Concerning Ecumenism

Read Leo XIII's Libertas Praestantissimum and St. Pius X's Vehementer Nos, then pick up Dignitatis Humanae, if you want a real eye-opener.

I'm sure you know how to use youtube. My advice is to go on to youtube and put in a search for "Bishop Fellay." There is an excellent fourteen part talk on youtube that includes a discussion of ecumenism. H.E. Fellay treats these topics with great precision of thought.

This spirit of relativistic ecumenism is to be avoided, and indeed the Catholic Church still does avoid it - remember the controversy over that Vatican document recently?

BUT, if you see here: "since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule" this clearly shows that it is the type of ecumenism that assumes that all religions come from a central point, and so all have a validity independent of divine revelation through the Church that is being addressed.

This is different from proper ecumenism, whereby one holds in his heart to the divine revelation, while recognising that other religions are worth engaging in debate, not because of their own validity, but because they imperfectly imitate, if you like, the divine revelation in the Church and have some value in that.

Does that make any sense? There has been a shift in emphasis since Vatican II, to be sure, but that does not amount to a change in the fundamental teaching. It may be ambiguous, but then attempts to quantify the divine revelation on paper is always going to be a daunting task.

Fellay on Kaspar and Ecumenism
Fellay: "The Ecumenical train goes straight to hell"

Mortalium Animos condemns the pan-Christian movements, that attempt to water down the faith to the lowest common denominator and create a "unity" that way. Other prescripts in the document are part of church discipline, but not eternal law. The Second Vatican Council and John Paul II's Ut Unum Sint both also reject the pan-Christian movements that Pius XI rejected. The policies of each, however, are not immutable.

But, they do adopt what Leo XIII suggested, that is, fraternal conferences where controversy is not sought, but where the faith is discussed and presented in a friendly and familiar way (Testem Benevolentiae). Leo XIII also founded the Confraternity of Compassion where Catholics and non-Catholics could come together to pray for unity. Such things are not per se against the faith.

It also bears pointing out that there are some false ecumenists in our midsts, but they depart from the rule of faith as it is set out. Churchmen departing from the rule of faith without apparent consequence is nothing new to our time of course.

MORTALIUM ANIMOS is not a Second Vatican document, it is from Pope Pius XI, in 1928.

Conflicting teaching seems to be given by the same or successive popes. But it is wrong to use one set of statements as indicative of the papal policy without referring to the other set. The popes word their doctrine with extreme precision for a definite historical context, so that the doctrine will not necessarily take on meanings beyond those needed for the question to be treated here and now. (in 1928, not 2007)

Conclusions must not be drawn out of given propositions with the aid of premises, which the individual believes in but which are not admitted by the original author of the propositions.

To interpret the popes in the light of premises, which they expressly repudiate, is hardly an honest interpretation of their teaching. At times Catholics themselves fall into the same trap. By projecting the papal message, they produce statements which are not the affirmations of the popes but which seem to the interpreter’s logically inevitable conclusions.
_________________________________________
Unity Council Hails Document on the Church
Secretary Says It Is Ecumenically Useful
http://www.zenit.org/article-20158?l=english

Vatican Official: Ecumenism Needs Truth
http://www.zenit.org/article-20219?l=english

RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html​

The following is from a thread that got shut down due to the severe attacks from hate cultists:​

Instead of riding on the crest of public opinion, fuelled by the all-holy-infallible-catholic-hating media, I invite open minded Christians to view the official statement and teachings on this matter. Those frozen in prejudice will not bother, because it is not the facts they want, but to demonize the Church in her efforts to heal the wounds to unity. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...tiones_en.html

The Catholic Church (CC) has the right to define who and what she is, the same as any church or non-church does. The CC is the oldest Church, a historical fact that is only contested by revisionists and other liars. According to the definition of Church by the Church, it must have certain constituitive (constitutional) elements in order to be a Church. Among them is Apostolic Succession and the Eucharist. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation, united by the Eucharist. If one teaching is compromised, the other is lost.

Ecclesial communities do not have Apostolic Succession, nor do they have Eucharist (Toda Sacrifice). Therefore they cannot be called a true church in the biblical, historical or theological sense, but define themselves as a church because they have the same right as the CC does. This is the problem. Same word, different definitions. If a group wants to call themselves a church, fine. But they cannot be a Church according to the Catholic definition. They have rejected the Catholic definition 400 years ago. It is a truth that the Pope pointed out, and no eclessial community is going to claim they have Apostolic Succession or the Eucharist in the Catholic sense. They rejected those elements some 400 years ago. People are angry at the Pope because he has told a truth: that no eclessial community could claim these constitutive elements. They don't want them and that is not the Pope's fault.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

There is nothing new in this recent statement (which few have quoted directly from). It springs from the same teachings the Church has had for 2000 years. Condensed in the catechism, certain phrases had to be clarified and that is why the Pope made the recent statement he did. The CC has expanded her definition of herself to INCLUDE all baptized Christians, not exclude.

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." 269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism 270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers. 271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church." 272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" 273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." 274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, 275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity." 276

The Catholic Church says those in these communities are our brothers and sisters.

They have "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.

The Catholic Church formally declares that “…Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation…”

The post-reformation era has come to an end. The CC is extending an olive branch. Division is a scandal to the Body of Christ. Don't believe the lies of the media. Pray for those hardened hearts locked into prejudice and ignorance.

Fellay on Kaspar and Ecumenism
Fellay: "The Ecumenical train goes straight to hell"

Fellay is a bishop of the SSPX, an anti-Catholic ultra-traditionalist cult disguised as loyal Catholics. They are ipso facto excommunicated and their sacraments are not recognized (with few exceptions). Fellay does not speak for the Church. http://www.sspx-cult.com/

URGENT NOTE TO MODERATORS:

Many forums have banned SSPX discussions, please don't learn the hard way.

kepha31 said:

Fellay is a bishop of the SSPX, an anti-Catholic ultra-traditionalist cult disguised as loyal Catholics. They are ipso facto excommunicated and their sacraments are not recognized (with few exceptions). Fellay does not speak for the Church. [URL="http://www.sspx-cult.com/."]http://www.sspx-cult.com/. [/URL]

Click to expand...

It appears Cardinal Hoyos disagrees with you..

"We are not dealing with a case of heresy. One cannot say in correct and exact terms that there is a schism. There is, in the act of ordaining bishops with out papal approval, a schismatic attitude. They are within the confines of the Church. The problem is just that there is a lack of a full, a more perfect – and as it was said during the meeting with Msgr. Fellay – a more full communion, because communion exists. " - [The statement of Cardinal Castrillon concerning the SSPX (made) on the TV network Canal 5 November 13, 2005].



Msgr. Perl of the same Ecclesia Dei commission also has quite a different perspective concerning the implications of your quote who are at the forefront of dialogues with the SSPX> This is his reply to the question asked if it is OK to attend the SSPX Masses:


PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO
'ECCLESIA DEI'

n. 55/2005 Rome, September 5, 2005

Sir,

Your letter of July 11 arrived at this Pontifical Commission (...), but it has not been answered up to now due to the annual vacations during the month of August.

Because your letter actually involves the competence of our Commission 'Ecclesia Dei', we have precised in our letter what follows:

'On the argument presented (that you regularly attend Sunday Mass at a chapel of the Fraternity Saint Pius X) one cannot say but this: the faithful who attend the Masses of the aforesaid Fraternity are not excommunicates, and the priests who celebrate them are not, either -- the latter are, in fact, suspended. Which is why it would be difficult to explain this exclusion by this sole motive, at a time in which the reintegration of this Fraternity to the full communion of the Church is sought.'

The Council for Culture, whose president is Cardinal Poupard, will certainly let you know of his decision.

Receive, sir, my religious regards, [Veuillez croire, Monsieur, à mon dévouement religieux,]

CAMILLE PERL
Secretary"

Ravenonthecross said:

I honestly have trouble reconciling some documents of the Second Vatican Council with prior Catholic Teachings. How can the Holy Catholic Church promote Ecumenism, when tenets of the Catholic faith express contra wise against it, particularly here in: MORTALIUM ANIMOS

I have been researching more and more. Though, I have not read a good deal of the Vatican II documents, save excerpts, it seems increasingly that the ecumenism so encourage by Christ's Holy Catholic Church in the Second Vatican Council appears to contradict and ergo, nullify prior Catholic instruction against Ecumenism, especially when promulgated and brought forward under the Tutelage of the Various Protestant Heresies. Dear Brethren and Sisters of OBOB, I sincerely request your aid in discerning this Significant and Major impediment in regards to my obedience to the Holy Catholic Church concerning the Precepts she promulgate and issued in the Second Vatican Council. Any aid, help, or guidance would be much appreciated. It seems the more I delve into our Church's History the more I find documents to either cast doubt upon VII or make it seems so ambiguous that it would appear to be promoting heresy. It is for this reason, that I implore you for your help.
Thank and God bless ye!
sincerely,
Matthew

Click to expand...

Ther easiest thing to do is just substitute 'evangelization' for 'ecumenism'... works for me!



+

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith: Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

This explains the voluntary doubt found in Raven's OP.

It appears Cardinal Hoyos disagrees with you..

Click to expand...

Plainswolf, you are dead wrong. It is the Cardinals opinion that the SSPX are not in FORMAL schism, he is NOT saying no schism exists.
And I said "...with few exceptions...", I did not make a blanket statment barring all association with the SSPX. Mass attendance is permissible under strict circumstances, and if you cannot read what the Cardinal says, and you cannot read what I said, you must be a SSPX supporter, you cannot think for yourself, and are excommunicated from the Church. Gotcha.

5c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law (8).


From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.

Servus Iesu said:

Fellay on Kaspar and Ecumenism
Fellay: "The Ecumenical train goes straight to hell"

Click to expand...

I have reported your post as being anti-Catholic, as Fellay is an excommunicated schismatic, and OBOB is the last safe harbor for Catholics in CF, and the numbers grow smaller.

I disagree with the SSPX on nearly everything under the sun, but I really think it would benefit the forum to be open to them. Firstly, because they have no where else to go on CF (charity). Secondly, because I think they bring up interesting discussion topics about historical events and liturgy that spark my interest (entertainment, education).

I particularly find their frank analysis of alleged changes in the church interesting. I also see them as a voice more akin to traditional Roman Catholicism in some respects, even though I honestly don't see them as truly being such because a traditional Roman Catholic would be obedient to the Pope and the councils (Just the way I see things, not condemning anyone -- I'm not even a practicing Catholic. ). It's almost like talking to someone straight out of the Council of Trent. I find it to be kind of cool. Just my two cents.

And, let's face it, with everyone jumping ship, we need the posts.

kepha31 said:

I have reported your post as being anti-Catholic, as Fellay is an excommunicated schismatic, and OBOB is the last safe harbor for Catholics in CF, and the numbers grow smaller.

Click to expand...

You can do whatever you want to. It continually amazes me though how the apologists of conciliarism resort to coercion whenever their novel doctrines are challenged.

I have in fact only gone to an SSPX chapel once. They have a Low Mass and I prefer going to the Sung Mass on Sundays. So I have no real assocation with the Society. The reason I post videos of Fellay's talks is so that Ravenonthecross will have the opportunity of hearing clear, precise, unmuddled Catholic teaching on one of the most important topics facing the Church today.

kepha31 said:

Plainswolf, you are dead wrong. It is the Cardinals opinion that the SSPX are not in FORMAL schism, he is NOT saying no schism exists.
And I said "...with few exceptions...", I did not make a blanket statment barring all association with the SSPX. Mass attendance is permissible under strict circumstances, and if you cannot read what the Cardinal says, and you cannot read what I said, you must be a SSPX supporter, you cannot think for yourself, and are excommunicated from the Church. Gotcha.

Click to expand...

And the quotes I provided are far more recent than your own, and by those in charge of the Ecclesia Dei commission which you are also quoting. This commission has spoken many times concerning this very issue. Former Cardinal Ratzinger himself overturned the excommunication of several lay people who were excommincated by their local bishop for attending SSPX Masses and for being confirmed by an SSPX bishop.

The canonical situation with the SSPX is not quite the black and white issue you imply. Several canonists have given their opinion that a canonicaly irregular situation exists (and even the SSPX admits this), but not quite a schism. Lefebvre only ordained bishops so that his preistly fraternity would continue, not to set up a parallel Church in any way. The SSPX bishops are merely adjutant bishops, not diocean. They do not usurp the diocese of any other bishop.... might suprise you to know that St. Patrick himself also ordained over 30 bishops after he was told not to by the Pope.. It isn't like it's the first time this has ever happened.





You gotta be kidding me.. I've never even BEEN to an SSPX Mass, nor have I ever given them money.. The only thing close to brainwashing I've seen is of the 'ecumenical' variety which displays an almost pathological and irrational hatred of the SSPX. These people who find 'elements of sanctification' in every single non-Catholic, anti-Catholic, non Christian and even pagan religion.. These same Catholics will fellowship with them as well as Bhuddists, Hindus, several new age types of religion and even have prayer meeting with all these types, but never with those evil rotten vermin scum of the satanic SSPX.. talk about a double standard. I've seen Catholics tell other Catholics, who apostasize from their faith to join other Christian religions, how "the Holy Spirit is leading you down a different path" but these same people would be on the verge of stroke or heart-attack if that same one was joining the SSPX.



+

Servus Iesu said:

You can do whatever you want to. It continually amazes me though how the apologists of conciliarism resort to coercion whenever their novel doctrines are challenged.

I have in fact only gone to an SSPX chapel once. They have a Low Mass and I prefer going to the Sung Mass on Sundays. So I have no real assocation with the Society. The reason I post videos of Fellay's talks is so that Ravenonthecross will have the opportunity of hearing clear, precise, unmuddled Catholic teaching on one of the most important topics facing the Church today.

Click to expand...

The SSpx is confusing, precise to the point of phariseeism, and totally muddled in their theology. They persecute priests who leave and coerce the ones that are there. Light has no fellowship with darkness and you can scream coercion til you're blue in the face, the SSpx does not belong here.
http://www.sspx-cult.com/

plainswolf said:

And the quotes I provided are far more recent than your own, and by those in charge of the Ecclesia Dei commission which you are also quoting. This commission has spoken many times concerning this very issue. Former Cardinal Ratzinger himself overturned the excommunication of several lay people who were excommincated by their local bishop for attending SSPX Masses and for being confirmed by an SSPX bishop.+

Click to expand...

So now they are just plain schismatics, and not excommunicated. What a relief!

The canonical situation with the SSPX is not quite the black and white issue you imply. Several canonists have given their opinion that a canonicaly irregular situation exists (and even the SSPX admits this), but not quite a schism.

Click to expand...

Half a schism? Does the canonists opinions appear in any Apostolic Letter or from the Congregation of Bishops, which the SSpx doesn't recognize anyway?

Lefebvre only ordained bishops so that his preistly fraternity would continue, not to set up a parallel Church in any way. The SSPX bishops are merely adjutant bishops, not diocean. They do not usurp the diocese of any other bishop.... might suprise you to know that St. Patrick himself also ordained over 30 bishops after he was told not to by the Pope.. It isn't like it's the first time this has ever happened.

Click to expand...

You mean St. Patrick didn't have a cell phone. It is erroneous to compare St. Patrick with an excommunicated schismatic rebel who, for years, defied the Pope.

You gotta be kidding me.. I've never even BEEN to an SSPX Mass, nor have I ever given them money.. The only thing close to brainwashing I've seen is of the 'ecumenical' variety which displays an almost pathological and irrational hatred of the SSPX. These people who find 'elements of sanctification' in every single non-Catholic, anti-Catholic, non Christian and even pagan religion.. These same Catholics will fellowship with them as well as Bhuddists, Hindus, several new age types of religion and even have prayer meeting with all these types, but never with those evil rotten vermin scum of the satanic SSPX.. talk about a double standard. I've seen Catholics tell other Catholics, who apostasize from their faith to join other Christian religions, how "the Holy Spirit is leading you down a different path" but these same people would be on the verge of stroke or heart-attack if that same one was joining the SSPX.

Click to expand...

I am aware of the efforts of the part of the Church to reconcile with the SSpx, which is similar to giving a banana to a gorilla on PMS.

Hey, if we're being all nice and open in OBOB now (which is good), by all rights we should let people who are not at one with the Church because of conservative reasons say their piece as much as the ones who aren't because they're too liberal.