Unitatis Redintegratio - V2 Decree on Ecumenism

  • Thread starter Thread starter RomanRevert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
John 3:8:

“The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

So, you would limit the work of the Holy Spirit to affecting ONLY those in the Mystical Body of Christ?

The Holy Spirit is not at work except within the Church?

Can you show me any Magisterial statement that says that?

DJim
 
The only way they can be joined with us in the Holy Spirit is if they are not cut off from the mystical body of Christ, the Church. The only way this is possible is if they are outside the Church be reason of invincible ignorance, etc. This document - as you readily admit - does not make that distinction.
So you really think that the Vatican II Fathers said “in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit” but meant by that phrase that they are members of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church?

I would very much disagree. I think the Vatican II Fathers actually said what they meant–that our “link” to these different groups is via the Holy Spirit precisely because it really can’t be said that, as a group, these denominations are part of the Mystical Body of Christ. I think the language was careful and precise…
Further, “sanctifying power” is the power to make holy - to infuse sanctifying grace - which is to say, grant salvation.
The reception of God’s grace may indeed lead to salvation, so long as the person continues to accept the grace given…
The only way this is possible for those outside the visible bonds of Holy Mother Church is if they are in a state of invincible ignorance, etc. Which again, as you admit, the document leaves out. It is thus, ambiguous. My point made yet again.
Nope. Not your point. Mine–my point is that it’s not about whether one is to be “saved” through invincible ignorance. Your assertion is similar to me saying that “the US Constitution is really ambiguous on chemical engineering.”

And that I can “prove” it is by showing that chemical engineering isn’t discussed in the Constitution… :confused:

The LG 15 text only claims that all Christians are linked in some way by the grace of God that does find their way in all denominations. AND that this link is our best hope for restored unity. You disagree with that?
If all Protestants (which is the impression given, as you admit above) are joined with us “in some real way…in the Holy Spirit”, as the document says, then it is discussing salvation (salvation being the purpose of the Church Christ founded of course and the whole point of the Holy Spirit sanctifying through Her).
Absurd. Like saying if we’re discussing the Trinity we must be discussing the Incarnation as well since they’re connected, and unless we explicitly discuss stuff about the Incarnation, our Trinity conversation will lead people into error! Absolutely silly…
It speaks not only of common truths shared - but in some way in the life in the Holy Spirit…the latter can only be the case of invincible ignorance, etc.
That’s precisely where you are wrong–trying to limit the work of the Holy Spirit only to members of the Mystical Body of Christ…If God gives all of us sufficient grace for salvation, then the Holy Spirit is CLEARLY at work beyond the “boundaries” of the Mystical Body and the visible Church.
Not mentioning it is ambiguous and can lead many to believe that religion doesn’t matter any more and that paragraph 8 of QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE has been, well, changed.
Not if one actually reads the text of LG 15 according to what it is trying to assert. What it asserts has nothing to do with the topic of Pius’ text…
I mean after all, if we’re all connected in the same Holy Spirit, then what’s the big deal? See what you’re erroneous conclusions of ambiguous documents can lead to! :tsktsk:
Wagging a finger at me won’t change the truth–you’ve misinterpreted LG 15 and as result claim it’s being “ambiguous”. The only ambiguity now is whether you will or will not admit the truth…

DJim
 
This is my first time in here. I clicked to read the document on Ecumenism and was directed to this site.

I would like to read the document before making a post, so shall try to find it.:o
 
So, you would limit the work of the Holy Spirit to affecting ONLY those in the Mystical Body of Christ?
Affecting and being “at work” on those outside the Mystical Body of Christ is a given - it’s called “actual” graces - those promptings of the Holy Spirit “from the outside”. These come to anyone and everyone because Our Lord desires all men to be saved. However, this is not what LG is discussing. Again, here are the words of the document -
“Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power.”
Operating among them with His sanctifying power” implies more than just acting on them from the outside, it implies they are being sanctified - made holy - saved. Now you can say that in some individuals who happen to be invincibly ignorant this may be the case, but to say (as it appears in the usual ambiguous sense here) it happens as a normative general rule is contradictory to what the Church has always taught.
Can you show me any Magisterial statement that says that?
Sure -
And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.* (Mystici Corporis Christi*, cf 22, Pius XII)
Come to think of it, placed side by side with Mystici Corporis, this part of Lumen Gentium can really appear contradictory as well - perhaps even moreso…
Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond. (Mystici Corporis Christi, cf 14, Pius XII)

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they** do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter**…Likewise we can say that** in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit**, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. (Lumen Gentium, cf 15, VII)
Can the two be reconciled? Yes, with some, perhaps much, difficulty. Anyone, however, who claims such reconcilliation is crystal clear and that the two documents don’t give the impression of contradiction - well - I don’t know what else to tell you. Maybe its time for a reality check.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
You “seem” to be referring to the fact that, in order for someone to be “relieved” of invincible ignorance, they must first postively receive valid information. Do you deny this?
I don’t know what you mean by “relieved” of invincible ignorance. But it’s late.
Am I wrong to assert that a member of the Mystical Body of Christ must culpably reject the faith to be severed from that Body?
Maybe, maybe not. Culpably “rejecting the faith” could mean they reject the faith they once had - which would be too limiting. Culpably “rejecting the faith” could mean refusing to accept the free gift of faith in the first place or refusing the faith they once had - which would be more accurately stated.
DustinsDad: This whole concept of, “Well you have really really really know and really really really understand that the Church is the One True Church and then reject it for ‘Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus’ to apply” is ridiculous.

IDJim: is it now? How else can one reject something culpably?
He can refuse to listen in the first place - no matter how well articulated the faith may be.

He can fail to respond to whatever actual graces the Good Lord sends him during his life that prompt him to investigate and find the Catholic Church.
Test case: A 12-year-old Baptist boy, validly baptized, has been taught by Mom and Dad that the Church of Rome is the “whore of Babylon” and has never heard the truth about Roman Catholicism. He dies of cancer at age 13. Is he damned for all eternity?
Given his age, I don’t think he can be held culpable for not being a formal member of the Church - he’s still a child living under his parent’s roof, so I don’t see how this can be culpable rejection of the One True Church. (His parents, on the other hand, may have more to answer for). Now hopefully he doesn’t have any mortal sin on his soul - being excluded from the Sacraments would make that one a toughy, not insurmountable, but a toughy. Ah, but he is young, so let’s hope that’s not the case. In any case, 'tis all for the Good Lord to judge.

But thanks for offering the “child dying of cancer” scenerio - very original.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
Affecting and being “at work” on those outside the Mystical Body of Christ is a given - it’s called “actual” graces - those promptings of the Holy Spirit “from the outside”. These come to anyone and everyone because Our Lord desires all men to be saved. However, this is not what LG is discussing. Again, here are the words of the document -
Oh, now it’s a “given”? It didn’t seem to be a “given” a few posts ago…
“Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power.”
Operating among them with His sanctifying power” implies more than just acting on them from the outside, it implies they are being sanctified - made holy - saved.
Obviously this is both an external and internal sanctifying, since LG 15 is talking specifically about the BAPTIZED. As such, the passage does NOT refer by any means to ALL Protestants!
Now you can say that in some individuals who happen to be invincibly ignorant this may be the case, but to say (as it appears in the usual ambiguous sense here) it happens as a normative general rule is contradictory to what the Church has always taught.
And this is NOT what LG 15 says either. It’s about the BAPTIZED, not about who is invincibly ignorant, and definitely NOT about all Protestants…
Dustinsdad, I think you’re getting confused in your own rhetoric. Above, you say the fact that the Holy Spirit works outside the Body of Christ is a “given.” But NOW you are attempting to provide Magisterial quotes that say the Holy Spirit does NOT work outside the Church.

Don’t you think that’s, uh, maybe a little “ambiguous”???:rolleyes:

In any case, the quotes you cite refer to those who reject the work of the Holy Spirit and don’t support…eh…either of your opposite opinions regarding where the Holy Spirit operates…

DJim
 
Oh, now it’s a “given”? It didn’t seem to be a “given” a few posts ago…
You never heard about “actual” grace and “sanctifying” grace - the difference between the two? Catechism 101 my friend.
Obviously this is both an external and internal sanctifying, since LG 15 is talking specifically about the BAPTIZED. As such, the passage does NOT refer by any means to ALL Protestants!
Doesn’t matter - they still have to be invincibly ignorant in order for the Sanctifying Grace given to them in Baptism to remain in them in the face of their rejection of Christ’s Church. LG implies such is the normative case., which has been my point all along, which you have yet to address.
DustinsDad: “Operating among them with His sanctifying power” implies more than just acting on them from the outside, it implies they are being sanctified - made holy - saved. Now you can say that in some individuals who happen to be invincibly ignorant this may be the case, but to say (as it appears in the usual ambiguous sense here) it happens as a normative general rule is contradictory to what the Church has always taught.

DJim: And this is NOT what LG 15 says either. It’s about the BAPTIZED, not about who is invincibly ignorant, and definitely NOT about all Protestants…
Baptism infuses sanctifying grace. Rejecting the Church Christ founded, refusing to hear Her, is a mortal sin that removes sanctifying grace from the soul if it was there to begin with.

Therefore, if, as you now admit, LG talks about Protestants who have sanctifying grace infused into their soul since you said “obviously this is both an external and internal sanctifying” then the only Protestants* LG* could possibly be talking about are those who are invinvibly ignorant. For even the validly baptized - if they reject the Church - must do so out of invincible ignorance in order for *LG *to stand.

Therefore, I agree that LG here is speaking of those with valid baptism (though if ya blink you can miss it). And yet my point still stands. The ambiguity of LG implies invincible ignorance is the general rule for Protestants who have had valid baptism. There, is that better?

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
…Above, you say the fact that the Holy Spirit works outside the Body of Christ is a “given.”
Yep, and it is - in the form of actual graces.
…But NOW you are attempting to provide Magisterial quotes that say the Holy Spirit does NOT work outside the Church.
Not in the form of sanctifying grace in those who reject the Church - which is what Protestants do by their very nature of being Protestant. Only way around this…invincibly ignorance.

And I’m not “attempting” to provide Magisterial quotes, I am providing Magisterial quotes…
And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.* (Mystici Corporis Christi, cf 22, Pius XII)*
Don’t you think that’s, uh, maybe a little “ambiguous”???:rolleyes:
Not at all. Gotta understand the difference between acutal and sanctifying grace. Here’s a little quote from the CA tract Grace: What It Is and What It Does:
Sanctifying grace
stays in the soul. It’s what makes the soul holy; it gives the soul supernatural life. More properly, it is supernatural life.

Actual grace, by contrast, is a supernatural push or encouragement. It’s transient. It doesn’t live in the soul, but acts on the soul from the outside, so to speak. It’s a supernatural kick in the pants. It gets the will and intellect moving so we can seek out and keep sanctifying grace.
It’s a very good article - check it out in full at the link above. Hope that helps.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
Tidying up…
I’m really getting tired of your baseless characterization of what I supposedly “think”. Put your money where your mouth is, please: show me where I’ve ever said protestants are “just fine where they are”–if you can’t, then please apologize for mischaracterizing my view.
Your post #77-

You stated: “The point is that NOT everyone baptized outside the Catholic Church “instantly” will reject the fullness of truth. It’s probably fair to say that most modern Protestants may well go for a very long time without ever hearing the real truths of the Catholic faith professed within their Protestant environment!”

This also goes to the false premise we discussed earlier - your belief that someone has to “really, really, really” understand the faith in order to culpably reject it.

Given your statement above, most Protestants must be just fine where they are because they are never going to reject the faith because they are never going to hear the real truths of the Catholic faith “within” their Protestant environment.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
Maybe, maybe not. Culpably “rejecting the faith” could mean they reject the faith they once had - which would be too limiting. Culpably “rejecting the faith” could mean refusing to accept the free gift of faith in the first place or refusing the faith they once had - which would be more accurately stated.
The point is that they have to be presented with the truth–in order either to accept it or reject it…
He can refuse to listen in the first place - no matter how well articulated the faith may be.
Refusal to listen is a response to being presented with the truth. Once it has been presented to you, then we agree a person may reject it and that this rejection may be a result of either personal guilt or invincible ignorance.
He can fail to respond to whatever actual graces the Good Lord sends him during his life that prompt him to investigate and find the Catholic Church.
That’s quite true–and as such could be culpable for doing so. We seem to agree on these issues–as long as it is understood that there must be opportunity for the truth to be presented in order for truth to be either accepted or rejected.
Given his age, I don’t think he can be held culpable for not being a formal member of the Church - he’s still a child living under his parent’s roof, so I don’t see how this can be culpable rejection of the One True Church. (His parents, on the other hand, may have more to answer for). Now hopefully he doesn’t have any mortal sin on his soul - being excluded from the Sacraments would make that one a toughy, not insurmountable, but a toughy. Ah, but he is young, so let’s hope that’s not the case. In any case, 'tis all for the Good Lord to judge.
In my test case, age 12 is well beyond the age of reason. Yet, you and I agree that, because he has had no opportunity to be presented with the truth, he remains a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, to the extent that he continues to respond to God’s grace. Correct?

DJim
 
You never heard about “actual” grace and “sanctifying” grace - the difference between the two? Catechism 101 my friend.
Let’s review. You said that
The only way they can be joined with us in the Holy Spirit is if they are not cut off from the mystical body of Christ, the Church.
I challenged the “only” part. Now you agree with me. The Holy Spirit can and does work beyond the Body of the Church and, in that work, we are “linked” to those who respond to the Holy Spirit. And surely we are linked to the BAPTIZED via the Holy Spirit, which is really what LG teaches.
Doesn’t matter - they still have to be invincibly ignorant in order for the Sanctifying Grace given to them in Baptism to remain in them in the face of their rejection of Christ’s Church. **
What do you mean by “in the face of their rejection of Christ’s Church”? The point I’m making is that many Protestants–baptized or not–are never presented with “Christ’s Church” such that they can reject it. As such, yes, that is a form of invincible ignorance. So, again, we seem to agree.
implies such is the normative case., which has been my point all along, which you have yet to address.

I addressed your point by stating that it is an erroneous position unsupported by the text of LG itself. LG does NOT imply that it is “normative” for all Protestants, as you seem to be saying. I personally am stating that I would think it’s likely that many Protestants have little or no access to the truth–but that opinion of mine is NOT found in the text of LG.
Baptism infuses sanctifying grace. Rejecting the Church Christ founded, refusing to hear Her, is a mortal sin that removes sanctifying grace from the soul if it was there to begin with.
IF the rejection is culpable. You and I both agree that such rejection can happen inculpably (as in my test case).
Therefore, if, as you now admit, LG talks about Protestants who have sanctifying grace infused into their soul since you said “obviously this is both an external and internal sanctifying” then the only Protestants* LG* could possibly be talking about are those who are invinvibly ignorant. For even the validly baptized - if they reject the Church - must do so out of invincible ignorance in order for *LG *to stand.
What I have said and maintain is that LG is simply not speaking of the salvation of Protestants as a whole. Period. This text acknowledges our link to those who are baptized and are indeed responding to the grace they are given. In asserting this, LG is not generalizing about ALL Protestants (not all are baptized), nor is LG stating they’re all “fine where they are”–which is what you’ve tried to assert.
Therefore, I agree that LG here is speaking of those with valid baptism (though if ya blink you can miss it). And yet my point still stands. The ambiguity of LG implies invincible ignorance is the general rule for Protestants who have had valid baptism. There, is that better?
Not in the least. LG doesn’t consider the impact of invincible ignorance in this text. LG doesn’t offer anything remotely resembling a “general rule” in the text.

DJim
 
You stated: “The point is that NOT everyone baptized outside the Catholic Church “instantly” will reject the fullness of truth. It’s probably fair to say that most modern Protestants may well go for a very long time without ever hearing the real truths of the Catholic faith professed within their Protestant environment!”
That is indeed what I stated. Now show me in the text where I state that Protestants are “just fine where they are.” Go ahead. Show me. No, really, go right ahead. I’m serious. Don’t hold back. Go for it. Truly, please show me. I’ll wait. Done yet? Not yet. Need more time?

…Oh it’s not there? Then I guess you can admit you have mischaracterized my view…
This also goes to the false premise we discussed earlier - your belief that someone has to “really, really, really” understand the faith in order to culpably reject it.
Oh–did I really really say “really really really”??? Well then produce the quote. I’d love to see it. Somehow I’d forgotten. Got to go dig for it? No problem. Plenty of time…

…Wow–couldn’t find it? Then I guess you can admit that I never offered this “false premise”. Yup, another straw man on your part…
Given your statement above, most Protestants must be just fine where they are because they are never going to reject the faith because they are never going to hear the real truths of the Catholic faith “within” their Protestant environment.
Wow–what a privilege it must be for you to put thoughts in my head and words in my mouth…

I make a statement and you get to tell me what I must mean by it. Just like you do with Lumen Gentium and the Decree on Ecumenism, etc.–putting thoughts and words in the mouths of Council Fathers…

Congratulations on being consistent…

😃

DJim
 
The point is that they have to be presented with the truth–in order either to accept it or reject it…
Not necessarily - they could reject the opportunity to be presented with the truth. This could come in visible ways (such as turning of a catholic radio station or telling a Catholic co-worker that he didn’t want to hear anything about the Church) or invisible ways (rejecting an actual grace from God to pull the car into a Catholic Church and make a visit - such things do happen in ways we never see. I hasten a bet that alot of invitations are rejected day in and day out, but who’s to say when and where and how? We just can’t say for sure.
That’s quite true–and as such could be culpable for doing so. We seem to agree on these issues–as long as it is understood that there must be opportunity for the truth to be presented in order for truth to be either accepted or rejected.
We agree as long as we agree that we can never be certain that these “opportunities for the truth to be presented” have never occured. Could be things happening on the inside that only God knows about. God reads the heart - we don’t. We go by what we can see - and as such, anyone outside the visible bonds of the Church is objectively in spiritual peril. That’s the traditional way of looking at it.
In my test case, age 12 is well beyond the age of reason. Yet, you and I agree that, because he has had no opportunity to be presented with the truth,
I agreed because he had no real way of formally entering the Church Christ founded since he was still a child living under his parent’s roof. Thirteen is still pretty young there, and it’s a safe bet he would still be invincibly ignorant at that point. But ya know, God could have it planted in his heart and mind to one day find out “about that Catholic Church” everyone seems to talk about when he gets old enough. Thing is we just don’t know - we don’t know what was stirring in his heart or the condition of his soul upon death. God reads the heart - we don’t. Objectively speaking, given his age and the fact that he was validly baptized, that’s good. Given that he was outside the visible bonds of Holy Mother Church wihtout access to the Sacraments, that’s not good.
He remains a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, to the extent that he continues to respond to God’s grace. Correct?
To the extent he was validly baptized and to the extent he responds positively to God’s grace - yes. And yes, precisely because responding positively to God’s grace would mean responding postively to the Church whenever the opportunity arose (whether through visible or invisible means) - unless responding positively was hampered by invincible ignorance and/or circumstances that was not the fault of the boy.

But then why make assumptions on what we can’t know. What we do know absolutely in this case is that the boy was validly baptized, still very young, still living under his Protestant parents’ roof - but still died away from the Sacraments. Reason to hope there, but still sad that anyone die apart from the Sacraments (Confession, the Eucharist, Last Rites, etc.) and outside the visible bonds of Holy Mother Church. Woe to us when we get complacent about such things!

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
Now show me in the text where I state that Protestants are “just fine where they are.”
Saying “most” Protestants are invincibly ignorant implies that. Sorry to have offended you, but my friend, words do mean things.
DustinsDad: This also goes to the false premise we discussed earlier - your belief that someone has to “really, really, really” understand the faith in order to culpably reject it.

DJim: Oh–did I really really say “really really really”??? Well then produce the quote. I’d love to see it. Somehow I’d forgotten.
Post #118 -
DustinsDad: This whole concept of, “Well you have really really really know and* really really really* understand that the Church is the One True Church and then reject it for ‘Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus’ to apply” is ridiculous. DJim: Is it now? How else can one reject something culpably? Here you agreed with the statement and disagreed with me that it was ridiculous. Do you now disagree with the statement and agree with me that it is ridiculous? I’m struggling to follow you my friend. And I’m not in any way trying to offend you - sorry that that seems to be happening.
What I have said and maintain is that LG is simply not speaking of the salvation of Protestants as a whole. Period
Remember, you said regarding LG, “obviously this is both an external and internal sanctifying.” So* LG* is speaking of Protestants’ sanctification but not of their salvation? Hmmmmmmm .
LG doesn’t consider the impact of invincible ignorance in this text.
Or the lack thereof.
LG doesn’t offer anything remotely resembling a “general rule” in the text.
I think it does. See earlier posts.
What do you mean by “in the face of their rejection of Christ’s Church”? The point I’m making is that many Protestants–baptized or not–are never presented with “Christ’s Church” such that they can reject it. As such, yes, that is a form of invincible ignorance. So, again, we seem to agree.
Isn’t this new assumption of invincible ignorance as the norm thing (or “most” as you said before, or “many” as you say now) one of the things that started this whole ball-a-rolling between me and you? It’s what sounds so new and so different and quite frankly, so contradictory to how the Church spoke and taught pre-Vatican II. Of course folks are going to get confused when they hear your words and words like them, and then compare them to the encyclicals and teachings of pre-Vatican II popes and Councils.
LG does NOT imply that it is “normative” for all Protestants, as you seem to be saying.
Doesn’t say it explicitly, but it gives that impression in my opinion and in the opinions of many, many, many folks looking at it.
I personally am stating that I would think it’s likely that many Protestants have little or no access to the truth–but that opinion of mine is NOT found in the text of LG.
And before you said “most” - now you say “many” (perhaps our conversation is having an effect on you). “Most” could be interpreted as normative. Ah, anyway…I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on how* LG* comes across.

Olive branch offered here…we’ve beaten this horse quite enough. I’ve enjoyed talking with you, and forgive me if I offended you in any way in any of our discussions.

Peace in Christ, I mean that!

And you may have the last word 😉

DustinsDad
 
I don’t want to get into this fight, but I must remind everyone that back in 1647 Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque’s renewal changed Western Catholic thinking about grace. Her vision restored a sense of indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That indwelling is the same as what modern day Charismatic have today. It’s like a personal union with the heart of the crucified and risen Christ.

I attend a traditional church with Saint Margaret Mary as their patron saint, and I can sense the Spirit moving during Mass. Especially, when the choir sings Gregorian Chants. I can also sing along with the choir in my spiritual tongue, and it sounds like Latin. In addition, when I kneel before the statues of Jesus’ Heart and St. Margaret Mary I become mystic the same as St. Margaret Mary was. I can also lift my hands to the Lord and pray in the Spirit up there, quietly of course. It’s kind of like being half Protestant and half Catholic. It’s amazing what the Holy Spirit can do.

How is that for Ecumenism? Forget about telling me that I’m going to Hell, because the Pope already did that. I don’t need to hear it again.
 
And before you said “most” - now you say “many” (perhaps our conversation is having an effect on you). “Most” could be interpreted as normative. Ah, anyway…I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on how* LG* comes across.
“Disagreeing on how LG comes across” is VERY different from positively asserting that the Decree on Ecumenism is erroneous, which was what stmaria was asserting when I got involved in this thread.

Whether “most” or “many”? No one can know. My point has been that the V2 documents are clear enough to be understood properly by a person willing to accept them as they are presented and avoid trying to shoehorn them into a position at odds with previous Church teaching.

In your pursuit of demonstrating your view of LG, you have ostensibly shown that we do indeed agree on what the text means.

We even seem to agree upon the fact that the only rememdy for ignorance is that an opportunity to receive the real truth must present itself for the person to accept or reject it. Until culpable rejection happens, a baptized person is part of the Church.

I have not been thrilled with the caricature you tried to create out of my views. Especially when you and I agreed so completely on these texts.

I note further that you were unable to defend stmaria’s misrepresentation of Pius XI’s 1928 text. That it is NOT contrary to the work of Vatican II.

I guess we’re done.

God bless

DJim
 
I forgot to mention that during Mass while I’m not in the Spirit I do listen to what the anointed priest says. Last Sunday was the Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost and the Epistle was (II Corinthians 3: 4-9) about the “Letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth.)

Now remember, I’m not calling the Catholic Church the modern day Pharisees, but it seems to me that all these laws, whether Ecumenism or not, killeth the Protestants. From what the Pope is saying, I guess that’s okay. But, what about Saint Margaret Mary being equal with the Apostles? What about her vision and indwelling of the Holy Spirit that is the same indwelling as modern day Charismatics have? Are we going to let the letter killeth the Protestants along the rest of the heathens? Good Grief ! 🤷
 
…I must remind everyone that back in 1647 Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque’s renewal changed Western Catholic thinking about grace.
How did you ever arrive at that conclusion?
…Her vision restored a sense of indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
That’s a strage statement. The Lord used St. Margaret Mary Alacoque in a big way to inspire devotion to His Sacred Heart. And I guess you could say that any increase in devotion to any aspect of God’s nature would, in some way, increase a “sense” of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But that “sense” perception is not crucial - it’s a gift God gives some, probably most, at one time or another - but it’s not crucial. The Sacraments are the chief avenues of grace, whereby Sanctifying Grace is given, restored, or increased - and they don’t require a “feeling” to make them valid.

One of the dangers of the so-called “Charismatic Renewal” is the tend toward downplaying the Sacraments (especially Confirmation) and relying on outward signs and emotions.

But here’s more info on Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque and devotion to the Sacred Heart.
…That indwelling is the same as what modern day Charismatic have today.
Uh, in some cases probably, in other cases probably not. (This could quickly get off topic!)
…It’s like a personal union with the heart of the crucified and risen Christ.
It might be “like” it in some way if it’s valid - but real personal union with the heart of the crucified and risen Christ reaches it’s total fulfillment (on this side of heaven anyway) in worthy reception of Holy Communion - you don’t get amy more “real” than that - and you don’t even *have *to feel anything…but oftentimes you do 🙂 .

By the way, I believe the devotion of receiving Holy Communion on the first Friday of every month in reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus was one of the things St. Margaret Mary Alacoque is responsible for.
…I attend a traditional church with Saint Margaret Mary as their patron saint, and I can sense the Spirit moving during Mass. Especially, when the choir sings Gregorian Chants. I can also sing along with the choir in my spiritual tongue, and it sounds like Latin. In addition, when I kneel before the statues of Jesus’ Heart and St. Margaret Mary I become mystic the same as St. Margaret Mary was. I can also lift my hands to the Lord and pray in the Spirit up there, quietly of course. It’s kind of like being half Protestant and half Catholic. It’s amazing what the Holy Spirit can do.
Well…hmmmmmm.

I don’t think the Holy Spirit would want you to be half and half.

And I’d caution you to be careful of “tounges” as you speak of them - especially if you are “seeking them out.” Could be supernatural and of God (perhaps - but if they are confirming you of rejection of His Church, this would be impossible), could be supernatural and of the Enemy, could be totally natural and just a mental glitch or mode the mind goes in when deep in contemplation or prayer.

But again - don’t want to get this into another charismatic discussion thread.
…How is that for Ecumenism? Forget about telling me that I’m going to Hell, because the Pope already did that. I don’t need to hear it again.
I think it demonstrates that PAN-Christianity is not something we don’t have to worry about anymore. And that it can also come wearing the clothing of Ecumenism.

I’d quiet the “tounges” and listen very very closely to the words/prayers of the Mass and the words of the priest in the homily more. Pray fervantly from guideance from the Lord during Mass. And please - for your own sake - don’t present yourself for Holy Communion until you are properly disposed of mind and spirit - free from mortal sin and united with the Church in all it teaches and believes.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
How did you ever arrive at that conclusion?
Well, if I stick to last Sunday’s Epistle about the “letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth” we see that grace is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, because it’s the opposite of the letter killeth. We also see that grace our personal union with Christ. The early church fathers picked up on it, so a study of grace will include Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque and her indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It was finally determined that all the people on this planet have grace, because of Saint Margaret Mary’s visions.

We can not avoid the fact that the letter applies to everyone and is impersonal. I want you to ask yourself, how many of these forum posts have the letter as central? How many have the grace of Ecumenism up front where we can read it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top