Ecumenism

[Alexis OCA]

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

Christian Forums Message

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to plainswolf again.

​

 

[Michelina]

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?

You are not obliged to obey your local pastor if he teaches something Rome doesn't teach.

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.

In accordance with what ROME teaches, not in accordance with your limited, personal understanding of it. Our Lord established an authoritative Church and endowed it with His own authority. He knew that most people are not geniuses. Please don't argue from horror stories about the things some priests and theologians have said and written. They are not the Church.

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.

No, I reject ultratradionalism which seeks to judge Rome. I am a Traditionalist. Every true Catholic embraces our authentic traditions. An example: someone in this discussion said "Evangelism YES. Ecumenism NO" as if he had the right to direct the Church. The Holy See says: Ecumenism YES. Roma locuta est.

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 on.
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"?

No. I wish I had the Tridentine Rite available to me. I don't, except when my brother visits in the summertime. He usually celebrates the Tridentine Rite.

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"

Then you have no argument with me. I was addressing those who reject, or limit - becuase of their own truncated understanding of Catholicism, the authority of the Holy See.

Catholicism is not like Protestantism where every man is Captain of his own soul. Our Lord has given us a Captain. He lives in Rome.

 

[Alexis OCA]

No, I reject ultratradionalism which seeks to judge Rome. I am a Traditionalist. Every true Catholic embraces our authentic traditions. An example: someone in this discussion said "Evangelism YES. Ecumenism NO" as if he had the right to direct the Church. The Holy See says: Ecumenism YES. Roma locuta est.

THAT WAS ME!

Warm regards,
Douglas
Not an ultra-trad....just one who tries to be discriminating. And I would never presume to "direct the Church" as you put it. Like when William F. Buckley wrote "Mater Si, Magistra No" many years ago, which was not an overall critique of the teaching ministry of the church, as many liberals would like to believe, but rather a critique (not dissent) of one particular teaching. One that was neither dogmatic nor infallible. Like the current issue at hand. Which as far as I know is still open to public discussion.

 

[Axion]

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").

No. No. We follow the magesterium of the Church and the Catholic Faith, not individual pastors. Some of the worst heresies ever spawned have come from the mouths of Bishops in good standing with the Church. Would you have people obey and submit to Arius, Nestorius, and others who have taught heresy? Individual bishops (let alone all pastors) can get it wrong, and badly wrong.

On the original subject, it is statements like those below that seem to show a subtext to the ecumenism agenda:

Father Puglisi: The "hostility" that we observe is more like fear. What we are dealing with at this time is a request for systemic change, [a] conversion of churches and their structures including the Catholic Church...

As long as we maintain a rigid division and separation -- and we might say opposition -- between clergy and laity, then the process of secularization will continue to progress rapidly in a world which is in rapid social and cultural change. The Gospel needs to be spoken to each generation, to each culture, in terms and with symbols that can articulate its very message to each culture for the life of the world.

The speaker is talking of making fundamental changes in Catholicism in order to meet his particular ecumenical agenda. This is the brand of "ecumenism" that has failed so badly in the past by "protestantising" the Catholic Church and her worship, failing to teach Catholicism to Catholics, and drawing back from evangelisation. All this has done is weaken and confuse the faithful, while attracting no single significant protestant body back into union.

And while speaking of ecumenism, Puglisi seems to ignore the Orthodox, who his ideas would actually take us farther away from...

Father Puglisi: I am not a real expert on the relations with the Orthodox. I can only say that when we speak of the Orthodox we generalize, just as when others speak of Catholics.

I believe that it depends on which Orthodox you are speaking about. I believe that we can see some progress in our relationships with some of the Orthodox and not so much with others.

 

[Alexis OCA]

On the original subject, it is statements like those below that seem to show a subtext to the ecumenism agenda:

Father Puglisi: I am not a real expert on ......

anything.

And at that point he should have returned to his breviary.

 

[Michelina]

No. No. We follow the Magisterium of the Church and the Catholic Faith, not individual pastors.

That's what I meant, Axion. We follow our pastors (who are in communion with Rome). I'm surpised you misunderstood me in as much as this sentence was in the same post:

You are not obliged to obey your local pastor if he teaches something Rome doesn't teach.

CCC #2033 The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the "deposit" of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men.

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.

 

[Axion]

That's what I meant, Axion. We follow our pastors (who are in communion with Rome). I'm surpised you misunderstood me in as much as this sentence was in the same post:

CCC #2033 The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the "deposit" of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men.

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.

Exactly! I agree we are bound by the teaching of the Pope and bishops in union. It was just that your post came across to me as saying that we had to accept the opinions of individual pastors as binding.

Glad we agree.

 

[Axion]

anything.

And at that point he should have returned to his breviary.

 

[plainswolf]

The speaker is talking of making fundamental changes in Catholicism in order to meet his particular ecumenical agenda. This is the brand of "ecumenism" that has failed so badly in the past by "protestantising" the Catholic Church and her worship, failing to teach Catholicism to Catholics, and drawing back from evangelisation. All this has done is weaken and confuse the faithful, while attracting no single significant protestant body back into union.

Wow!... That reminds me of something else I read. Msgr. Eugene Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, made the astonishing prophecy on the future upheavel in the Church:

"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past.
"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, 'Where have they taken Him?'" - Roche, Pie XII Devant L'Historie, p. 52-53

J.M.J.
plainswolf

 

[Michelina]

Wow!... That reminds me of something else I read. Msgr. Eugene Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, made the astonishing prophecy on the future upheavel in the Church:

"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past.
"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, 'Where have they taken Him?'" - Roche, Pie XII Devant L'Historie, p. 52-53

Of course, Pius XII understood Modernism and that it would eventually challenge the Church. He also knew that it would be defeated because the Church is indefectible. He began his preparation for the next ecumenical council with his encyclical "Mystici Corporis", on the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e. the Church. Lumen Gentium treats the same subject.

 

[Maximus]

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").

Applying disparaging epithets to those with whom one disagrees is no substitute for proof.

I think that by "expand our understanding" you mean we should surrender what we know to be true to the hierarchy-of the-moment.

You and I have very different understandings of authority and of the role of the Magisterium.

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but it seems to me that you are saying that no one outside the Magisterium is capable of distinguishing truth from fable, fact from falsehood.

It seems that you are saying that whenever it appears that those currently regarded as the Magisterium are contradicting the Deposit of Faith, they are really not, because it is impossible that they should.

The problem with that is that there are plenty of historical examples to the contrary. I mentioned a glaring example in another thread: the Arian dominance of the apparent "Church" in the mid-4th century. That "Magisterium" even had its own "Pope," Felix.

Had believers - like St. Athanasius and the monks of the Egyptian desert - abandoned their own knowledge and understanding of the Deposit of Faith, choosing instead to submit to the apparent "Magisterium," the "Church" would have demoted our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit from the Godhead.

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.

Oversimplification.

There are real abuses to which there are very real objections.

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.

"By teaching that superiors should not refuse to be reprehended by
inferiors, St. Peter gave posterity an example more rare and holier than that
of St. Paul as he taught that in the defense of truth and with charity,
inferiors may have the audacity to resist superiors without fear."
(St. Augustine, Epistula 19 ad Hieronymum).


"Hold firmly that your faith is identical with that of the ancients.
Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church."

"There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be
questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a
subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent
danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St.
Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example
to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way,
they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from
their subjects....'

"The reprehension was just and useful, and the reason for it was
not light: there was a danger for the preservation of Gospel truth....
The way it took place was appropriate, since it was public and manifest.
For this reason, St. Paul writes: 'I spoke to Cephas,' that is, Peter,
'before everyone,' since the simulation practiced by St. Peter was
fraught with danger to everyone.
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 4)

 

[Michelina]

I hope you will study and learn about this subject, Maximus.

Good Night.

 

[Maximus]

I hope you will study and learn about this subject, Maximus.

Good Night.

I hope I can learn as well as St. Peter learned from St. Paul, and as humbly.

 

[plainswolf]

Pope Pius XII was right about quite a many things in regard to the persistence of Mary to Lucy at Fatima. Even Cardinal Ratzinger, when asked about what the Third Secret of Fatima contained, responded: "Dangers to the Faith and to the life of the Christian. And therefore the life of the world."

Even Pope John Paul II, within the last few years, was speaking about Fatima and said "Can the Blessed Virgin remain silent when She sees the very Faith of Her children being undermined?"...

With everything happening in the Church today in this day and age, its best to be on the cautious side.

J.M.J.
plainswolf

 

[Rising_Suns]

It seems that you are saying that whenever it appears that those currently regarded as the Magisterium are contradicting the Deposit of Faith, they are really not, because it is impossible that they should.

The problem with that is that there are plenty of historical examples to the contrary. I mentioned a glaring example in another thread: the Arian dominance of the apparent "Church" in the mid-4th century. That "Magisterium" even had its own "Pope," Felix.

Had believers - like St. Athanasius and the monks of the Egyptian desert - abandoned their own knowledge and understanding of the Deposit of Faith, choosing instead to submit to the apparent "Magisterium," the "Church" would have demoted our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit from the Godhead

Wow, so what I am getting from your last few posts, Maximus, is that it's ok to abandon the Magesterium's current push for Ecumenism because you feel, in your own personal judgement, it's deviating from Tradition and the Deposit of Faith.

Is that what you're saying?

 

[Maximus]

Wow, so what I am getting from your last few posts, Maximus, is that it's ok to abandon the Magesterium's current push for Ecumenism because you feel, in your own personal judgement, it's deviating from Tradition and the Deposit of Faith.

Is that what you're saying?

Have I said that?

We're talking about correcting abuses here, not abandoning all efforts at outreach.

What you quoted above is a reference to what I believe is a mistaken notion about the authority of the apparent Magisterium.

The prime role of the Magisterium is to pass on the Deposit of Faith intact.

Are you prepared to sanction abuses because of your own private view that whatever appears to be the Magisterium is always right?

 

[Rising_Suns]

We're talking about correcting abuses here, not abandoning all efforts at outreach

From the sound of this thread, the "abuse" that people are looking to "correct" is elimitating ecumenism completely.

What you quoted above is a reference to what I believe is a mistaken notion about the authority of the apparent Magisterium.

If the Magesterium is not your final authority, then what is?

Are you prepared to sanction apparent abuses because of your own private view that whatever appears to be the Magisterium is always right?

I really do not understand why Catholics stand against Ecumenism when the Church today has been clearly pushing for it. It's in CCC, it's in canon law, Pope JPII is obviously for it. There's really not much room for debate here.

 

[plainswolf]

And we cannot ignore abuses. I have three young children and it scares me to think of what they might be taught or what example they may be given by "Ecxumenism" and all of these "Ecumenical services" in our town. Such as the one last week at the Presbyterian Church that many Catholics went to. Is it any wonder then, why I see so much 'religious indifferentism' today in my own small town. All these Catholics I know who come right out and say that all Chrsitian religions are good and are good ways to God..etc.. There are people in Mass talking about going to their Masonic events such as DeMolay..etc.. And our local Church does nothing to oppose this.

Years ago at Bible study at my local Catholic Church, a preist that was visiting our parish for the week was talking about the age when Christ may have realized He was the Son of God.. My own dad, who is a 'mainstream' Catholic and another gentleman had to correct this priest and tell him that was heresy.

I will obey the Magesterium in all things of God. However if a priest directs me that all religions are equal, or any other such nonsense, then I am bound to not obey him in this matter.

I'm simply saying that I believe the Church has the best intentions, but I also see that ecumenism often runs amok. And prudence and caution is the best approach we can take in this day and age.

J.M.J.
plainswolf

 

[bigsierra]

And prudence and caution is the best approach we can take in this day and age.

I don't think anyone in this discussion would disagree with that.

 

[Maximus]

From the sound of this thread, the "abuse" that people are looking to "correct" is elimitating ecumenism completely.

I think what is being said is: Just do it right.

If that is not possible - and it may not be - then drop it.

If the Magesterium is not your final authority, then what is?

One might pose the following question instead:

Which Magisterium is your authority, an apparent present one, or all those of antiquity with which the present one conflicts?

If what appears to be the Magisterium contradicts the Deposit of Faith, it ceases in that instant to be the Magisterium.

This is not a simple case of authority vs. private interpretation.

Every religious decision is at heart a personal and private decision, even the decision to unquestioningly follow the apparent Magisterium-of-the-moment.

Each one should adhere in good conscience to what he believes on good authority.

I really do not understand why Catholics stand against Ecumenism when the Church today has been clearly pushing for it. It's in CCC, it's in canon law, Pope JPII is obviously for it. There's really not much room for debate here.

What they stand against are things like Assisi I and II, Cardinals publicly bowing to the floor and praying in Muslim mosques, and the Pope bowing to and kissing the Koran.

None of those things is really defensible, is it?

Reach out, convert the world, but do it without compromise or even the appearance of compromise with evil.