avoid defining discipline so narrowly that everything becomes dogmatic. That’s not how good theology is done. That was one of the problems with the “new school” of theology of the 1960s to 80s. Everything that was said about the divine was interpreted as doctrine, because discipline had been defined so narrowly, that there was no other place to put certain statements. Of course, if you make an erroneous statement and try to shove it into the doctrinal cubicle, it does not work.

However, if you define discipline as the classics define it, then one finds that it covers many areas, within these areas we find the discipline of theology. Always keep in mind, that theology is not always error free. It is man’s attempt to understand truth. Man’s ability to achieve his goal is often limited by his humanity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[T_More]

Excommunication is always a discipline. Canon Law defines it as a medicinal act. A council can attach the penalty of excommunication to anything that it deems requires such severe action. However, the excommunication itself is not a dogmatic statement. It’s a disciplinary statement. The Church looks at certain acts and logically concludes that the natural result of an act is excommunication.

In every case, excommunication is the consequence of an action. Consequences are part of discipline. Discipline is not merely rules and canons. It also includes consequences, protocols and systems.

We have to go gently to avoid defining discipline so narrowly that everything becomes dogmatic. That’s not how good theology is done. That was one of the problems with the “new school” of theology of the 1960s to 80s. Everything that was said about the divine was interpreted as doctrine, because discipline had been defined so narrowly, that there was no other place to put certain statements. Of course, if you make an erroneous statement and try to shove it into the doctrinal cubicle, it does not work.

However, if you define discipline as the classics define it, then one finds that it covers many areas, within these areas we find the discipline of theology. Always keep in mind, that theology is not always error free. It is man’s attempt to understand truth. Man’s ability to achieve his goal is often limited by his humanity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I’m afraid I cannot see how this applies overall to the time immemorial “discipline” of not praying with non-believers. The fruits of this cannot possibly coincide with the intended effect, if in fact the intentions were to “gain” the non believers, or to enrich us (do we have the “fullness” or not?). We have more confusion inside and outside the Church as ever before in regards to the necessity of conversion to the Catholic Church by these types of interfaith prayer efforts.

How does false ecumenism which leaves error in place and does not demand reunion with the Church Christ founded and submission to its Authority and Dogma help reevangelize the world? It was just this kind of indifferentism that helped create the implosion of faith in the first place. There was one Church formed by Christ. That Church exists and is entirely contained solely within the Catholic Church under the Chair of Peter. Then, heretics split off. It is incumbent, then, on the heretics, to humbly repent of their errors and return to the Seat of Unity, Christ’s Church.

The only real ecumenism involves submission and conversion to the Catholic Church. It means professing total religious assent to the fact that the Church Jesus Christ founded resides solely and entirely within the Catholic Church, with its unbroken apostolic succession going back to St. Peter, and all the beliefs of Holy Mother Church. Praying with non Catholics implies that these other sects and ecclesial groups are essentially the equivalent of the Church, that their “fullness” in their community is a Gospel on a par with that of the Church.

The pre VII fathers of the Church knew the wisdom in not participating in these types of practices.

His Eminence Walter Cardinal Kasper: “Today, we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II“

It brings me great sadness seeing the present state of the Church. It makes it all the more painful seeing how much of it is self inflicted. Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.

 

[Melchior_1]

Can you please reconcile your perceived viewpoints on “pre-Vatican II” ecumenism with how Franciscans have prayed those of different faiths while they have had custody of the Holy Land for several centuries? And are you also saying that we should not pray with other Christians to end the holocaust of the modern day Holy Innocents?

Anyway, there’s a practical side of this happens when discussing things and being with Protestants, the systematic allows for us to look at things intellectually and objectively. We can see we have the full Truth, but can also see that there are elements of said Truth that they hold onto. Working from there, you can move from that point and gradually (and with charity) bridge from that one to another. Things like the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture. We all agree that Scripture is infallible and inspired by the Holy Spirit, but that can be bridged into talking about the first 300 years of the Church before the Canon was established. Things like that sow the seeds of conversion, without hitting people over the head.

The spiritual allows us to place water on those seeds. And with that water, they will want more to grow. This water includes prayer, and eventually you could even introduce some devotional practices. praying the Our Father with them opens all kinds of avenues. And open for them the way to Lectio Divina, which should appeal to them greatly.

When I was in college a decade ago, I met a girl, a year behind me. She was a Baptist, and I was smitten by her. We eventually started dating, but something was in the way; she didn’t think Catholics were Christian. We got into debates, many were heated. I tried and tried to prove her wrong, that Catholics were Christian. She had none of it. After three months she made me choose between her and Rome, and I chose Rome. At that point I told myself “this won’t be happening again. Not now, not ever”. I began reading Church history, apologetics, and resources online.

Due to being involved in the charismatic movement I’ve always had an affinity for Catholic spiritual theology. That’s one thing charismatic Catholics do incredibly well, is tap into that spiritual/mystical part of the Church. What this girl did, without me even knowing, made me go down the path of systematic theology. I began to blend the two together. As I matured I began to apply philosophy and psychology to my apologetics. Gradually, it became that I agreed with the Church on philosophical grounds primarily, with it just so happening that it theologically lined up with it. Objectively and intellectually speaking, the Church made perfect sense. The mystical aspect gave me insight and profound spiritual moments, and the systematic aspect gave me the logic, intelligence, and reason. I started helping out at a local Life Teen parish (nine years later I am still there, now the parish catechist). All of this leads up to what is arguably the most pivotal moment in my life…

I met another woman. Another Protestant woman. And again, I was smitten. But one issue; she had TERRIBLE experiences with Catholics in the past, and was pretty anti-Catholic. This time though, I was ready. I did not hit her over the head with things, I did not send her multitudes of information. I did not deny that there was at least some truth in her non-denominationalism, We believed in the core Christian values, which was a start. After talking with her and explaining the Catholic stance on Faith and Works, she found that she agreed with me. She started asking a few questions, and I answered. All the while she was church hopping. And each Christian church she went to, I went with her. We even went to the local “Catholic” church near her apartment, which did things like have people go up for communion and take the hosts themselves…with some of the hosts being leavened. And with the priest saying that the Transfiguration was an “altered state of reality”. I was furious of course, and she was appalled. I didn’t receive Communion there, it didn’t feel right. I didn’t receive communion in any of the churches we went to, unless we went to Mass (well, except that one Mass at that one church). We prayed together, and we kept on going. I was ready to marry her, she knew this. I knew this. What I also knew was that she did not believe in Sola Fide. What I DIDN’T know was that over the course of a couple of years she began second guessing Sola Scriptura based on her own research and some of the answers I gave to some of her questions. And a huge part was also how I lived my life. She saw how I carried myself, how I engaged other people about the Catholic faith. She saw and heard the work I was doing at Life Teen, and the work the program at the parish was doing in general. In me, she saw the systematic and the spiritual. She was intrigued, she pushed herself forward.

She eventually converted, with myself being her sponsor. We’re now married, and have a handsome son who turns two in a month.

My journey in Catholicism is by no means done (you can read more about this journey here). But I’ve seen the positive fruits ecumenism can offer. There are more with my story. I’m all for proper catechesis, however I also believe that there are tangible benefits to praying and seeing unity within other Christian faiths. Acknowledging they have some truths to them is one such steps.

 

[Sirach2]

What a beautiful witness, Melchoir! My first read today, and a most edifying post to begin this day prayerfully! Thank you.

 

[poche]

The way that this can be understood is that there has been a change in discipline and a change in strategy. The eucenism of the Catholic church has a goal. It is not, as some people think to say ‘i’m ok you’re ok’ and let it go at that. Rather it ihas the goal that “All may be one” Of course, that can only be realized when they all become Catholic. They are our seperated brothers, who in a sense are lost. Their true home, whether they realize it or not, is in the Catholic Church.

 

[Melchior_1]

Thank you Sirach.

I need to also add for a good chunk of the time I was dating my wife, I was going to Mass Sunday evening. I would be at my parish from 3:00pm - 11:00pm. I would go with her to her “Bible church” from 8:00am to 11:30am. It wasn’t until her church had to shut it’s doors due to lack of membership that she started church hopping. The entire time she was doing that I continued to go to Sunday evening Mass and assist with the youth program at my parish.

My Catholic faith did not suffer the least in attending her services with her. I got a wife and son out of the deal, so I’m not complaining.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I agree with Sirach2!
Awesome and thanks for sharing Melchior! :thumbsup:

 

[Eufrosnia]

Thank you Sirach.

I need to also add for a good chunk of the time I was dating my wife, I was going to Mass Sunday evening. I would be at my parish from 3:00pm - 11:00pm. I would go with her to her “Bible church” from 8:00am to 11:30am. It wasn’t until her church had to shut it’s doors due to lack of membership that she started church hopping. The entire time she was doing that I continued to go to Sunday evening Mass and assist with the youth program at my parish.

My Catholic faith did not suffer the least in attending her services with her. I got a wife and son out of the deal, so I’m not complaining.

I can see what you mean. But could not one contend that your case was very specific but in general does not work?

For an example, there could be a couple who came together because they shared the same bed in a chaste way for sometime. The marriage that was brought forth through this cohabitation would be truly amazing. But the means are still questionable on the grounds of prudence. No?

So I do not think that those who oppose ecumenical activity object that there can be no good result from it. I think the objection is rather that in general, it is misleading to the average Catholic.