Unitatis Redintegratio - V2 Decree on Ecumenism

[Genesis315]

Per the OP:

The document condemns hiding the truth, that is, it condemns “false irenicism.”

Concerning those that said the decree contradicted the teaching of Popes like Leo XIII and Pius XI, nothing could be farther from the truth. It was Leo XIII who established the Confraternity of Compassion, where Catholics and non-Catholic Christians could pray together for unity. It was also he that said the separated Eastern Churches profess the same faith, but with different expressions (the rejection of the papacy being their only error).

Pius XI said the same thing. He condemned pan-Christian ecumenical movements who’s goal is watering down truth, finding a lowest common denominator, and fostering indifferentism. The Second Vatican Council does this as well (as does John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint). It is true that there are some false ecumenists in our midsts, but the Council does not teach this.

What can change is the methods that we seek certain goals. The Second Vatican Council chose to adopt the method suggested by Leo XIII:

“But if, among the different ways of preaching the word of God that one sometimes seems to be preferable, which directed to non-Catholics, not in churches, but in some suitable place, in such wise that controversy is not sought, but friendly conference, such a method is certainly without fault. But let those who undertake such ministry be set apart by the authority of the bishops and let them be men whose science and virtue has been previously ascertained. For we think that there are many in your country who are separated from Catholic truth more by ignorance than by ill-will, who might perchance more easily be drawn to the one fold of Christ if this truth be set forth to them in a friendly and familiar way.”
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13teste.htm

Concerning the poster who said the Council chose the hide Mary, that simply is not true. The Second Vatican Council is the most Marian Council of all–discussing Mary more than all the other Councils combined. By placing the text concerning her in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, the Fathers made her inseparable from the life the Church. Her role is explained there in a way that would make St. Alphonsus Liguori proud. In this way, Mary is not a side issue, but an essential element of the Church.

 

[Genesis315]

The Holy Spirit is not ambigious.

Tell that to the thousands and thousands of denominations that use Scripture alone, inspired by the Holy Spirit positively. They come up with tons and tons of different interpretations because the text is ambiguous when not placed in its proper context. We must read all Magisterial teaching the same way, by placing it in its proper context. Nicea I, for example, is ambiguous as to the rights of the Roman See. It can be read as supporting the Papacy or not. But, if we place it in the context of the Scriptures, Fathers, and previous papal teaching, we see that it does teach Papal authority.

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

This makes sense to me. God doesn’t want us to force Him on anyone because that never works. I know sooooo many people who have left the church because growing up their parents made them go to Mass, but never explained anything.

So the idea is that we shouldn’t make rules about “Catholics should only hang out with other Catholics” or “Only Catholics can enter a Catholic church” because that’s not going to convert anyone and we’re supposed to be out living with the rest of the world as a constant reminder of the true faith.

Priests need to know about other religions so that they can help bring people to the church from those religions. If all you can say to someone is “You’re wrong and I’m right”, that’s useless. But if you can say to a Buddist who prays to their ancestors, “Guess what? We pray to our ancestors, too!” then you’ve just created a link with that person and brought them that much closer to the faith.

 

[Genesis315]

This makes sense to me. God doesn’t want us to force Him on anyone because that never works. I know sooooo many people who have left the church because growing up their parents made them go to Mass, but never explained anything.

So the idea is that we shouldn’t make rules about “Catholics should only hang out with other Catholics” or “Only Catholics can enter a Catholic church” because that’s not going to convert anyone and we’re supposed to be out living with the rest of the world as a constant reminder of the true faith.

Priests need to know about other religions so that they can help bring people to the church from those religions. If all you can say to someone is “You’re wrong and I’m right”, that’s useless. But if you can say to a Buddist who prays to their ancestors, “Guess what? We pray to our ancestors, too!” then you’ve just created a link with that person and brought them that much closer to the faith.

I am reminded of St. Paul:

Acts 17:23 For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you:

and St. Gregory VII:

“Almighty God, who wishes that all should be saved and none lost, approves nothing in so much as that after loving Him one should love his fellow man, and that one should not do to others, what one does not want done to oneself. You and we owe this charity to ourselves especially because we believe in and confess one God, admittedly, in a different way, and daily praise and venerate him, the creator of the world and ruler of this world.”

How much more should we treat those with whom we have even more in common, and who, as Pius XII said, “though not belonging to the visible body of the Catholic Church, have given noble and sincere expression to their appreciation of all that unites them to Us in love for the Person of Christ or in belief in God.” (Summi Pontificatus 16.).

 

[stmaria]

st_raphael;Your profile notes that you are Catholic, but your post suggests to me that you are a dissenter who is Anti-catholic and eager to promote that belief to sway other Catholics away from their faith and into dissent. Is this your motive in posting?

I believe in Tradition, not innovation. The Traditional Fathers at the Council put the following into* Dei Verbum. *

1. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all.

That is what I believe. Hold fast to Tradition and fight in defense of the faith.

 

[rwoehmke]

From the sounds of some of these posts it would seem that when some folks try to read and understand original documents they get in over their head. I don’t consider myself to be particularly intellectually handicapped but it happens to me all the time. Good thing there is always someone standing by with a life ring.

 

[ncjohn]

I believe in Tradition, not innovation. The Traditional Fathers at the Council put the following into* Dei Verbum. *

I guess we should decide which it is. You make the repeated assertions that the “tradtional fathers” were overruled on everything by the “liberals” but then claim that they were able to put that particular clause into Dei Verbum. Yet, but your own statements they could not have done so unless the “liberals” felt it belonged there since those “liberals” so greatly outnumbered them.

It would seem to me that if one looks at the vote that it will reflect the same overwhelming concensus that the other documents enjoyed and that there will be absolutely nothing to indicate that it was any small group, who was unable to get anything else they wanted into the documents, that got that particular statement. And of course those of us who are not out to find fault with Vatican II will find that the Church did indeed hold fast to the big-T Traditions, even if they might have allowed some flexibility to the small-t traditions that some are so attached to.

And of course some of those small-t traditions are faulty interpretations of things like ecumenism, which is why the decree was written.

Since your continual posts are always anti “innovation”, which you have pretty well translated as anything that comes out of Vatican II, I would guess that st. raphael’s supposition that you are outside of communion with the post-conciliar Church is probably accurate. Would you at least be willing to be honest enough to inform people what perspective you are coming from so they can make their own determination how to assess your statements? I personally can respect you for your devotion whichever your viewpoint, but it’s always nice to be able to determine if one is even starting from the same premise.

Peace,

 

[stmaria]

No, it isn’t me you’re disagreeing with. The Holy Spirit doesn’t guarantee eloquence, but rather protects against error.

Nostra aetate # 2:
“In Buddhism, according to its various forms, the radical inadequacy of this changeable world is acknowledged and a way is taught whereby those with a devout and trustful spirit **may be able to reach either a state of perfect freedom or, relying on their own efforts or on help from a higher source, the highest illumination.”]
Do you really believe that the Holy Spirit guided the Council to praise false religions?

Buddhism: “a state of perfect freedom or, relying on their own efforts or on help from a higher source, the highest illumination.”
What “higher source?” This is a false religion with false gods.

Nostra aetate # 2:“Thus in Hinduism the divine mystery is explored and propounded with **an inexhaustible wealth of myths and penetrating philosophical investigations, **and liberation is sought from the distresses of our state either through various forms of ascetical life or deep meditation or taking refuge in God with loving confidence.”(84)

 And the false religion of Hinduism is praised for “inexhaustible wealth of myths and penetrating philosophical investigations, and liberation.”

An “ inexhaustible wealth of myths?” This is New Age not Traditional Catholic.

No mention is made that these religions convert. Instead what we see is praise and esteem for these religions of the devil.

For the sake of ecumenism
I suppose that you have no problem with Pope Paul allowing devil worshipers to pray to the devil for peace. Not once but twice. Once in 1986 and again in 2002. All fot the sake of ecumenism.

Time Magazine 1986 time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962783-1,00.html

The throng included rabbis wearing yarmulkes and Sikhs in turbans, Muslims praying on thick carpets and a Zoroastrian kindling a fire. In all, the 160 religious representatives came from a dozen faiths throughout the world…. Buddhism’s Dalai Lama, traditionally regarded as a living deity, was in attendance, swathed in purple and yellow.
Zoroastrian website tenets.zoroastrianism.com/

From the Vatican website:2002 vatican.net/news_services/liturgy/documents/ns_lit_doc_20020124_assisi-giornata_en.html#II

“The representatives of the other religions, together with their delegations, upon leaving the piazza, are accompanied by the staff of the corresponding Pontifical Council and the Friars of the Convent to the places set aside for them.”

1.    Places set aside for prayer

•     Lower Basilica:         Christians

•     Sacred Convent:

· Room A Islam
· Room B Buddhism
· Room C Sikhism
· Room D African Traditional Religions{Voodoo]
· Room E Hinduism
· Room F Tenrikyo
· Room G Shintoism
· Room H Judaism
· Room I Zoroastrianism, Janinism and Confucianism

In the Sacred Convent all of the crucifixes were either taken down or covered up so as not to offend anyone. The Moslems were given a room that faced east so they could pray toward Mecca, the Zoroastrians were given a room with a fireplace so they could burn woodchips to their many gods and the African Voodoo religions were allowed to recite their prayers to the devil.

This is what the Decree on Ecumenism has produced, a false ecumenism.**

 

[st_raphael]

This is seriously off topic, and seems to be a contrived effort to discredit Catholic teachings and the Church herself. I ask the moderator to consider removing this post.

 

[J0eisCath0lic]

Hi StMaria!

The debates on the Council floor can make for interesting reading and historical commentary, but at the end of the day, that’s all they are. The Spirit protected fruits of the Council can only be found in the documents the Fathers *agreed upon *and presented to the Pope for confirmation, not the various disagreements leading up to that point.

Not to say this applies to you, but some who disparage VII would seem to imply that lively theological debate was invented at VII, and that it’s an indication of an intense ideological battle, where the left forced its will on the right, etc… It’s pointed to as a sort of smoking gun. That’s nonsense. One only need look at Acts 2 and “the council of Jerusalem” to see that spirited debate has always been a part of the way that the Spirit guides the Church into all truth at such gatherings.

Awesome post. I totally agree. There is no question that liberal progressives attempted to hijack the Council. The question is, did they succeed or did the Holy Spirit succeed? Well, if we believe Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail, we know the Spirit succeeded. I do believe that progressivists have twisted and distorted VCII in so many ways over the last few decades, but in the end they will have to face God and give an account for their actions.

 

[J0eisCath0lic]

Nostra aetate # 2:
Do you really believe that the Holy Spirit guided the Council to praise false religions?
Buddhism: “a state of perfect freedom or, relying on their own efforts or on help from a higher source, the highest illumination.”
What “higher source?” This is a false religion with false gods.
Nostra aetate # 2:“Thus in Hinduism the divine mystery is explored and propounded with **an inexhaustible wealth of myths and penetrating philosophical investigations, **and liberation is sought from the distresses of our state either through various forms of ascetical life or deep meditation or taking refuge in God with loving confidence.”(84)
And the false religion of Hinduism is praised for “inexhaustible wealth of myths and penetrating philosophical investigations, and liberation.”
An “ inexhaustible wealth of myths?” This is New Age not Traditional Catholic.
No mention is made that these religions convert. Instead what we see is praise and esteem for these religions of the devil.
For the sake of ecumenism
I suppose that you have no problem with Pope Paul allowing devil worshipers to pray to the devil for peace. Not once but twice. Once in 1986 and again in 2002. All fot the sake of ecumenism.

I spent a good year of my life as a bitter sedevacantist, thinking Vatican II was the Council of Satan and that JPII was the Antichrist. Praise God I got out of that blindness.

Regarding the above comments, you must understand that what you are implicitly doing (without possibly realizing it) is agreeing with the liberal modernists on the interpretation of VCII. They also twist VCII to say just what you claim it said. I wonder if you realize that you are giving the modernists’ credit as being the ones who have the “true interpretation” of the Council.

Secondly, in agreeing with the modernistic interpretations of the Council, you implicitly affirm that the modernists at VCII won the battle against the Holy Spirit. This is ironic, considering that such a thing was said to be impossible by Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18, John 16:13, Matthew 28:20). Do you really believe the modernists were more powerful than the Spirit?

Thirdly, I agree that the modernists were able to creep in some ambiguous phrases into VCII (such as the ones you mentioned above) but when these passages are viewed in light of Tradition, Magisterial teaching from the post-conciliar Popes, and common sense, it is obvious that they are being distorted by modernists.
Examine your comments on Buddhism and VCII, for example. You ask: did the Spirit guide the Council to praise false religions? The short answer is: No. The slightly longer answer is: Nowhere does VCII praise false religions. It simply makes statements of facts about them and their beliefs. Look at the quote in full regarding Buddhism. The Council stated, “In Buddhsim… a way is taught…” All the Council is merely doing is stating what Buddhists believe. That is it, nothing more. To think it is anything more is to, unfortunately, agree with the modernists. It is true that Buddhists believe that through a devout spirit one may be able to reach perfect freedom or the highest illumination. The Council nowhere says that they attain this perfect freedom, it merely says that Buddhism teaches this to its followers. It neither affirms it as fact and doctrine or denies it. It merely states that this is the belief of Buddhists. You ask, “What higher source?” Well, according to Buddhists, it might be called “nirvana,” but again, that’s beside the point. VCII is not saying that the true triune God helps them attain the “highest illumination.” It is only stating the beliefs of Buddhists for us to know.

The same basic error is found in your next example, regarding Hinduism. First of all, where does VCII ever “praise” Hinduism? Secondly, all it says is that Hindus explore the divine mystery with many myths and philosophical investigation. This is certainly true of Hindus, as I know a few. Again, VCII nowhere says that Hindus find the true Divine Mystery, or that the results of their “investigations” and “exploration” is true. It merely states what Hindus believe. So it seems, again unfortunately, you have decided to side with the modernists in the interpretation of this passage. I must say, your interpretation is as radical as it comes, for the entire Tradition of the Church and all the official post-conciliar Papal and Magisterial statements concerning Hinduism and Buddhism come nowhere close to stating what you do. All this makes sense in the context of Nostra Aetate, whose prime aim was merely to state possible similarities between Catholicism (the true religion) and the other religions of the world. In doing this, it states some of the basic and general beliefs of these religions, including Buddhism and Hinduism.

 

[J0eisCath0lic]

You also wrote:

“No mention is made that these religions convert. Instead what we see is praise and esteem for these religions of the devil. For the sake of ecumenism. I suppose that you have no problem with Pope Paul allowing devil worshipers to pray to the devil for peace. Not once but twice. Once in 1986 and again in 2002. All fot the sake of ecumenism.”

I must offer a brief response to this as well. You state that “no mention is made that these religions convert.” What!!! Perhaps you need to go back and check your sources again. You are saying that because you are reading the Council texts through the false lenses… it appears you are an extreme traditionalist of sort, and you make the false assumption that your interpretation of the Council (which agrees with the modernists) is the infallible one. Read Nostra Aetate par. 4 and Lumen Gentium par. 16. You will quickly discover that your statement is at best an oversight on your part, and at worse a heinous lie.

Regarding the Assisi interfaith gatherings, first of all it was not “Pope Paul” who called for these, but rather it was Pope John Paul II. As you said, he called for these twice. You seem to confuse infallibility and impeccability. The Pope is not free from sin, and is liable to make an imprudent decision. In fact, you could have easily seen this by reading the letter to the Galatians, where St. Paul rebukes Pope St. Peter for an act of hypocrisy. I do not think JPII’s actions were the best course of action to take, as I think they confused many and scandalized some. At the same time, I realize only God knows his true intentions, and I don’t. It would seem that his intentions were good, but the decision itself was a bit imprudent (this is my own opinion). If you read a book like Crossing the Threshold of Hope, JPII makes his thoughts on other religions perfectly clear, and it is obvious from that book (and others) that he does not believe all religions are the same. So I think his intention was good-- with so much war and violence in the world, why not have all the religions stand together and proclaim that we do not support this, and let us all sincerely pray for peace at the same time. I think the interfaith gatherings were not good, but again, I understand the difference between infallibility and impeccability. I still love JPII. I refuse to believe that modernists are more powerful than the Holy Spirit. I refuse to agree with the twisted interpretations of modernists. Rather, I say, along with St. Paul, that the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

God bless you…

Oh yeah, and one last thing… the interfaith meetings and Nostra Aetate have nothing to do with “ecumenism,” which deals with Protestants and Orthodox. As a matter of fact, the Assisi gatherings and Nostra Aetate don’t have much to do with eachother either.

 

[stmaria]

Oh yeah, and one last thing… the interfaith meetings and Nostra Aetate have nothing to do with “ecumenism,” which deals with Protestants and Orthodox. As a matter of fact, the Assisi gatherings and Nostra Aetate don’t have much to do with eachother either.

This has everything to do with Ecumenism.
If you read the history of Vatican II you will find that *Nostra Aetate *was to be Chapter 4 in the Decree on Ecumenism. So therefore it has everything to do with Ecumenism. It was decided after much discussion to give it its own document.

I don’t see the purpose of stating that the Church rejects nothing that is, “** holy** in these religions and She regards with sincere reverence.” What is holy in a false religion? Reincarnation? 300,000 deities? Why have reverence for a religion that is not praying to God.

[NOSTRA AETATE]
Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have
Struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined
concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men
contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible
abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They
seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through
ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with
love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the
radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by
which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to
acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own
efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other
religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the
human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising
teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites.

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these
religions. She regards with **sincere reverence **those ways of conduct
and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in
many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often
reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she
proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ, “the way the truth, and the
life” (John 14, 6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious
life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself (4).

Why not add that to be saved one must be baptized and accept Jesus Christ.? That would of course be harmful to ecumenism. Isn’t it the duty of the Church to speak the truth?

First epistle of John 4:2-3 “every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, while every spirit that fails to acknowledge him does not belong to God. Such is the spirit of the antichrist
1 Cor.10 20 “the gentiles sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to become sharers with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and likewise the table of demons”

Assisi had everything to do with Ecumenism. But doesn’t allowing false religions to pray to the devil in a consecrated Catholic Church violate the first commandment?
“ I am the Lord thy God thy shall not have false god’s before me.”

 

[stmaria]

I must offer a brief response to this as well. You state that “no mention is made that these religions convert.” What!!! Perhaps you need to go back and check your sources again. You are saying that because you are reading the Council texts through the false lenses… it appears you are an extreme traditionalist of sort, and you make the false assumption that your interpretation of the Council (which agrees with the modernists) is the infallible one. Read Nostra Aetate par. 4 and Lumen Gentium par. 16. You will quickly discover that your statement is at best an oversight on your part, and at worse a heinous lie…

I have not found any call for conversion in *Nosetra Aetate 4 or Lumen Gentium 16//

Lumen Gentium16…. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of
Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

]Mankind’s judge on the last day will be Jesus Christ. Moslems do not believe in Jesus. They reject the Trinity]

Luke 21:27 “and they will see the **Son of Man **coming upon a cloud with great power and majesty”

Matthew 24:27 “For as the lightning comes forth from the east and shines even to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man”

Matthew 24:44 “Therefore you also must be ready, because at an hour that you do not expect, the** Son of Man **will come”

Lumen Gentium 16
“Those who, through no fault of their own, do
not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek
God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do
his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience–those
too many achieve eternal salvation.[19] Nor shall divine providence deny
the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of
theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who,
not without grace, strive to lead a good life. Whatever good or truth is
found amongst them is considered by the Church to be a preparation for
the Gospel[20] and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at
length have life. “

This passage has to do with Invincible Ignorance. I have found nothing calling for a conversion to the Catholic Faith, to be baptized and to accept Jesus Christ.*

 

[DJim]

The “history” of Vatican II is of course NOT infallible.

The documents of Vatican II are, of course, infallible.

And, in the First Vatican Council, we have an infallible canon that teaches we are not really permitted to suggest that the Magisterium can teach in a way that is not continuous with what has been taught before:

"3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema… "

As such, we can share the confidence of the Vatican One Fathers that the Vatican Two Fathers taught the truth in continuity with the full breadth of the Church’s teaching…

The Decree on Ecumenism is in full accord with what came before. And it would appear that Vatican One discourages claims to the contrary, doesn’t it?

DJim

 

[stmaria]

The “history” of Vatican II is of course NOT infallible.

The documents of Vatican II are, of course, infallible.

And, in the First Vatican Council, we have an infallible canon that teaches we are not really permitted to suggest that the Magisterium can teach in a way that is not continuous with what has been taught before:

"3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema… "

As such, we can share the confidence of the Vatican One Fathers that the Vatican Two Fathers taught the truth in continuity with the full breadth of the Church’s teaching…

The Decree on Ecumenism is in full accord with what came before. And it would appear that Vatican One discourages claims to the contrary, doesn’t it?

DJim

"Men will realize that the council devoted its attention not so much to divine truths, but rather, and principally, to the Church – her nature and composition, her ecumenical vocation, her apostolic and missionary activity…^ “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary Magisterium. This ordinary Magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents” (Pope Paul VI, at General Audience of 12 January 1966

papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6tolast.htm

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the* L’Osservatore Romano *1/21/1966)

The truth is that this particular council** defined no dogma at all,** and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council” {Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefest of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, El Mercurio, July 17,1988}

The documents of Vatican II are not infallible.

 

[J0eisCath0lic]

This has everything to do with Ecumenism.
If you read the history of Vatican II you will find that *Nostra Aetate *was to be Chapter 4 in the Decree on Ecumenism. So therefore it has everything to do with Ecumenism. It was decided after much discussion to give it its own document.

I don’t see the purpose of stating that the Church rejects nothing that is, “** holy** in these religions and She regards with sincere reverence.” What is holy in a false religion? Reincarnation? 300,000 deities? Why have reverence for a religion that is not praying to God.
.”

Put simply, you are wrong in your statements, and you’re allowing your own idea of Catholicism (prompted by radical traditionalism) to define the issue.

Ecumenism deals with non-Catholic Christians. Anything outside of that falls into the area of interreligious dialogue. The two are related in a way but are distinct, as JPII made very clear in his encyclical on ecumenism. Regarding your comment on NA almost being a part of the Decree on Ecumenism, all this shows is that some felt NA should be a part of the Decree at the Council. Of course, we can easily look into any book on VCII to easily discover that NA ended up not being in this Decree. I am not concerned with debates that took place during the Council. I am concerned with the final outcome. By your standards, we could attack Vatican Council I since debates prior to the Council’s end centered around Ecumenical Councils possibly being more authoritative than the Pope, or the Pope being infallible in every thing he says (both ideas never made it in the final draft). At Nicea, there were some who sided with the Arians. But of course, the Arian heresy did not make the final draft. So your point about NA almost being in the Decree is pointless.
The Church rejects nothing that is true or holy in other religions, and for good cause. Muslims (for example) believe in monotheism. This is a true teaching (even though this is as far as it goes). But to reject the Muslims’ belief in monotheism would undercut our own faith as well, since we too are monotheists. Likewise, Buddhists believe in the power of fasting and meditation. We do, as well (even though this is as far as it goes, again). To reject both would be to undercut our own faith, since fasting and contemplative meditation is encouraged by the Church. Reincarnation and 300,000 deities are not true nor compatible with Catholic teaching, and thus are not included in the clause, “rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.” You are inserting your own spin on things because, again unfortunately, you choose to side with the modernists’ interpretation and twisting of VCII. If only you’d stop giving the modernists so much credit.

 

[J0eisCath0lic]

[NOSTRA AETATE]
Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have
Struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined
concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men
contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible
abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They
seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through
ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with
love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the
radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by
which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to
acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own
efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other
religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the
human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising
teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites.

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these
religions. She regards with **sincere reverence **those ways of conduct
and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in
many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often
reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she
proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ, “the way the truth, and the
life” (John 14, 6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious
life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself (4).

Why not add that to be saved one must be baptized and accept Jesus Christ.? That would of course be harmful to ecumenism. Isn’t it the duty of the Church to speak the truth?

First epistle of John 4:2-3 “every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, while every spirit that fails to acknowledge him does not belong to God. Such is the spirit of the antichrist
1 Cor.10 20 “the gentiles sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to become sharers with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and likewise the table of demons”

Assisi had everything to do with Ecumenism. But doesn’t allowing false religions to pray to the devil in a consecrated Catholic Church violate the first commandment?
“ I am the Lord thy God thy shall not have false god’s before me.”

Why not add “to be saved one must be baptized and accept Jesus?” Well, that is a given. You see, you are working with a false premise and false assumption: namely, that VCII must teach heresy. I know why you believe this (because you have given in to the ideas of radical traditionalism), but your assumptions don’t determine the true interpretation. For that, we turn to the Magisterium. She has made her position very clear, in documents like “Dominus Jesus”. As well, Scripture clearly affirms the necessity of baptism and accepting Jesus, as does all of Catholic Tradition. So it’s a given. The Council Father’s didn’t assume that they had to reclarify this obvious teaching of the faith, since it is the foundation of Catholic doctrine on salvation. You can’t take VCII and isolate it from Tradition. If you do, we might as well do that with every Ecumenical Council, and assume they all need to repeat the same general information. Maybe we should go back to Nicea II and accuse it of not affirming explicitly in writing, “Jesus is true God and true man, one in being with the Father.” Nicea II did not need to mention it because it was already a part of Tradition. Either way, VCII (and numerous post-conciliar documents and the Catechism) all affirm the necessity of baptism and belief in Christ. You just don’t want to see it because you are blinded by your radical traditionalism.

Oh yeah, and Assisi had nothing to do with ecumenism. One, you’re confusing ecumenism with interreligious dialogue. Second, NA nowhere commands pagan religions to pray to their “gods” for peace. That’s your assumption because of your radical traditionalism and inherent distrust of the Council. You need to ground your faith and trust back into God and His Church.

 

[J0eisCath0lic]

"Men will realize that the council devoted its attention not so much to divine truths, but rather, and principally, to the Church – her nature and composition, her ecumenical vocation, her apostolic and missionary activity…^ “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary Magisterium. This ordinary Magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents” (Pope Paul VI, at General Audience of 12 January 1966

papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6tolast.htm

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the* L’Osservatore Romano *1/21/1966)

The truth is that this particular council** defined no dogma at all,** and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council” {Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefest of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, El Mercurio, July 17,1988}

The documents of Vatican II are not infallible.

All your quotes demonstrate is that VCII did not excercize the Extraordinary Magisterium (dogmatic pronouncements with following anathemas). But this is a given. It exercized the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, and this is why Cardinal Ratzinger also said (in The Ratzinger Report) that VCII is on the same grounds as VCI and Trent, and to reject one of them would be to reject all of them, since they have the same foundation: namely, the promise of Christ that the Spirit will guide His Church (which you seem to think only extended to 1962, but then your argument is not with us but with Jesus). Ecumenical Councils are authoritative, whether they exercize the Extraordinary or Ordinary Magisterium, since both are vehicles of infallibility. VCII avoided exercizing the Extraordinary Magisterium in issuing infallible decrees, but this is because (as you mentioned) VCII was primarily a pastoral council, and thus only needed to rely on the Ordinary Magisterium (since it’s intent wasn’t to issue dogmas with anathemas). If your contention is that the Ordinary Magisterium can not exercize infallibility, then it seems your real issue is with Tradition and VCI. As well, don’t forget that even within pastoral guidelines there will be doctrinal teachings as well. Whenever VCII touches upon a doctrine of faith and morals, of course it is infallible. Pastoral guidelines can be replaced or modified as time goes on, but even so should be followed with docility by the Catholic faithful. But they are not infallible dogmas with anathemas. You have yet to demonstrate one explicit and obvious error in the faith and moral teachings of VCII. Ambiguity does not equal error. It only does if you choose to think that modernists carry more weight than the Magisterium. As I said in a previous post, Scripture contains certain “apparent” contradictions, but you know that there are no true ones in Scripture because you begin with the premise that it is inspired by God. Thus, when problems arise in Scripture, you harmonize them and consult Tradition and Magisterial teachings. But you do not take this same principle and apply it to Councils of the Church, because you’re more content agreeing with the distortions of modernists. You need to change your very root problem: a lack of faith and trust in God’s promises.

 

[DJim]

The documents of Vatican II are not infallible.

Oh really?–so you then believe that it’s possible for an ecumenical council of the Church established by Jesus Christ to universally teach error to the faithful???

Keep in mind again what Vatican ONE taught:

"3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema… "

The irony of the texts you quoted is found in the fact that, true enough, Vatican II did not infallibly teach any NEW dogmas.

Rather, it just infallibly taught a bunch of OLD dogmas.

Anything Vatican II taught the universal Church in the area of faith and morals is of necessity true.

Or do you want to disagree with that?

DJim