Why follow a religion made up by Martin Luther in 1500 and not Christ himself?

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

That’s not the point–or rather it supports what I’m saying.

But that it the point. Many of us Catholics agree with Augustine in several critical areas. But we don’t necessarilly agree with him on all matters. In some matters, he spoke rather harshly in my own opinion, even if the basic idea of what he was saying was fairly accurate.

Contarini:

Image cited Augustine as someone who did expect non-Catholics to convert to Catholicism as individuals (at least that appeared to be what Image was saying, though the connection wasn’t entirely clear).

I guess I’m not understanding this distinction between individual and plural.

Contarini:

But Benedict is addressing Protestants in the plural, not the singular. This I think is the real question. Do you deal with us as a group, or as individuals? Do you recognize that our “ecclesial communities” have some sort of reality and validity (even if gravely deficient)? Benedict seems to do so.

So do I.

But this doesn’t excuse them from the responsibility to convert if they believe the Catholic faith to be true. Pope Benedict has never suggested that someone who believes in Catholicism should stay in another denomination.

I guess I’m not understanding the point of this distinction.

Contarini:

Most folks on this board don’t.

I can see your point here.

I do know some old-school fellow Catholics who would absolutely insist that even the Eastern Orthodox are heretical to the point of being damned, outright apostates. And if the the Eastern Orthodox are considered heretical to the point of being anathema, I dread to ask them what their opinion of the various Protestant Churches is.

Contarini:

That’s the issue at hand, and it’s the major issue for me considering Catholicism.

If you’re looking for an official statement from Catholicism regarding non-Catholic churches, consider the Catechism of the Catholic Church first…

Every baptized person not yet confirmed can and should receive the sacrament of Confirmation. Since Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist form a unity, it follows that “the faithful are obliged to receive this sacrament at the appropriate time,” for without Confirmation and Eucharist, Baptism is certainly valid and efficacious, but Christian initiation remains incomplete.

This is the very starting point for any non-Catholic denomination that does not have a valid form of confirmation. In this sense, much like little Catholic children who are awaiting their first communion, the various Christian groups that have valid forms of baptism are waiting in preparation for their initiation to become complete.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I know that. That’s what I’m building on.

But that’s what Pope Benedict XVI is building upon too.

But in searching for the source of where he discerned this, we need to also look at his precessors in regards to the Catechism of the Catholic Church too.

For example, the Catechism is an authoritative source, declared by Pope John Paul II to be “a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.”

In the words of Pope John Paul II, we read the following in his book Crossing the Threshold of Hope, particularly the question of Why Divided?

There are two possible answers to this question.

The more negative one would see in these divisions the bitter fruit of sins committed by Christians.

The more positive answer is inspired by trust in the One who is capable of bringing forth good even from evil, from human weakness.

Could it not be that these divisions have also been a path continually leading the Church to discover the untold wealth contained in Christ’s Gospel and in the redemption accomplished by Christ?

Perhaps all this wealth would not have come to light otherwise.

More generally, we can affirm that for human knowledge and human action a certain dialectic is present.

Didn’t the Holy Spirit, in His divine “condescendence,” take this into consideration?

It is necessary for humanity to achieve unity through plurality, to learn to come together in the one Church, even while presenting a plurality of ways of thinking and acting, of cultures and civilizations.

Wouldn’t such a way of looking at things be, in a certain sense, more consonant with the wisdom of God, with His goodness and providence?

Nevertheless, this cannot be a justification for the divisions that continue to deepen!

The time must come for the love that unites us to be manifested!

Many things lead us to believe that that time is now here, and as a result, the importance of ecumenism for Christianity should be evident.

Ecumenism is a response to the exhortation in the First Letter of Peter to “give an explanation [of] the reason for our hope” (cf. 1 Pt 3:15).

There’s much more within this context that one should study in regards to Catholic concerns for valid forms of ecumenism. And simply accepting that one can stay where they are if they believe these things to be incomplete is not something that Catholicism teaches.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

Consequently, when we return to Pope Benedict XVI’s thoughts on this matter, we see he is using langauge which is easilly reminisent of the Catechism’s words on this matter…

It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace. For “by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed.”

In the Decree on Ecumenism the council certainly recognized that both sides were at fault in the rupture of the church at the Reformation-- and it sought the restoration of Christian unity rather than a return of non-Catholics to “the true Church.”

For the church is greater than the Roman Catholic Church: and other churches are indeed valid Christian communities since they share the same Scriptures, life of grace, faith, hope, charity, gifts of the Spirit, and baptism.

Further, the traditional identification of the kingdom of God with the church, into which everyone must therefore be brought or salvation will elude them, has certainly been transformed by an understanding of the church as the sign and instrument by which God calls and moves the world toward his kingdom.

But these valid Christian communities are indeed still nonetheless incomplete without the sacrament of confirmation to bind them to the Catholic faith. It is evident from its celebration that the effect of the sacrament of Confirmation is the special outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

From this fact, Confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace:

• it roots us more deeply in the divine filiation which makes us cry, “Abba! Father!”;
• it unites us more firmly to Christ;
• it increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us;
• it renders our bond with the Church more perfect;
• it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross.

Contarini:

I don’t understand that phrase

It means that only God can determine for sure exactly what he has enabled us to accept and whether the reason for rejecting his message was sufficienctly blocked by invincible conditions outside our own ability to discern.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Actually, you guys broke off from the Orthodox Church in the eleventh century.

You guys were the first Protestants.

It was the Orthodox who broke off with the Catholic Church. not the other way.

Protestantism by definition means, in protest against the Catholicism.

I don’t see how Catholicism be a Protestantism?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

But I don’t think that’s what I do, of course. And once you start using language about our having validly Catholic elements–in contrast to the Augustinian position that these elements are dead and worthless until reunited with the living body of Catholicism–you can’t simply say that we are “rejecting the Catholic faith.”

You are conflating the Augustinian position with the Catholic position. inJESUS didn’t do that. I didn’t either.

More to the point, I’ve never adhered to Augustine’s thoughts on people being totally without salvation if they did not adhere to all aspects of Catholicism. And one can invoke Augustine without holding to his strict interpretations of “Church” to convey a deeper meaning that Augustine himself did not imply.

For example, young Catholic children certainly do not comprehend all aspects of Catholicism, and yet if they are baptized and not yet confirmed, there is still no doubt in my mind that the Lord will save them. At the very least, I believe in the assurance that the Lord has provided and that he is true to his promises on this regard.

Augustine would agree with this. So to say that one does not understand the fullness of Catholic truth does not always imply their damnation. Very often it doesn’t.

And, in accordance with Catholicism, only God can determine for sure exactly what he has enabled us to accept and whether the reason for rejecting his message was sufficienctly blocked by invincible conditions outside our own ability to discern.

This point needs to be stressed because this is what Pope Benedict XVI seems to be speaking of as far as I can tell.

Contarini:

It seems to me that you and Image and many other conservative post-V2 Catholics are trying to maintain a conversionist rhetoric for which you no longer have a theological basis. You can’t speak any longer–as Augustine or Aquinas would have done–of our rejecting the Catholic Faith in toto because we question papal infallibility or something like that.

I understand that you’re seriously looking into Catholicism. But take a careful look at what you’re saying above.

Simply accepting that one can stay where they are if they believe these things to be incomplete is not something that Catholicism teaches. Pope Benedict XVI does not teach this either.

If one can feels they can stay where they are even if they believe these things to be incomplete, then they are, in effect, rejecting the Catholic Faith in toto.

We don’t speak–as Augustine or Aquinas would have done–of others rejecting the Catholic Faith in toto because they do not understand papal infallibility or something to this effect. Only God can determine for sure exactly what he has enabled people to accept and whether the reason for rejecting his message was sufficienctly blocked by invincible conditions outside their own ability to discern.

We do speak–as Augustine or Aquinas would have done–of others rejecting the Catholic Faith in toto when they do believe papal infallibility and all other aspects of Catholicism and they deliberately reject it because they don’t want to adhere to it. In this sense, these people can determine for sure exactly within their own consicence why they believe it and fail to adhere to it. And there’s really no excuse for them continuing in another denomination if they believe this denomination does not contain the fullness of truth.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

Contarini:

But you agree that I am already imperfectly joined to the Catholic faith. So this language is unwarranted–it doesn’t fit the current teaching of your own Church.

Why not?

According to John Paul II…

“The entire life of Christians is marked by a concern for ecumenism; and they are called to let themselves be shaped, as it were, by that concern”

And he adds…

“Thus, it is absolutely clear that ecumenism, the movement promoting Christian unity, is not just some sort of ‘appendix’ which is added to the Church’s traditional activity. Rather, ecumenism is an organic part of her life and work, and consequently must pervade all that she is and does; it must be like the fruit borne by a healthy and flourishing tree which grows to its full stature”.

Ecumenical dialogue is marked by a common quest for truth, particularly concerning the Church. If on the one hand, dialogue depends on prayer, so, in another sense, prayer also becomes the ever more mature fruit of dialogue. Dialogue also serves as an examination of conscience.

Contarini:

What claims? We claim to be part of the one universal Church through baptism–you grant this claim. We don’t claim to be infallible, or to be the one true Church. We admit that there may be points on which our doctrines need correction. So I don’t see what controversial “claims” we are making that need to be examined, except perhaps that we have valid Eucharist and valid bishops.

Consider the following…

The commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories. With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord’s disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today.

All together, they are invited by the ever fresh power of the Gospel to acknowledge with sincere and total objectivity the mistakes made and the contingent factors at work at the origins of their deplorable divisions. What is needed is a calm, clear-sighted and truthful vision of things, a vision enlivened by divine mercy and capable of freeing people’s minds and of inspiring in everyone a renewed willingness, precisely with a view to proclaiming the Gospel to the men and women of every people and nation.

 

[Contarini]

It was the Orthodox who broke off with the Catholic Church. not the other way.

And just how would you go about demonstrating this? This doesn’t seem like a meaningful distinction, to me. In the case of the Reformation one can speak of all sorts of points on which Protestants moved and Catholics didn’t, so while I think this language is always dubious it’s more justified in that context. But how did the Orthodox change, other than simply by the fact that they were no longer in communion with Rome (as the Catholics were no longer in communion with Constantinople or Alexandria. . .)

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

It was the Orthodox who broke off with the Catholic Church. not the other way.

It sort of depends on whose side of the story you listen to. Both the Orthodox and the Catholics excomunicated each other…so who broke off from who? Reminds me about the old saw that its the winners of the wars that write the histories, so keep that in mind when you look at the historical facts. In terms of dominance by numbers and influence, the west (which was soley Catholic prior to the Reformation) has been the “winner” and has written the histories in the minds and perceptions of westerners.

 

[Mickey]

Reminds me about the old saw that its the winners of the wars that write the histories

Many protestants tend to gloat about the great schism. They are two sides (East and West) of the one true Church–both with Apostolic succession. The schism is a tragedy. Schism is a sin. Let us pray for their reunification.

 

[rr1213]

Many protestants tend to gloat about the great schism. They are two sides (East and West) of the one true Church–both with Apostolic succession. The schism is a tragedy. Schism is a sin. Let us pray for their reunification.

I don’t know that we gloat about it, per se, it is just that when Catholics criticize us for “splitting the church” we like to point out that the Church had been split long before Martin Luther nailed his 95 Thesis to the church door.

 

[dch1983]

I don’t know that we gloat about it, per se, it is just that when Catholics criticize us for “splitting the church” we like to point out that the Church had been split long before Martin Luther nailed his 95 Thesis to the church door.

I don’t know if gloating is the right word either. But to add to this, another reason Protestants celebreate the Reformation is because they are proud of the “rebellion” (for lack of a better word) against Church abuses. Just another aspect…

 

[Image_of_God]

Benedict did not claim to be authoritatively interpreting Vatican II. I didn’t claim this either.

Just take my word for it that I wasn’t accusing you of being a heretic. If you think that BXVI’s statement was some sort of authoritative summary of V2’s teaching, then you are welcome to believe that, and in fact I’m glad that you do. But I had no way of knowing that you believed that.

And it seems a bit back-to-front to try to shut me down with the accusation that I’m calling you a heretic instead of simply showing that you do agree with B16’s speech. You seem to be claiming that a Protestant must always trust any Catholic’s interpretation of any papal statement, because otherwise the Protestant is being rude to the Catholic.

Well I am not claiming that. If you would have asked me what I believed or at least read my first post correctly, you would have known what I believed about Protestantism. You said I was trying to convert you when at the post of mine at the top of this page, I stated what I believed about Protestantism, and it is mostly from the Catechism.

Well, I’m sorry, but I’m going to try to have substantive discussion with Catholics about their own Church’s teachings, and if in our PC-obsessed culture that means that I’m being “offensive,” that’s a price I’m willing to pay.

Please do not take what I am saying that way. At the post at the top of this page I clearly stated both my own and the Catholic Position on this and they are almost exactly similar. I do not do this in annoyance, but that you will see what you actually did yet you deny.

“You ignore or deny the voluminous evidence that tells against this model. You shut your ears to your own Pope when he rejects an ecumenism of return and calls for the corporate reunion of Christians. And you do this because your very zeal for Catholicism is driven by the culture of individualistic Protestantism. You think of religion as an individual choice, and the only way you know to promote Catholicism is to convince individuals to embrace it. And you never stop to think how deeply Protestant all of this is.”

I boldened the you’s so that you can see that this is a serious attack on what I believe. If you claim something that is not true about someone, it will be taken offensively. However, you continue to state that you did not attack me personally even though you stated you in a personal way many times in your statement. Obviously I might say, not to be mean, that you do not care whether you have offended anyone, but you are more concerned with dialogue. But, if that is what you believe, then I cannot stop you.

I have said that in my original post at the top of this page. I said that they are in “good faith” and that “the Spirit is with them.” Now I will ask you, does this in anyway imply that Protestantism is hopeless?

I completely agree here.

I apologize again for assuming that you were calling on all Protestants to convert as individuals. I still don’t understand why you would jump to the generalization that Protestantism as a whole is moving away from Catholicism, since you now say that this is only true in certain respects. However, I think you are right that I made too many assumptions about you (that you were American was not particularly one of them IMHO, but that’s a side issue), and I’m sorry.

Edwin

I am sorry then, I was a little to picky and I did jump to a little to much of a generalization. But what I am only trying to say that getting to know people is not like a roulette. You do not say this about them and hope you are right, which you did alot. Well, unlike a roulette, getting to know people is different. I saw it as unfair, how you stated this and that about me, and then if you saw it was right, the oh well and if it was wrong, well I haven’t done anything wrong. Even though I am young, I think I deserve enough respect from you as to tell you what I think and what I am, rather than you assume them. I am sorry too, however for doing that.

 

[Contarini]

Image,

You’re right that I jumped to conclusions. The “you” was as a matter of fact not intended as a singular but a plural, which is why I didn’t see it as personal. (I.e., “you” Catholics who try to convert Protestants on Internet discussion forums.) But in context that was very far from clear, and it doesn’t let me off the hook anyway, because I shouldn’t have lumped you in with the group I was attacking without further evidence. I should have taken more seriously your positive remarks about Protestantism. Because of your extreme and unqualified claim about Protestantism moving away from Catholicism, I’m afraid I disregarded your positive statements as mere window dressing, and I was wrong to do so.

Trying to defend ecumenical Protestantism on a forum like this is very frustrating, and it’s hard to be fair to individuals. I apologize for not being more careful. I could have picked on your unqualified claim about Protestant deterioration without making generalizations of my own. I understand why you were annoyed that I disregarded your more positive statements, and you were quite justified in this.

I probably shouldn’t be on this board. It gets wearying to point out the same things over and over, and as I said it’s very hard to pay attention to the nuances of what people are saying when it sounds (superficially) as if they’re just repeating a standard line. That is an explanation, not an excuse. If I’m going to be on a board like this I need to be willing to treat each post I respond to with respect. I did not give you that respect, and I am very sorry.

Edwin

 

[Image_of_God]

Image,

You’re right that I jumped to conclusions. The “you” was as a matter of fact not intended as a singular but a plural, which is why I didn’t see it as personal. (I.e., “you” Catholics who try to convert Protestants on Internet discussion forums.) But in context that was very far from clear, and it doesn’t let me off the hook anyway, because I shouldn’t have lumped you in with the group I was attacking without further evidence. I should have taken more seriously your positive remarks about Protestantism. Because of your extreme and unqualified claim about Protestantism moving away from Catholicism, I’m afraid I disregarded your positive statements as mere window dressing, and I was wrong to do so.

Trying to defend ecumenical Protestantism on a forum like this is very frustrating, and it’s hard to be fair to individuals. I apologize for not being more careful. I could have picked on your unqualified claim about Protestant deterioration without making generalizations of my own. I understand why you were annoyed that I disregarded your more positive statements, and you were quite justified in this.

I probably shouldn’t be on this board. It gets wearying to point out the same things over and over, and as I said it’s very hard to pay attention to the nuances of what people are saying when it sounds (superficially) as if they’re just repeating a standard line. That is an explanation, not an excuse. If I’m going to be on a board like this I need to be willing to treat each post I respond to with respect. I did not give you that respect, and I am very sorry.

Edwin

I am also sorry. I should have been more clear on my position. I am very sorry. I hope you will forgive my faults, too.

As to some of the Posters here, it would be important to keep mind that many of the Posters were born before Vatican II. Some still believe that of which was believed before. Change is very hard for most people. And I think that the Vatican Council new that such a change would not be excepted by all Catholic immediately.
But it would be important for us to pray that they join the joyful decree of Ecumenism.

There are even some Protestants that are not ready for Ecumenism, too. But you will see the fruit of your work. You are a great help to me on the Forums, as I have learned much from you and I hope you stay.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You are conflating the Augustinian position with the Catholic position. inJESUS didn’t do that. I didn’t either.

More to the point, I’ve never adhered to Augustine’s thoughts on people being totally without salvation if they did not adhere to all aspects of Catholicism. And one can invoke Augustine without holding to his strict interpretations of “Church” to convey a deeper meaning that Augustine himself did not imply.

For example, young Catholic children certainly do not comprehend all aspects of Catholicism, and yet if they are baptized and not yet confirmed, there is still no doubt in my mind that the Lord will save them. At the very least, I believe in the assurance that the Lord has provided and that he is true to his promises on this regard.

Augustine would agree with this. So to say that one does not understand the fullness of Catholic truth does not always imply their damnation. Very often it doesn’t.

And, in accordance with Catholicism, only God can determine for sure exactly what he has enabled us to accept and whether the reason for rejecting his message was sufficienctly blocked by invincible conditions outside our own ability to discern.

This point needs to be stressed because this is what Pope Benedict XVI seems to be speaking of as far as I can tell.

I understand that you’re seriously looking into Catholicism. But take a careful look at what you’re saying above.

Simply accepting that one can stay where they are if they believe these things to be incomplete is not something that Catholicism teaches. Pope Benedict XVI does not teach this either.

If one can feels they can stay where they are even if they believe these things to be incomplete, then they are, in effect, rejecting the Catholic Faith in toto.

We don’t speak–as Augustine or Aquinas would have done–of others rejecting the Catholic Faith in toto because they do not understand papal infallibility or something to this effect. Only God can determine for sure exactly what he has enabled people to accept and whether the reason for rejecting his message was sufficienctly blocked by invincible conditions outside their own ability to discern.

We do speak–as Augustine or Aquinas would have done–of others rejecting the Catholic Faith in toto when they do believe papal infallibility and all other aspects of Catholicism and they deliberately reject it because they don’t want to adhere to it. In this sense, these people can determine for sure exactly within their own consicence why they believe it and fail to adhere to it. And there’s really no excuse for them continuing in another denomination if they believe this denomination does not contain the fullness of truth.

continued…

How does that avoid meaning that a Protestant who accepts the Hypostatic Union or the eternity of God or the inspiration of the Bible is not, by the above reasoning, nothing but a pagan - or, what is arguably worse, a liar, hypocrite, deceiver, and atheist ? How does it not mean that all the sacraments of other Churches are a sham & a falsehood ?​

To say or imply that a Protestant Christian who heartily accepts the catholic creeds & lives by faith in Christ is a heathen because he does not & in conscience as before God cannot accept (say) the infallibility of all ecumenical councils, is a moral abomination.

If the Church really believes that Protestants are nothing but baptised heathens, it should have the courtesy, the honesty, the integrity, the frankness & the basic decency to say so, unmistakably, clearly, unambiguously.

Not everyone accepts that this “fullness of truth” idea is valid. It is not self-evidently true; it is highly questionable, partly because it seem to take for granted (without examining) that God’s truth is as static, as unparadoxical, as unchallenging, & as domesticated as such a way of speaking implies. It is questionable also because it seems to imply that salvation is not by grace, &, almost worse, that obedience to Christ is exercised only in belonging to a visible community even if one is not interiorly convinced of the claims made by this community. So it seems to imply that hypocrisy is a virtue before God: which is anti-Biblical, anti-Christian, immoral, & ethically suicidal. ##

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

How does that avoid meaning that a Protestant who accepts the Hypostatic Union or the eternity of God or the inspiration of the Bible is not, by the above reasoning, nothing but a pagan - or, what is arguably worse, a liar, hypocrite, deceiver, and atheist ? How does it not mean that all the sacraments of other Churches are a sham & a falsehood ?​

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

When have I said that other Christian groups acceptance of the hypostatic union, eternity of God, or the inspiration of the Scriptures nothing but a pagan, lying, hypocritical, deceptive, or atheistic conclusion?

This doesn’t make any sense.

Furthermore, the Catholic church accepts those things within other churches that are true-- that’s how it does not mean that all the sacraments of other churches are a sham and a falsehood.
Gottle of Geer:

To say or imply that a Protestant Christian who heartily accepts the catholic creeds & lives by faith in Christ is a heathen because he does not & in conscience as before God cannot accept (say) the infallibility of all ecumenical councils, is a moral abomination.

What are you talking about?

When did I say that other churches are heathen?

I said that if in good conscience they believe the church they are in is the true church, then they should stay there.

However, if in good conscience they believe the Catholic church is the true church, then they should join us.

I don’t think you can get much clearer than this to be honest.
Gottle of Geer:

If the Church really believes that Protestants are nothing but baptised heathens, it should have the courtesy, the honesty, the integrity, the frankness & the basic decency to say so, unmistakably, clearly, unambiguously.

Buh?
Gottle of Geer:

Not everyone accepts that this “fullness of truth” idea is valid. It is not self-evidently true; it is highly questionable, partly because it seem to take for granted (without examining) that God’s truth is as static, as unparadoxical, as unchallenging, & as domesticated as such a way of speaking implies. It is questionable also because it seems to imply that salvation is not by grace, &, almost worse, that obedience to Christ is exercised only in belonging to a visible community even if one is not interiorly convinced of the claims made by this community. So it seems to imply that hypocrisy is a virtue before God: which is anti-Biblical, anti-Christian, immoral, & ethically suicidal. ##

Um…what on earth are you talking about?

If you don’t believe that the Catholic church contains the fullness of truth and instead identify more with some other denomination, then one should really consider whether or not they should particiate in the Catholic Eucharist.

If you do believe that the Catholic church contains the fullness of truth and identify with her more with all other denominations, then one should really come and join us and particiate in the Catholic Eucharist.

Can’t get much clearer than that.

Consequently, if people are thinking that “no ecumenism of return” means that we’re not going to point out to other people our belief that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of truth, then they are simply wrong.

I was speaking with an old timer at my own parish one time. He said that he could remember a time (going back around 40-50 years) when his priest told him and his congregation to invite other non-Catholics to their church.

The reason why was so that these non-Catholics could be told they were wrong and going to hell for not believing the Catholic faith.

I’m not sure if many Catholic Churches did this kind of invitation back then. It apparently was a common practice-- because this is an “ecumenism of return” in its most strict sense.

Either way, he never liked this. But he does very much like the renewed spirit within the Catholic Church which tends to focus on the common grounds between Catholicism, Othodoxy and Protestantism.

When Catholics like myself begin with the simple admittance that we did wrong by doing this, we open up the spirit of true ecumenism to other churches.

If all sides involved (including Catholcism) starts with the goal of confessing their sins to their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, I fail to see how this implies hypocrisy is a virtue before God. It’s definitely not anti-Biblical, anti-Christian, immoral, or ethically suicidal either.

My apologies in advance if I’ve misunderstood your post. I really don’t know what you’re talking about.

PS: What is a Barth-affirming TULIP-loving Archeoconservative CathoProt?