UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO Revistied

[SojournerOnEarth]

Ok, I’m waving this around http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

I thought about doing a poll, but it might be viewed as obnoxious. My question is why how many Catholics around here in thread after thread and post after post seem to be totally ignorant of this? Is that really ok? What is going on? Or is it just my perception that you ignore it in favor of anti-Protestant slams?

This is the Vatican telling you how to do ecumenism. Or am I mistaken? Did you not know it exists?

There are some very knowledgeable Catholic posters who post in accordance with it, as far as I know. But then there are the others…

 

[AlNg]

In reading the document it says: “the Council hopes that the barrier dividing the Eastern Church and Western Church will be removed”. I don’t understand why the Catholic Church does not remove the filioque from the Nicene Creed and restore the creed to how it was said in both East and West before 700 A.D. Do you think that it would be too difficult to remove this barrier to reunion between East and West?

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

In reading the document it says: “the Council hopes that the barrier dividing the Eastern Church and Western Church will be removed”. I don’t understand why the Catholic Church does not remove the filioque from the Nicene Creed and restore the creed to how it was said in both East and West before 700 A.D. Do you think that it would be too difficult to remove this barrier to reunion between East and West?

I have no reason to speculate. Interesting question, though.

 

[Vico]

Ok, I’m waving this around http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

I thought about doing a poll, but it might be viewed as obnoxious. My question is why how many Catholics around here in thread after thread and post after post seem to be totally ignorant of this? Is that really ok? What is going on? Or is it just my perception that you ignore it in favor of anti-Protestant slams?

This is the Vatican telling you how to do ecumenism. Or am I mistaken? Did you not know it exists?

There are some very knowledgeable Catholic posters who post in accordance with it, as far as I know. But then there are the others…

Since the eastern Catholic canon law was published, there was another document produce on ecumenism, 1993, approved by St. Pope John Paul II:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...993_principles-and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html

Also, Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/eastinst.htm

 

[steve-b]

Ok, I’m waving this around http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
My question is why how many Catholics around here in thread after thread and post after post seem to be totally ignorant of this? Is that really ok? What is going on? Or is it just my perception that you ignore it in favor of anti-Protestant slams?

This is the Vatican telling you how to do ecumenism. Or am I mistaken? Did you not know it exists?

There are some very knowledgeable Catholic posters who post in accordance with it, as far as I know. But then there are the others…

One of the messages in that link and from Vat II council in particular, is education. For both sides. AND while those born into division can’t be held responsible for that division, that only is valid until they are no longer uninformed. Once they become knowledgeable of the truth, they need to correct their division immediately.

Q’s

1. Since 1964, the date of that document, what has happened in 53 years of efforts to reconcile division between the Orthodox and Protestants of all stripes with the Catholic Church? We’re still divided in spite of all the efforts
2. The closest to Catholics are the Orthodox. That discussion and effort to end that schism, has been going on for 1000 years.
3. the following categories, are all baptized individuals. [The Great Heresies | Catholic Answers] they all have one thing in common. They are heresies.

For discussion purposes, error needs to be identified and corrected. Does it pay dividends to not call things what they are, or ignore the obvious sin of division, for ecumenical purposes?

If so what does one do with scripture passages like Paul’s instruction to Bishop Titus

Tit 3:10-11
10 As for a man who is factious, (αἱρετικὸν) [http://bibleapps.com/greek/141.htm] after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

One might suggest, is Paul being too strict? Why not give a person in heresy more time? Is it because Paul doesn’t have a lot of time trying to convince an already baptized person that is off the tracks, to get back on track? One might also suggest Paul is making a huge point regarding the power of baptism and one going against their baptism. One might also suggest, Paul is teaching there is only one truth and one Church, and if someone isn’t going to acknowledge that, don’t beat someone over the head with it. Give them your best shot up to 2 times, then move on if no success.

Fast forward, the Church has obviously gone much farther with her efforts to reconcile all those in division from her.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

Part of the whole thing is the way the Vatican has chosen to pursue ecumenism. It is not with the approach you propose. And they are not using words like “heresy” or “revolt” because these hinder communication. A faithful Catholic will adopt the vocabulary, syntax and thought patterns of these documents to pursue ecumenism, and avoid the tactics and words these documents avoid.

 

[steve-b]

Part of the whole thing is the way the Vatican has chosen to pursue ecumenism. It is not with the approach you propose. And they are not using words like “heresy” or “revolt” because these hinder communication. A faithful Catholic will adopt the vocabulary, syntax and thought patterns of these documents to pursue ecumenism, and avoid the tactics and words these documents avoid.

Any observer might ask, in the last 50+ years of that approach, howz it working so far?

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

Part of the whole thing is the way the Vatican has chosen to pursue ecumenism. It is not with the approach you propose. And they are not using words like “heresy” or “revolt” because these hinder communication. A faithful Catholic will adopt the vocabulary, syntax and thought patterns of these documents to pursue ecumenism, and avoid the tactics and words these documents avoid.

Any observer might ask, in 50+ years of that approach, howz it working so far?

So you know better than the popes and the Vatican? How curious. I thought you were Catholic. No?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

SojournerOnEarth:

Part of the whole thing is the way the Vatican has chosen to pursue ecumenism. It is not with the approach you propose. And they are not using words like “heresy” or “revolt” because these hinder communication. A faithful Catholic will adopt the vocabulary, syntax and thought patterns of these documents to pursue ecumenism, and avoid the tactics and words these documents avoid.

Any observer might ask, in 50+ years of that approach, howz it working so far?

So you know better than the popes and the Vatican? How curious. I thought you were Catholic. No?

I’m asking howz that approach working so far?

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

Please explain your understanding of Obsequium religiosum. Here is a passage from Lumen Gentium I have in mind:

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

My understanding is that these documents (from bishops and popes) require that submission, which seems to be absent from your remark. Particularly, you did not deny knowing more than the Vatican. Please explain.

 

[steve-b]

Please explain your understanding of Obsequium religiosum. Here is a passage from Lumen Gentium I have in mind:

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

I asked YOU, Howz it working so far? You identify yourself as “reformed”. As in the tradition from Calvin?

So I ask again, howz all the ecumenical language working so far for you?

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

Please explain your understanding of Obsequium religiosum. Here is a passage from Lumen Gentium I have in mind:

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

I asked YOU, Howz it working so far? You identify yourself as “reformed”. As in the tradition from Calvin?

So I ask again, howz all the ecumenical language working so far for you?

That is a dodge. We’re not bound by Catholic ecumenical efforts, in fact not a part of it. There is a lot more interest in the Lutherans and Orthodox, groups closer to Rome than we are.

And it’s not really a ‘tradition from Calvin’. We don’t use that language - it’s inaccurate.

My current focus here is on the disparity between CAF posters who are claiming to be Catholic but seem to be disregarding the documents listed, which I thought were binding. I am hoping you can give me an explanation as to why that is the case - are you not Catholic, are they not binding, or do you consider them binding but are disregarding them (putting you, I think, in rebellion). I am trying to understand what is going on. You do not seem to be answering my questions, which is why I think this is a dodge. So why are you dodging my questions, or are you not dodging them?

I intentionally put this thread in the Apologetics Forum, where we are supposed to discuss Catholic things, not Reformed things. The thread is about things inside the Catholic church more than what is happening between churches, and its general approach to those outside, as perceived by those inside.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

SojournerOnEarth:

Please explain your understanding of Obsequium religiosum. Here is a passage from Lumen Gentium I have in mind:

[snip for space]

My understanding is that these documents (from bishops and popes) require that submission, which seems to be absent from your remark. Particularly, you did not deny knowing more than the Vatican. Please explain.

I asked YOU, Howz it working so far? You identify yourself as “reformed”. As in the tradition from Calvin?

So I ask again, howz all the ecumenical language working so far for you?

That is a dodge. We’re not bound by Catholic ecumenical efforts, in fact not a part of it.

You just answered my question when I asked howz all this ecumenical language working for you.

Don’t be surprised, I kinda thought that would be your answer, but I had to hear you say it.

SojournerOnEarth:

And it’s not really a ‘tradition from Calvin’. We don’t use that language - it’s inaccurate.

Ok, what IS accurate then?

SojournerOnEarth:

My current focus here is on the disparity between CAF posters who are claiming to be Catholic but seem to be disregarding the documents listed, which I thought were binding. - are you not Catholic, are they not binding, or do you consider them binding but are disregarding them (putting you, I think, in rebellion).

You just said you (as reformed) "We’re not bound by Catholic ecumenical efforts, in fact not a part of it."

Maybe after 50+ years of those documents being circulated around, Catholics don’t see much progress, witness your comment

SojournerOnEarth:

I am trying to understand what is going on. You do not seem to be answering my questions, which is why I think this is a dodge. So why are you dodging my questions, or are you not dodging them?

I’m a cradle Catholic. I’m already in the only Church Jesus established on Peter and those in union with Peter. I’m not dodging.

the ultimate purpose of ecumenism, is for non Catholics to become Catholic. If that’s not the purpose, to heal division then what is the purpose?

SojournerOnEarth:

I intentionally put this thread in the Apologetics Forum, where we are supposed to discuss Catholic things, not Reformed things. The thread is about things inside the Catholic church more than what is happening between churches, and its general approach to those outside, as perceived by those inside.

Re: apologetics

As Peter teaches

1 Pet 3:15
“Always be prepared to make a defense ( ἀπολογία, [http://bibleapps.com/greek/627.htm] ) to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;”

 

[AlNg]

Any observer might ask, in the last 50+ years of that approach, howz it working so far?

A few of the Anglican groups have come over into Catholicism. There has been dialog with E. Orthodox and relations are good with the O. Orthodox, but I don’t see any softening or accomodation on religious issues which divide the Orthodox and Catholics such as the papal teachings, etc. Protestants have too many beliefs which are incompatible with Roman Catholicism. I don’t see how any of the various Protestant communities could restore full communion with the Catholic Church except by simple conversion to Roman Catholicism.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

I didn’t really expect you to answer my question. You didn’t, which speaks volumes.

 

[steve-b]

I didn’t really expect you to answer my question. You didn’t, which speaks volumes.

You answered mine, which spoke volumes.
As to the topic which you originated

From that document

paragraph

1. ………“Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God’s gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.”

 

[steve-b]

Please explain your understanding of Obsequium religiosum. Here is a passage from Lumen Gentium I have in mind:

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

to your question

canon law covers 3 stages of respect one holds for writings from the bishops

canons
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.