Ecumenism

[nyj]

Doctrine should never be compromised for the sake of ecumenism.

Unitatis Redintegratio clearly states that properly practiced ecumenism cannot dilute Catholic teaching. Ergo, if people dilute Catholic teaching, they are not practicing ecumenism as mandated by the Catholic Church.

Perhaps if more people (that means all of us) adhered to UR, and practiced ecumenism as outlined by UR, we wouldn't have to rail against people who abuse UR. If we abandon ecumenism, we leave it open for abuse by people who will fill the vacuum we've created.

Ergo, if ecumenism is abused, it's our fault.

 

[geocajun]

Unitatis Redintegratio clearly states that properly practiced ecumenism cannot dilute Catholic teaching. Ergo, if people dilute Catholic teaching, they are not practicing ecumenism as mandated by the Catholic Church.

Perhaps if more people (that means all of us) adhered to UR, and practiced ecumenism as outlined by UR, we wouldn't have to rail against people who abuse UR. If we abandon ecumenism, we leave it open for abuse by people who will fill the vacuum we've created.

Ergo, if ecumenism is abused, it's our fault.

well said nyj.

 

[Alexis OCA]

This from Kardinal Kasper's Intervention on the 40th anniversary of UR. He just loves patting himself on the back.

"...in ecumenism the church enters into an exchange of gifts with the separated churches (UUS 28; 57), enriches them, but also reciprocally makes their gifts its own, adds them to its catholic fullness and thus fully realises its own catholicity. "

The Roman Catholic Church makes the gifts of separated brethren its own????
We can add something to the fullness we already possess?????
Kasper is nuts.

Here is the whole document:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20041111_kasper-ecumenism_en.html

 

[marciadietrich]

"

The Roman Catholic Church makes the gifts of separated brethren its own????
We can add something to the fullness we already possess?????
Kasper is nuts

I am not sure why that isn't different then the Church taking a holiday of pagans and sanctifying it, or just claiming the truths that are in other religions as the same and part of the Catholic faith. Or our offering our own sacrifices and gifts to God when it and all things good are God's anyhow.

Maybe I misunderstand the problem you have with this...

 

[Alexis OCA]

I am not sure why that isn't different then the Church taking a holiday of pagans and sanctifying it, or just claiming the truths that are in other religions as the same and part of the Catholic faith. Or our offering our own sacrifices and gifts to God when it and all things good are God's anyhow.

Maybe I misunderstand the problem you have with this...

If we have the "fullness" we have need of nothing. Pagan holidays 'gifted' us nothing. We sanctified pagan holidays because we have sanctifying grace through baptism and the Eucharist. What gift can our separated brethren give us if we have it already? We should be sanctifying them as well. Evangelization Yes! Ecumenism NO!

But I guess in the age of political correctness we don't want anyone to feel too bad. Hurting feelings is a mortal sin to many in this day and age. The credo of the politically correct being: It's nice to be nice.

 

[Michelina]

CCC #2034: The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice." The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

 

[marciadietrich]

God has need of nothing, but we still offer him gifts. We have no merit on our own without God, but God graciously allows us to gain merit. What is right about the protestants is what they have as a carry over from Catholicism. What can I say, the statement seemed just like a way to say some kind words about others and the Cardinal was doing his job without giving an inch of anything of substance. I felt it was imprudent to call a Cardinal (not "Kardinal" with a "K" which insinuates something totally untrue of the man) a "nut" for what he said.

Though traditionalists can have some very astute points about issues in regard to modernism in the Church, there is such a prevalent obsessive-compulsive streak to criticize everything post Vat II that they seem to be the ones who are nutty. (The Road to Geocentrism.) If it doesn't look dark, dank, musty and like it came out of the 1300's it must be bad so they start nuking flies. They can't even pick their battles effectively they are so loopy over every little thing. Save some ammo for the real issues and people will be less shell-shocked and might even see the point instead of having been blinded in a previous assault on a gnat issue.

 

[Maximus]

Unitatis Redintegratio clearly states that properly practiced ecumenism cannot dilute Catholic teaching. Ergo, if people dilute Catholic teaching, they are not practicing ecumenism as mandated by the Catholic Church.

Perhaps if more people (that means all of us) adhered to UR, and practiced ecumenism as outlined by UR, we wouldn't have to rail against people who abuse UR. If we abandon ecumenism, we leave it open for abuse by people who will fill the vacuum we've created.

Ergo, if ecumenism is abused, it's our fault.

What if the abuse occurs at the highest levels of the Church?

When a Cardinal bows to the floor and prays with Muslims inside a mosque, is that "properly practiced ecumenism"?

Or the events at Assisi in 1986 and 2002?

What about this?

And this?

Are those things all "properly practiced ecumenism"?

Franciscan monks removed crosses and other religious objects from rooms in a convent near the saint's tomb, where some guests prayed. (From the BBC report on Assisi 2002)

 

[nyj]

What gift can our separated brethren give us if we have it already?

The gift of themselves, because we practiced ecumenism properly.

 

[nyj]

What if the abuse occurs at the highest levels of the Church?

When a Cardinal bows to the floor and prays with Muslims inside a mosque, is that "properly practiced ecumenism"?

Or the events at Assisi in 1986 and 2002?

What about this?

And this?

Are those things all "properly practiced ecumenism"?

Or maybe this one?

I don't know Maximus, I wasn't there, so I can't critique each and every instance you consider "bad". Besides, people are always more apt to be able to point out the handfuls of "badness" yet be totally unaware of the good work that is being done, without fanfare, without celebration, without recognition.

RCIA is a form of ecumenism, missionary work is a form of ecumenism, when you sit down and explain your faith accurately and rationally to an anti-Catholic over the internet, that's ecumenism. Living your life as a faithful Catholic is ecumenism.

Catholics, in their ecumenical work, must assuredly be concerned for their separated brethren, praying for them, keeping them informed about the Church, making the first approaches toward them. But their primary duty is to make a careful and honest appraisal of whatever needs to be done or renewed in the Catholic household itself, in order that its life may bear witness more clearly and faithfully to the teachings and institutions which have come to it from Christ through the Apostles.​

 

[Michelina]

Though traditionalists can have some very astute points about issues in regard to modernism in the Church, there is such a prevalent obsessive-compulsive streak to criticize everything post Vat II that they seem to be the ones who are nutty.

To my mind, Marcia, they are no different from the 'cafteria catholics' of the left. We are called to obey and submit to our Pastors. When we don't understand something, we need to expand our understanding of it, submitting to it with "religious assent" (similar to, but not quite, the "assent of faith").

I think it is more an attitudinal problem that is a trap for very good people who reject the inanities of modernity but who mistakenly categorize even new things from the Church as in the same category as the world's contemporary nonsense. It's a shame really that good people are misled and their energies mis-spent in this way.

Catholics know that we are to stay with Peter and follow him, even when we don't personally understand where he is going. To assume one really understands everything is the height of folly.

Cafeteria Catholics are Cafeteria Catholics, no matter which side of the Cafeteria they sit in.

Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia; ubi Ecclesia, ibi vita aeterna.

 

[Skripper]

To my mind, Marcia, they are no different from the 'cafteria catholics' of the left. . . . Cafeteria Catholics are Cafeteria Catholics, no matter which side of the Cafeteria they sit in.

Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia; ubi Ecclesia, ibi vita aeterna.

 

[Letalis]

To my mind, Marcia, they are no different from the 'cafteria catholics' of the left. We are called to obey and submit to our Pastors. When we don't understand something, we need to expand our understanding of it, submitting to it with "religious assent" (similar to, but not quite, the "assent of faith").

I think it is more an attitudinal problem that is a trap for very good people who reject the inanities of modernity but who mistakenly categorize even new things from the Church as in the same category as the world's contemporary nonsense. It's a shame really that good people are misled and their energies mis-spent in this way.

Catholics know that we are to stay with Peter and follow him, even when we don't personally understand where he is going. To assume one really understands everything is the height of folly.

Cafeteria Catholics are Cafeteria Catholics, no matter which side of the Cafeteria they sit in.

Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia; ubi Ecclesia, ibi vita aeterna.

I think you may have gone a little over the top with that one. Liberal Catholics and fundamentalist Catholics are the same? Certainly not...

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I think you may have gone a little over the top with that one. Liberal Catholics and fundamentalist Catholics are the same? Certainly not...

They are the same with respect to their submission to the Holy See, neither one does it, that was her point Its not over the top at all.

 

[Alexis OCA]

Chose to delete.

 

[Alexis OCA]

The gift of themselves, because we practiced ecumenism properly.

What exactly does that mean? It's nebulous like most pro-ecumenical laguage.

 

[Alexis OCA]

Though traditionalists can have some very astute points about issues in regard to modernism in the Church, there is such a prevalent obsessive-compulsive streak to criticize everything post Vat II that they seem to be the ones who are nutty. (The Road to Geocentrism.) If it doesn't look dark, dank, musty and like it came out of the 1300's it must be bad so they start nuking flies. They can't even pick their battles effectively they are so loopy over every little thing. Save some ammo for the real issues and people will be less shell-shocked and might even see the point instead of having been blinded in a previous assault on a gnat issue.

The 'traditionalists' get under your skin I see. Great the way you were able to stay on topic.

 

[plainswolf]

RCIA is a form of ecumenism, missionary work is a form of ecumenism, when you sit down and explain your faith accurately and rationally to an anti-Catholic over the internet, that's ecumenism. Living your life as a faithful Catholic is ecumenism.

Catholics, in their ecumenical work, must assuredly be concerned for their separated brethren, praying for them, keeping them informed about the Church, making the first approaches toward them. But their primary duty is to make a careful and honest appraisal of whatever needs to be done or renewed in the Catholic household itself, in order that its life may bear witness more clearly and faithfully to the teachings and institutions which have come to it from Christ through the Apostles.​

And no Catholic ever did these things long before ecumenism? Did we not have missionaries and even orphanages before ecumenism? Catholics have always strove to live the best life they could according to the teachings of Christ, we have always strove to explain our faith in a charitble manner to those outside the Catholic fold.

We have always been called to do these things and these things Catholics have always done. But they were done so without the likes of the conferences in Assis, which I believe had the best intentions, that made it appear to the world as if the Catholic Faith was just any old faith no better than the moslems, or no better than any faith for that matter.

J.M.J.
plainswolf

 

[Alexis OCA]

And no Catholic ever did these things long before ecumenism? Did we not have missionaries and even orphanages before ecumenism? Catholics have always strove to live the best life they could according to the teachings of Christ, we have always strove to explain our faith in a charitble manner to those outside the Catholic fold.

We have always been called to do these things and these things Catholics have always done. But they were done so without the likes of the conferences in Assis, which I believe had the best intentions, that made it appear to the world as if the Catholic Faith was just any old faith no better than the moslems, or no better than any faith for that matter.

J.M.J.
plainswolf

So true. The big difference being methodology. Just take a look at St. Francis Xavier and then take a look at Maryknoll. We used to teach and preach the faith.....now we're social workers and revolutionaries. And we're looking to fill our deficiencies with the giftedness of others.

 

[plainswolf]

To my mind, Marcia, they are no different from the 'cafteria catholics' of the left. We are called to obey and submit to our Pastors. When we don't understand something, we need to expand our understanding of it, submitting to it with "religious assent" (similar to, but not quite, the "assent of faith").

This is just an example, but following this reasoning I am to obey my pastor when he tells me one religion is as good as the next so long as the other religion is Christian?

We are to obey our pastors in everything that is of God. If he were to contradict a dogma of the faith we would be bound to disobey him in that matter.

I think it is more an attitudinal problem that is a trap for very good people who reject the inanities of modernity but who mistakenly categorize even new things from the Church as in the same category as the world's contemporary nonsense. It's a shame really that good people are misled and their energies mis-spent in this way.

So by your very definition you reject both modernism and traditionalism which places you within the same category of "cafeteria Catholic" that your are codemning. Because you are picking and choosing. Rejecting both the far left and the far right.

Catholics know that we are to stay with Peter and follow him, even when we don't personally understand where he is going. To assume one really understands everything is the height of folly.

Cafeteria Catholics are Cafeteria Catholics, no matter which side of the Cafeteria they sit in.

Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia; ubi Ecclesia, ibi vita aeterna.

And all the traditionalists I know very much stay with and within the Barque of Peter. I may be a traditionalist, but I am not some hard core radical as such either. I do so within the bounds of the Church, participating in the Tridentine Rite that is given by the FSSP. Because I lawfully assist at the Mass and follow the disciplines that produced the greatest saints in the church I am a "cafeteria Catholic"?

And I think that is to be well remembered. We may respectfully disagree on certain things, but we do so only within the bounds and confines of the Church.

"Unity in all things essential, liberty in all things non essential"

J.M.J.
plainswolf