T
thistle
Guest
Frankly, I find that hard to believe!
- Status
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Fine! You live in a very devout Catholic nation.
P
pnewton
Guest
I am in a parish that clearly hears what it is to be Catholic, our commonality with our other Christian brothers, and the critical differences. Perhaps the problem lies not with the prayer as much as an individual priest here and there.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
And I fully believe that, through the glory and triumph of God Almighty’s Church, our priesthood will recover from the wounds it has sustained just as our liturgy and music will.
S
Sirach2
Guest
OP quoting Abp. Bugnini:
For those of us who are present and hear these words prayed, we join the Church’s (and Christ’s) ardent desire that “all may be one.”
Maybe some have not understood the teaching of the Vat. Council, which has formally recognized that all those who are baptized and believe in Christ are already joined to us in the Mystical Body of Christ. In fact, this was defined earlier by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporus, so it is not specific only to V-II.
Rather than retain the post-Reformation age prayer, exhorting the “heretics and schismatics” to return to the fold, the Church wisely and prudently changed the language to reflects Her present teachings that duly recognizes these brothers and sisters as being one with us mystically, albeit imperfectly. That is why She longs for their being gathered with us, and petitions this in the new prayer.
To echo Mark Thompson’s comment, I agree that very few, if any, Protestants will be attending our Good Friday liturgy. I highly doubt the Church would compose our liturgical prayers in the unlikely premise that nonCatholics would be in attendance.
For those of us who are present and hear these words prayed, we join the Church’s (and Christ’s) ardent desire that “all may be one.”
Maybe some have not understood the teaching of the Vat. Council, which has formally recognized that all those who are baptized and believe in Christ are already joined to us in the Mystical Body of Christ. In fact, this was defined earlier by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporus, so it is not specific only to V-II.
Rather than retain the post-Reformation age prayer, exhorting the “heretics and schismatics” to return to the fold, the Church wisely and prudently changed the language to reflects Her present teachings that duly recognizes these brothers and sisters as being one with us mystically, albeit imperfectly. That is why She longs for their being gathered with us, and petitions this in the new prayer.
W
Warrenton
Guest
W
Warrenton
Guest
“Present teachings?”
Why does someone who is one with us need to be gathered to us also? Put another way, if we are one, aren’t we gathered already?
It seems very much like saying something is two exclusive things at once.
P
pnewton
Guest
Isn’t that the nature of this place quite often? I will echo back your wish for a Merry Christmas to you and your family, and to all here with whom I have enjoyed cordial disagreement.Alas, there we must agree to differ.
Have a holly jolly, btw.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Do you really want me to quote them all?“Present teachings?”
Because they are only joined to us in the Mystical Body of Christ through their baptism, but not yet in doctrine. That is why we ask that the obstacles to full unity be removed so that one day they may be “gathered” with us in all aspects of Catholic truth.
J
jonbhorton
Guest
gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/ncreed.html
The Methodists clearly draw distinctions, and categorically reject the true Church in the manner in which they have added a caveat to the Nicene Creed.
I can tell you as a former Protestant that it really doesn’t matter what the Church does to a majority of Protestants, unless it provides fuel for their vitriolic hatred of Rome, the Pope, etc.
And yes, many do have a hatred for Rome, the Pope, etc even if never really talked about.
The fact of the matter is, I don’t know any former Protestants who have converted or are in the process who came home due to sappy language and ecumenism. We came home because Traditional Catholics were willing to get in our face and demand we defend our lies. It becomes intellectually impossible to defend a lie when faced with Truth.
The last thing the Roman Catholic Church needs is change or conforming to the world or even Protestants’ fragile sensibilities. I fail to see any salvation outside of the RCC for a Baptist, etc except to place them in the same category as indigenous peoples. What’s worse- they often outright reject the authority of the Pope, denigrate the Blessed Virgin, etc.
Non-Catholics, particular self-professing Christians, need to be challenged with doctrinal truth and that alone. Kowtowing to their perversions of the Faith only exacerbates the issue, if in fact it doesn’t outright lead to some sort of perceived authorization of these perversions.
Tell me, what baptized person finds favor in Christ while rejecting the Church he set up? His Mother? The infallible doctrines of His Vicar?
What we are left with is language which is so vague and sappy, with so many doctrinal caveats, that the average Protestant would read these things and find no need whatsoever to “come home”.
I was not brought home by the ecumenical efforts of V2 nor of those which subscribe to a liberal interpretation of the philosophies and doctrines which come from V2. I was brought home by having my non-doctrinal beliefs directly challenged.
Protestants, particularly charismatics and evangelicals, have a zeal about them- but no real hard, traceable doctrine or history. The only way to reach them is to provide what they don’t have. The zeal is easily maintained when properly understanding the doctrine. In fact, my zeal has increased.
I can’t tell you how EXCITED I get to go to the TLM. I don’t even want to leave it when done. I can’t wait for Heaven. But I can endure to the end much more easily now that I know what worship truly is and signifies in the TLM. That can never be taken away from me.
In the end, Protestants desire structure. But when one lacks truth, the attempt at structure becomes a failed exercise. It is like trying to build a productive society based on extremely loose morals and a legal system based in feelings. It just doesn’t work.
The Methodists clearly draw distinctions, and categorically reject the true Church in the manner in which they have added a caveat to the Nicene Creed.
Linguistically it is “correct”, but, it lacks the truthful nature of the RCC, which is all truth.
I can tell you as a former Protestant that it really doesn’t matter what the Church does to a majority of Protestants, unless it provides fuel for their vitriolic hatred of Rome, the Pope, etc.
And yes, many do have a hatred for Rome, the Pope, etc even if never really talked about.
The fact of the matter is, I don’t know any former Protestants who have converted or are in the process who came home due to sappy language and ecumenism. We came home because Traditional Catholics were willing to get in our face and demand we defend our lies. It becomes intellectually impossible to defend a lie when faced with Truth.
The last thing the Roman Catholic Church needs is change or conforming to the world or even Protestants’ fragile sensibilities. I fail to see any salvation outside of the RCC for a Baptist, etc except to place them in the same category as indigenous peoples. What’s worse- they often outright reject the authority of the Pope, denigrate the Blessed Virgin, etc.
Non-Catholics, particular self-professing Christians, need to be challenged with doctrinal truth and that alone. Kowtowing to their perversions of the Faith only exacerbates the issue, if in fact it doesn’t outright lead to some sort of perceived authorization of these perversions.
Tell me, what baptized person finds favor in Christ while rejecting the Church he set up? His Mother? The infallible doctrines of His Vicar?
What we are left with is language which is so vague and sappy, with so many doctrinal caveats, that the average Protestant would read these things and find no need whatsoever to “come home”.
I was not brought home by the ecumenical efforts of V2 nor of those which subscribe to a liberal interpretation of the philosophies and doctrines which come from V2. I was brought home by having my non-doctrinal beliefs directly challenged.
Protestants, particularly charismatics and evangelicals, have a zeal about them- but no real hard, traceable doctrine or history. The only way to reach them is to provide what they don’t have. The zeal is easily maintained when properly understanding the doctrine. In fact, my zeal has increased.
I can’t tell you how EXCITED I get to go to the TLM. I don’t even want to leave it when done. I can’t wait for Heaven. But I can endure to the end much more easily now that I know what worship truly is and signifies in the TLM. That can never be taken away from me.
In the end, Protestants desire structure. But when one lacks truth, the attempt at structure becomes a failed exercise. It is like trying to build a productive society based on extremely loose morals and a legal system based in feelings. It just doesn’t work.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Hello Johbhorton,
Your profile reveals that you are not yet a Catholic, but are “in the RCIA process to join the RCC.” There are many things you don’t understand from the *inside *yet, but it was helpful that you shared your perspective as an outsider.
Christ has many ways of touching a heart and drawing the person to Himself and His Church. What worked for you may not be a good universal guide for many others. I’m sorry to read that you think the Church’s process is sappy, vague, and not challenging enough.
Your profile reveals that you are not yet a Catholic, but are “in the RCIA process to join the RCC.” There are many things you don’t understand from the *inside *yet, but it was helpful that you shared your perspective as an outsider.
Christ has many ways of touching a heart and drawing the person to Himself and His Church. What worked for you may not be a good universal guide for many others. I’m sorry to read that you think the Church’s process is sappy, vague, and not challenging enough.
We are well aware of this, without a doubt. This was what they were brought up with and it takes much prayer and patience to dispel years of indoctrination against Catholics. If “in your face” boldness was capable of producing conversions, we would all be schooled in those tactics. It is ineffective. Stick around this forum awhile, and note how seldom the dogmatists using strong-arm language are able to convince anyone else.
J
jonbhorton
Guest
Hello Johbhorton,
**Your profile reveals that you are not yet a Catholic, but are “in the RCIA process to join the RCC.” There are many things you don’t understand from the *inside ***yet, but it was helpful that you shared your perspective as an outsider.
LOL. Outsider? Is the soldier in training an outsider? I have devoted myself to internally accepting all Rome has to say on any issue relating to the Church. I am merely an outsider in terms of not having gone through certain things… but certainly more an insider in spirit than many I have found are insiders in practice.
I’m a Catholic. I have given myself over to it entirely in my heart, as I recognize it is the true Church for any believer. Anything else is not the Truth. Am I able to take part in communion yet? No. Does that make me less Catholic in heart? No more than it makes a soldier less of a soldier when he has not completed training. He has, however, dedicated himself to be a soldier and embodies and strives for all that he can. However, if the soldier corrects more senior people for not following what he has been instructed in, is he less of a soldier or more? More, I’d argue. For he embodies the spirit and willingness of a soldier. Anyone else is just wearing a uniform no matter their chronological progression in the institution of soldiering.
Christ has many ways of touching a heart and drawing the person to Himself and His Church. What worked for you may not be a good universal guide for many others. I’m sorry to read that you think the Church’s process is sappy, vague, and not challenging enough.
Did I say that? No, I didn’t. I said that most Protestants wouldn’t do research beyond it. Heck, reading my CCC I have to basically return to a “college” mentality and just dive in full tilt to study. Studying hard doctrine led to my conversion back home into the RCC.I could literally not give a darn what some local effort is when it departs from the Faith in search of kowtowing via watering down doctrine or cold, hard Truth.
Not wishing to place myself in a prideful place, it is truly with humility that I say most post-V2 Catholics are so poorly catechized that, in the RCIA class, I find myself wondering if the lay instructors even know basic tenets of the faith half the time. Only two instructors stand out, and of the 2 priests which also instruct, one is not amongst them. I personally draw my understanding from actual documents and not what some other person said, nor what is implied to modern people who can’t read what is actually being said to save their lives. Nor what is implied, at a cursory level, in much of the language I find in reading little CCC paragraphs. There has to be understanding beyond that to be defensible. Sure, orally give me the basics, maybe a tract with the basic idea, or a copy of a page in the CCC. But, I’m for sure reading everything about that subject I can find. Why? Because in earlier attempts, as a Protestant, to overtly challenge a Catholic, I secretly hoped they’d just explain things in a way I could understand or point me to sound doctrine. Most failed. It may be different for other Protestants. But I always truly wanted Catholicism, but I had to be able to understand the actuality that I was raised with lies. The only ones who were able to, again, address that which I lacked, were Traditional Catholics.
In fact, all protestations to the RCC are doctrinally based in argument, however emotional it may or may not become.
Ergo, doctrine, strong doctrine, is what is needed.
Modern ways of writing these doctrinal tenets are indeed vague and sappy for the tidbit crowd. Modern man, as technologically advanced as he is, is educated in a such a manner that modern man only understands small sentences. If all we have is small sentences to reach the people, then those sentences need to be clear, not vague or requiring reading documents to understand what is meant by what is said. The documents should flesh out those bold declarations of the Faith.
We are well aware of this, without a doubt. This was what they were brought up with and it takes much prayer and patience to dispel years of indoctrination against Catholics. If “in your face” boldness was capable of producing conversions, we would all be schooled in those tactics. It is ineffective. Stick around this forum awhile, and note how seldom the dogmatists using strong-arm language are able to convince anyone else.
If modern, watered down methods were effective, we wouldn’t see a flip-flop in statistics on attendance as compared to prior to these changes taking place.
Ever read the stats? The RCC was relatively strong, and its devout were devout, and it had great attendance and understanding of the tenets of the Faith. Now? Not so much. The only thing that has changed has been the method in which non-Catholics are instructed on the RCC in terms of efforts to instruct them and bring them back into the fold.
You don’t have success in sobriety by adding vodka to the AA graduation party punch bowl, but, we have a lot of ecumenically minded people passing out spiked doctrine, or at least the appearance of it.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Sirach: Christ has many ways of touching a heart and drawing the person to Himself and His Church. What worked for you may not be a good universal guide for many others. I’m sorry to read that you think the Church’s process is sappy, vague, and not challenging enough.
Jonbhorton: Did I say that? No, I didn’t.
Maybe you forgot, but you DID say it — twice, in fact.
Jonbhorton: Did I say that? No, I didn’t.
Maybe you forgot, but you DID say it — twice, in fact.
Forgive me for intruding into your sphere of expertise. I see that I made a big mistake. God bless your journey.
J
jonbhorton
Guest
Forgive me for intruding into your sphere of being unable to comprehend what you read as is written and further explained.
Don’t read into what I write in such a defensive manner. I mean what I say, and say what I mean… but you can’t read me properly if you insist on totally changing what I said via not actually following the flow of what I said.
What I said:
Did I say the process was sappy and vague? Nope.
I said that the language was, for a Protestant who is not aware of actual Catholic doctrine, not something which gives the bare bones in such a way that they would understand the Church’s actual position. It is vague, to a degree, and certainly sappy insofar as not being forthright in its true position. Flowery, maybe, would be a better way of putting it.
Take CCC#841 for example. A modern, cursory reading would almost yield the impression that the Church somehow makes a concession for Islam. In fact, it seems to yield this view from the majority of people I’ve interacted with regarding its discussion- Protestant and some Catholics alike. But when we look at the referenced footnotes, LG 16 and NA 3, we get a picture that is the exact opposite of what could otherwise be construed as something else. When coupling those pertinent documents with the CCC paragraph, it becomes very clear. But guess what, the average muslim or Protestant is simply not going to do the footwork. Therefore, the language is vague because it in fact doesn’t articulate the Church’s position in layman’s terms at all. It has to be coaxed out of it. This is not a generation which can coax much of anything from literature, Canonical or not, due to the failed state of education.
This is why I prefer to stick with old school resources, and mindsets, which clearly explain things, and allow a basis to truly understand the more hard to read documents.
Of course, that might actually challenge people to accept they do not have the full truth of the Gospel and need to return to the Catholic Church.
W
Warrenton
Guest
No, I was struck more by the term, which implies a change from previous teachings.
Because they are only joined to us in the Mystical Body of Christ through their baptism, but not yet in doctrine.
Why is this important? If one is a part of the Body of Christ, one can be saved. What’s the point of conversion if one can be saved as one is?
S
Sirach2
Guest
Warrenton, the documents themselves urge evangelization because baptism is not the fullness of sacramental life that gives a person the supernatural helps obtained through the other sacraments. It is just bare bones, so to speak.
G
gentle_atheist
Guest
I think that jonbhorton is right on target. Here’s an excellent article by a cradle Catholic that backs him up: “I Was Robbed!” by Leila Miller
J
jonbhorton
Guest
Totally agree. I think the danger is when people take it to the extreme that evangelization is trying to actually overcome, as far as our Protestant brethren, in terms of growing beyond Baptism, or, spiritual infancy.
Baptism, done properly, well and good. But there is soooo much more that needs to be done.
I’d equate it to the give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish. It seems, in my experience, that I was given a fish and then heard the rest of my life about how good it tasted.
I’m glad that I’m now learning how to fish, how good it tastes, and how good it will always taste.
I’m also glad there are well written documents full of spiritual dramamine, because it can certainly be a rough ride when the Devil knows he is about to lose you forever- once you know Truth.
W
Warrenton
Guest
I’ve read them, and I am familiar with the notion you expressed. But it makes no sense to me. I can imagine going to Hell. I can (with difficulty) imagine going to Heaven. I can also imagine going to Hell because I was not a member of the Church.
I cannot imagine going to Heaven, even though I was not a member of the Church, but wishing I had been a member of the Church because then I would enjoy Heaven more.
If someone goes to Heaven, then that is ultimate fulfillment of that person’s existence. If someone can go to Heaven by being a Protestant, then ipso facto being Catholic is not required for salvation. If try to get round the mulberry bush by saying Protestants are Catholic, then it’s demonstrably better to stay Protestant because it’s easier. By extension, it’s better to switch from being Catholic to being Protestant, since they are functionally equivilent.
Unless we say that Protestants are Catholic, but Catholics are not Protestant. This creates more questions than it answers.
The thing just strikes me as hopelessly paradoxical.
And something that paradoxical seems an odd thing to change a perfectly clear prayer over.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Did you forget the words were changed from “heretic” to brothers and sisters? Yes it’s true that the first generation that left the Church as Protestants were heretics, and many papal documents appealed to them to return the the faith.
However, as Lumen Gentium recognized (and other previous popes in our century wrote) the children born in subsequent generations are innocent and believe that what their parents taught them is true. Yet they love Christ, and the Church states that through their baptism, they are in the Mystical Body of His Church, while belonging to the Protestant faith. That designation of non-catholic did not change, except for their oneness in Spirit through the Holy Spirit having been bestowed in baptism.
There’s just no getting around that truth, Warrenton. Like it or not. That is why we can no longer call them heretics, because the choice to abandon the faith was nonexistent in our era.
However, as Lumen Gentium recognized (and other previous popes in our century wrote) the children born in subsequent generations are innocent and believe that what their parents taught them is true. Yet they love Christ, and the Church states that through their baptism, they are in the Mystical Body of His Church, while belonging to the Protestant faith. That designation of non-catholic did not change, except for their oneness in Spirit through the Holy Spirit having been bestowed in baptism.
There’s just no getting around that truth, Warrenton. Like it or not. That is why we can no longer call them heretics, because the choice to abandon the faith was nonexistent in our era.
- Status