D
DJim
Guest
Your statement was that Hindus worship the devil. Correct?
And I’m not sure I would say that Hindus worship devils or “the devil.”
Did the Romans worship the devil?
DJim
- Status
And I’m not sure I would say that Hindus worship devils or “the devil.”
Did the Romans worship the devil?
DJim
S
stmaria
Guest
FR. Murray and Fr. Conger were the theologians that helped write the Declaration on Religious Liberty. Doesn’t their opinion matter?
Pope John Paul said: ", especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.
They are new and have not been well understood. The Declaration on Religious Liberty is new doctrine.
“The Declaration on Religious Liberty is not a statement of faith. Neither does it appeal to the traditional teaching of the Church on religious freedom. Hence it is not disloyalty to faith to seek a clarification of its ambiguities. Nothing is gained by pretending that they do not exist.”-Paul Hallett, National Catholic Register July 3 1977
If it is a sin to believe that error has no rights, then I have sinned.
If it is a sin to believe that it IS NOT a God given right to teach error and to lead others into error, then I have sinned.
The Declaration on Religious Liberty teaches exactly that.
Do you believe that a religion, such as Mormonism, that has an invalid baptism and does not believe in the Trinity, has a God given right, that is a right approved of by God, to preach openly and try to convert others to their faith. Yet this is what the Declaration on Religious Liberty teaches.This is new.
It has always been the teaching of the Church that no one can be forced to be a Catholic. Everyone has free will to follow his conscience. However it is not a God given right to follow your conscience into error.
Fr John Murray, who helped to write the Declaration said that the old traditional teaching was the theory of religious tolerance and the more contemporary theory is religious freedom. “ The theory of religious tolerance takes its start from the statement, considered to be axiomatic, that error has no rights, that only the truth has rights—and exclusive rights. From this axiom a juridical theory is deduced, which distinguishes between “thesis” and “hypothesis.” The thesis asserts that Catholicism, per se and in principle, should be established as the one “religion of the state,” since it is the one true religion It was to be expected that this theory would be presented to the Council, and it was. It is further to be expected that this theory will, in the end, be rejected by the Council, which has taken seriously, here as elsewhere, the issue of aggiornamento, in accordance with the mind of John XXIII”—Religious Freedom 1965
woodstock.georgetown.edu/library/Murray/1965ib.htm
The traditional teaching that error has no rights was rejected and a new teaching one where error has rights was accepted.
S
stmaria
Guest
Your are not sure that Hindu’s worship the devil??? Then whom do they worship?
Hindus believe in the following divinities: Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the preserver; and Shiva, the destroyer. Hindus worship many animals as gods. Cows are the most sacred, but they also worship monkeys, snakes and other animals.
Memorize this for future reference
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”
S
stmaria
Guest
Ecumenism has always been taught by the Church. At Vatican 1 non-Catholic were invited to come and observe the Council but on the condition that they become Catholics. Just the opposite occurred at Vatican II. Non- Catholics and non- Christians were invited to observe with absolutely no conditions. Not even a hint of the need to convert.
I believe Pope Pius IX has it right when he said in his encyclical, *Quanto Conficiamur Moerore *“ Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter…9. God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation. unhappily fallen and strive to guide First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have them back to Catholic truth and to their most loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them lovingly back into her fold. Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal salvation.
Today’s version of ecumenism is one of “unity” but not reunion.
Decree on Ecumenism
“The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles”
What are these obstacles? Belief in the Real Presence, The Virgin Mary, The Pope as the Vicar of Christ, Infallibility, the Priesthood etc. These all have to be overcome before there can be reunion.
“Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too.”
Protestants believe in individual interpretation of the Bible. Only the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret scripture. How is wrongly interpreting the Bible an endowment?
“The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
Outside of Baptism, what liturgical actions of Protestants engender a life of grace?
I believe Pope Pius IX has it right when he said in his encyclical, *Quanto Conficiamur Moerore *“ Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter…9. God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation. unhappily fallen and strive to guide First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have them back to Catholic truth and to their most loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them lovingly back into her fold. Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal salvation.
Today’s version of ecumenism is one of “unity” but not reunion.
Decree on Ecumenism
“The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles”
What are these obstacles? Belief in the Real Presence, The Virgin Mary, The Pope as the Vicar of Christ, Infallibility, the Priesthood etc. These all have to be overcome before there can be reunion.
“Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too.”
Protestants believe in individual interpretation of the Bible. Only the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret scripture. How is wrongly interpreting the Bible an endowment?
“The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
Outside of Baptism, what liturgical actions of Protestants engender a life of grace?
D
DustinsDad
Guest
And now we’ll see how DJim’s response to stmaria and Mortalium Animos is, well, empty…
http://www.truecatholic.org/pix/jp2assisi.jpg
Now you can claim such things are disciplineary or a practice that can change - for good or ill - as a matter of prudential decisions not based on faith or morals - as to how to approach those outside the faith, but you can’t claim it hasn’t changed since Vatican II.
You’re position seems to be that when these things were done prior to VII they were condemned as interreligious, but post VII they are now automatically ecumenical (whatever that means)- but you haven’t described any difference in the actions except that now Catholics are taking part on a wide scale when before they were prohibited. That doesn’t prove your point, it proves stmaria’s.
(continued…)
Yep. And such would describe precisely the ecumenical practices such as we have seen since VII, such as at Assissi under PJP2. Facts is facts. PJP2 admitted as such…In 1986, at Assisi, during the World Day of Prayer for Peace, Christians of the various Churches and Ecclesial Communities prayed with one voice to the Lord of history for peace in the world. That same day, in a different but parallel way, Jews and representatives of non-Christian religions also prayed for peace in a harmonious expression of feelings which struck a resonant chord deep in the human spirit.(Ut unum sint, cf. 76, Pope John Paul II)
http://www.truecatholic.org/pix/jp2assisi.jpg
Now you can claim such things are disciplineary or a practice that can change - for good or ill - as a matter of prudential decisions not based on faith or morals - as to how to approach those outside the faith, but you can’t claim it hasn’t changed since Vatican II.
You’re position seems to be that when these things were done prior to VII they were condemned as interreligious, but post VII they are now automatically ecumenical (whatever that means)- but you haven’t described any difference in the actions except that now Catholics are taking part on a wide scale when before they were prohibited. That doesn’t prove your point, it proves stmaria’s.
(continued…)
D
DustinsDad
Guest
Yes - and none of that contradicts the point stmaria is making - it only further strengthens it. The fact that she chose not to post the entire letter only demonstrates that she doesn’t need to, as it would be redundant and result in the post exceeding the max length allowed here (5000 charachters). You’re pointing these out further hurt your case, it doesn’t help it.
(continued…)
D
DustinsDad
Guest
And ecumanism as it is practiced since VII is exactly that - an attempt to unite Christians into a “federation” if you will, or some “happy get-along-without-conversion” multi-headed beast that exists apart from the unity of the true Church in an effort merely to “get-along” and make the world a better place (as if that can happen apart from the Redeemer!).
You see, ecumanism without the direct and excplicit call to conversion to the Catholic Church for the salvation of souls, is in fact engaging in intereligious gatherings merely for the sake of intereligious gathereings…exactly that which is condemned by Pius XI. Stmaria’s point is made. You’re gonna have to deal with it and work through it.
In fact, paragraph 4 is perhaps even more strongly condemns you erroneous interpretation of the document. Read it in it’s entirety…
4. Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be “one.” And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another”? All Christians, they add, should be as “one”: for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom…
All of these (condemned arguments) sound exactly like what you are professing as the “true” ecumanism that Catholics are engaged in today. They sound good on the surface, but heed the following words of Pope Pius XI: But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.
(Mortalium animos, paragraph 4, Pope Pius XI)
Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
S
stmaria
Guest
More on Ecumenism ““It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church”
So why be a Catholic? If I can belong to a Protestant Church that teaches that abortion is a woman’s choice, that contraception is not a sin, that multiple marriages is acceptable, that once saved always saved, there is no such thing as purgatory, that homosexual marriage is approved of by God, then why bother being a Catholic if I can be saved by being a Protestant?
“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.”
]Ambiguity, ambiguity, ambiguity. “Only through Christ’s Catholic Church”, “all embracing means?”…” benefit fully?” The preceding paragraph just stated: “Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.”
“All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God.”
Doesn’t the “ one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal” already exist today? Isn’t that Church the present Catholic Church? All one has to do is join. There is no need to long for it.
“first, every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult; then, “dialogue” between competent experts from different Churches and Communities.”
In other words do not proselytize. Do not try to show the errors of their ways. Do not make any attempt to convert. This is again taught in the Directory for the application of the Principles and Norms on Ecumenism:
“In all their contacts with members of other Churches and ecclesial Communities, Catholics will act with honesty, prudence and knowledge of the issues. This readiness to proceed gradually and with care, not glossing over difficulties, is also a safeguard against succumbing to the temptations of indifferentism and proselytism, which would be a failure of the true ecumenical spirit.’
“Church renewal has therefore notable ecumenical importance. Already in various spheres of the Church’s life, this renewal is taking place. The Biblical and liturgical movements.”
Even the liturgy has been made so that it is not offensive to Protestants {or to the Jews}
Changing “for many” to “for all” is purely ecumenical. It is all-inclusive. Removal of Latin, removal of the Tabernacle etc. The words of Consecration were changed because they were not Biblical. “Mystery of Faith” was removed because it was not Biblical. It was of “unknown origin.” { Reform of the Liturgy by Annibale Bugnini} Forget about Tradition, that is offensive to Protestants.
"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… Yet worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity. There are two main principles governing the practice of such common worship: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace. Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice”
Ambiguity alert! “ the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice”
Which is it?, forbids or commends.
ON RELIGIOUS UNITY
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI JANUARY 6, 1928
8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.
So why be a Catholic? If I can belong to a Protestant Church that teaches that abortion is a woman’s choice, that contraception is not a sin, that multiple marriages is acceptable, that once saved always saved, there is no such thing as purgatory, that homosexual marriage is approved of by God, then why bother being a Catholic if I can be saved by being a Protestant?
“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.”
]Ambiguity, ambiguity, ambiguity. “Only through Christ’s Catholic Church”, “all embracing means?”…” benefit fully?” The preceding paragraph just stated: “Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.”
“All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God.”
Doesn’t the “ one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal” already exist today? Isn’t that Church the present Catholic Church? All one has to do is join. There is no need to long for it.
“first, every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult; then, “dialogue” between competent experts from different Churches and Communities.”
In other words do not proselytize. Do not try to show the errors of their ways. Do not make any attempt to convert. This is again taught in the Directory for the application of the Principles and Norms on Ecumenism:
“In all their contacts with members of other Churches and ecclesial Communities, Catholics will act with honesty, prudence and knowledge of the issues. This readiness to proceed gradually and with care, not glossing over difficulties, is also a safeguard against succumbing to the temptations of indifferentism and proselytism, which would be a failure of the true ecumenical spirit.’
“Church renewal has therefore notable ecumenical importance. Already in various spheres of the Church’s life, this renewal is taking place. The Biblical and liturgical movements.”
Even the liturgy has been made so that it is not offensive to Protestants {or to the Jews}
Changing “for many” to “for all” is purely ecumenical. It is all-inclusive. Removal of Latin, removal of the Tabernacle etc. The words of Consecration were changed because they were not Biblical. “Mystery of Faith” was removed because it was not Biblical. It was of “unknown origin.” { Reform of the Liturgy by Annibale Bugnini} Forget about Tradition, that is offensive to Protestants.
"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… Yet worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity. There are two main principles governing the practice of such common worship: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace. Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice”
Ambiguity alert! “ the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice”
Which is it?, forbids or commends.
ON RELIGIOUS UNITY
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI JANUARY 6, 1928
8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.
S
stmaria
Guest
The following clearly contradicts the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism. The very words of the Decree on Ecumenism are contained in this encyclical but with a total different meaning.
ON RELIGIOUS UNITY POPE PIUS XI
"Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.
3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.
4.0…. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed
ON RELIGIOUS UNITY POPE PIUS XI
"Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.
3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.
4.0…. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed
S
stmaria
Guest
- And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: “That they all may be one… And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,”[14] with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. This, Venerable Brethren, is what is commonly said. There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.
- This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
Very good - then my original point regarding this portion of SATIS COGNITUM is correct…that the Church did call back Protestants to the Church prior to VII (a point which you strangely found objectionable). And that as Protestants, they were ipso facto not a part of the mystical body of Christ. See above where he states “and again all those who agree with the Scriptures concerning the Head, and do not communicate in the unity of the Church, are not in the Church” And as we read earlier in the document, “…He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation”
Thank you again for making my points, even when trying to disprove them.
Very well then - it seems now that you are saying non-Christian religions are not religions (the term irreligous and all), but non-Catholic Christian religions are religions just not true religions. Does that accurately describe your position? And if so, can we get back to the heart of the matter…whatever that was.
But these would be non-Christian religions (Jews, Muslims, etc.) - are you saying these folks are not religious at all? I think you’re confused. You may need to rethink your position here or move on - it’s a side issue anyway.
Ah, so you demonstrate my point once again! Now you assume that invincible ignorance is the norm! Funny, that obviously isn’t how it was approached prior to VII!!! Man I love talking to you. Are you saying Protestants were for 400 years more enlightened about the truths of the Catholic faith, but within the last 40 have suddenly become invincibly ignorant on a massive scale?
And it’s mere speculation on your part as to “how much” accurate information they “need” before they become “not” invincibly ignorant. It could just be a matter of hearing that the Catholic Church exists and failing to investigate it. Who knows? Who are you or I to say? Err on the side of caution here, go with what we’ve been given through the ages and as the Church has always done, assume as the normative rule that adults beyond the age of reason have a responsibility to respond to God’s grace, seek out God’s One True Church, and come home.
You seem to be saying that outside the Church there is no salvation, unless you happen to be unconvinced by this preposition.
Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
D
DJim
Guest
NOT IN THE LEAST. Since when does “opinion” trump the teaching of an ecumenical council???
And, again (second time now)–it’s “Congar”, not “Conger”.
The Pope says there were new POINTS of doctrine. Quote him accurately, or don’t quote him…
Is the National Catholic Register an organ of the Magisterium???
Didn’t think so.
Even if all were to agree that–like SCRIPTURE–there are “ambiguities” to be clarified in the documents, that is fine. However, you are trying to say teaching has be contradicted instead of pursuing a means of reconciling and deepening the understanding of the development of new points of doctrine with old.
TRUTH has rights. Remember the parable of the wheat and the chaff?
Conscience, truth, and human dignity have rights. That’s what the Declaration teaches…
No it is not. Unless you consider the parable of the wheat and the chaff “new” doctrine…
Yup.
God gives us our free will. How we exercise that free will is up to us. In a secular society (as opposed to “Christendom”), the human person does possess the capacity to follow conscience into error. It is a consequence of personal human freedom.
Is it a “God-given right”? Well, it’s God-given. Is it a “right”? Might depend on how carefully one defines “right”…
That’s not so–the traditional teaching is about error–and it is still taught today. The teaching of Vatican II is about PEOPLE, not error.
PEOPLE have God-given freedom and dignity. Even when they embrace error…
Wheat and chaff…truth and error…think about it.
DJim
D
DJim
Guest
The Psalms also speak of idol worshippers as worshipping nothing at all–“they have eyes but do not see, ears but do not hear, mouths but do not speak,” etc…
So objectively speaking, there might be mere human invention behind Hinduism.
Subjectively speaking, Hindus do not believe they are worshipping devils or “the devil.” BTW, how many “gods” are there in the Hindu pantheon? Which one of them is “the” devil?
The point is that not all “false gods” are “devils.” Some are merely of human invention, some are merely created things turned into idols by man…
D
DJim
Guest
So you’re saying that you believe that only those intending to convert should be allowed to “observe” an Ecumenical Council of the Church? The Gospel according to…whom?
Why is this even relevant? I guess Jesus had it backwards when, like the “opposite” that occurred at Vatican II, he would eat with tax collectors and sinners before insisting they convert…
D
DJim
Guest
A
Why is it so difficult to see that the starting point is the essential difference–Pope Pius is condemning such meetings that are by design engaged in by those who believe in religious indifference… This simply does NOT contradict with the Assisi event precisely because there is NO such belief among those participating in it.
View A: Your religion does NOT matter–let’s get together and pray.
View B: Your religion DOES matter–let’s still get together and pray…
It hasn’t changed since Vatican II–Pius condemned indifferentism, NOT interreligious dialogue and the possibility of simultaneous prayer…
DJim
I eagerly await your reply…
Please note that you have said “YEP” to my “empty reply” in this section. You are agreeing with what I am saying the document says. Thank you…
Oh, I see–you wish to accuse the Suprem Roman Pontiff of “indifferentism”? I get it now…
Why is it so difficult to see that the starting point is the essential difference–Pope Pius is condemning such meetings that are by design engaged in by those who believe in religious indifference… This simply does NOT contradict with the Assisi event precisely because there is NO such belief among those participating in it.
View A: Your religion does NOT matter–let’s get together and pray.
View B: Your religion DOES matter–let’s still get together and pray…
Watch me–
It hasn’t changed since Vatican II–Pius condemned indifferentism, NOT interreligious dialogue and the possibility of simultaneous prayer…
Careful, please–you’re beginning to put words in my mouth…I never said anything about something being “automatically ecumenical.” Never.
I make it clear in my comments above–indifferentism is the key “difference”…
DJim
D
DJim
Guest
Please note that again you have said “YES” to my assessment of the papal text.
Now, how you can conclude that stmaria’s “case” is strenghtened by egregious error is beyond me…
But I’m sure you will explain. So, how does a looong passage by Pius XI on *PAN-Christianity" contradict anything said in the Decree on Ecumenism???
And why is it okay for someone to eliminate the true context of a quote–pan-christianity–in order to create an impression that the conclusion the Pope draws from these paragraphs is actually related to ecumenism???
DJim
D
DJim
Guest
Okay–so you are accusing the living Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church of the heresy of pan-Christianity?? And you seem to believe Pope John Paul II is guilty of indifferentism…?
And your complaints are attached to practices, not the direct teaching? You have yet to demonstrate contradiction in teaching…and have only your opinion that “practice” is not consistent with teaching. I certainly disagree with your opinion…
No, it’s not. Pius XI condemned indifferentism and PAN-Christianity–trying to create a false unity apart from the authentic and true source of Christian unity–the Catholic Church…
Pius did NOT condemn interreligious prayer or ecumenical prayer. Nor would he.
Nor would Pius condemn Jesus eating with tax collectors and sinners–which He did unconditionally…
The attitude of Christ is something you have to deal with…
Now wait a minute–you are consistently AGREEING with what I say about the text–and then saying I’ve erroneously interpreted it? Please make up your mind…
D
DesertBrother
Guest
Actually, you’re both right according to Early Church Father, Tertullian, who here is speaking about the Greek pagan gods:
"If we refuse our homage to statues and frigid images, the very counterpart of their dead originals, with which hawks, and mice, and spiders are so well acquainted, does it not merit praise instead of penalty, that we have rejected what we have come to see is error? We cannot surely be made out to injure those who we are certain are nonentities (Apologeticum, 12).
“Not that an idol is anything,” as the apostle says, but that the homage they render is to demons, who are the real occupants of these consecrated images, whether of dead men or (as they think) of gods (De spectaculis, 13).
For as beings who put themselves out as gods would never willingly call themselves demons, if they were gods indeed, that they might not thereby in fact abdicate their dignity; so those whom you know to be no more than demons, would not dare to act as gods, if those whose names they take and use were really divine. For they would not dare to treat with disrespect the higher majesty of beings, whose displeasure they would feel was to be dreaded. So this divinity of yours is no divinity; for if it were, it would not be pretended to by demons, and it would not be denied by gods. But since on beth sides there is a concurrent acknowledgment that they are not gods, gather from this that there is but a single race-I mean the race of demons, the real race in both cases. Let your search, then, now be after gods; for those whom you had imagined to be so you find to be spirits of evil (Apologeticum, 23).
D
DJim
Guest
Vatican II doesn’t teach that you can be saved by BEING a Protestant. It teaches it is possible to be saved and that there are SOME elements of truth to be found there, but not ALL.
Which is the teaching of Vatican II…
Do you know what the word “proselytize” means in this context? It does NOT mean “don’t attempt to convert.”
I will agree that the translation of “pro multis” is better rendered for “the many”…see–we agree on something…
D
DesertBrother
Guest
I don’t think the VII documents teach error, but the problem is there shouldn’t be so much difficulty and disagreement in interpreting their meaning. Most official Church teachings over the centuries were pretty cut and dry, without much room for debate about their true meaning. They were always written with an air of conviction and finality to avoid this sort of confusion, but the way some of these VII documents were written - very beautifully written, almost poetic - there’s IS a certain ambiguity about them. Hopefully in the years to come, there will be more official clarification by the Vatican to clear up what VII was actually saying versus what many believe it was saying.
Wasn’t there a rule from a previous council that said councils should only be called when doctrines or dogmas were in danger and needed to be defended and clarified? Anyone know the one I mean?
- Status