Ecumenism

[Rising_Suns]

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

Could you be a little clearer in what you are saying here please? I don't understand what other Magesterium you are talking about that exists today besides the one that produced our beloved Catechism. And the spirit of the CCC is most definately a few steps towards ecumenism and a few steps away from the ultra-traditionalism of years past. The Church's approach in today's society is different than it was in the 1800's; there is no denying that. The Church has changed, and will continue to do so. She is not stagnant.

I think that is what you are having trouble with, Maximus. You're stuck on the Church's mentality as it was in the 19th century, relying on encyclicals from popes like Pius XI for your position....Yet what matters most is what the Church teaches today. Reading the Catechism and JPII's Encyclicals paints a *much* brighter picture towards Ecumensim, much more so than you're willing to admit.

and the Pope bowing to and kissing the Koran.

I see you bringing this up alot Maximus, but I don't think it was a mistake. Knowing our Holy Father, I think he would have apologized if it was.

 

[Maximus]

What is really going on here are two separate things: a dispute about limitations on the authority of the Magisterium, and a critique of the way ecumenism has gone down in actual practice.

I think the Magisterium is limited by the Deposit of Faith, and that the latter is something by which we can measure the former.

You and others seem to think that if what is regarded as the Magisterium says or does something that appears to contradict the Deposit of Faith, it really doesn't, because it is impossible that it should.

There are too many historical examples of either bad Magisteriums or times when it was nearly impossible to spot the real Magisterium for me to accept what you all seem to be saying.

Here are the words of a spokesman for the original Magisterium (St. Paul):

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [Underlining mine, for emphasis.]

He seems to hold even the Apostles ("we") accountable to the faith already and originally preached. He admonishes the Galatians to judge them by it.

So we see that the Deposit of Faith, once handed down, is the standard to which even the Magisterium is held accountable.

 

[Rising_Suns]

I think the Magisterium is limited by the Deposit of Faith, and that the latter is something by which we can measure the former

Agreed.

or times when it was nearly impossible to spot the real Magisterium for me to accept what you all seem to be saying

Maximus,
The Magesterium today is pretty darn clear and distinguishable, and I think it is a grave error to take it with a grain of salt based on a personal view of what one thinks the deposit of faith is (or more specifically, clinging to the Church of the 19th century). You are undermining it by painting this hazy picture of multiple counterfeit Magesteriums.

The deposit of faith is like a complex riddle, and it's the Magesterium's job to unravle it. When you raise even just the slightest bit of doubt about the authority of the Magesterium (like you are doing in this thread), you essentially bypass it and take on the task of solving this riddle on your own, disconnected from the Church.

The path you are heading down now is similar to the one Archbishop Lefebvre took in 1988. He didn't like the path the Magesterium was heading down either and thought the church was deviating from the deposit of faith of the "true" Catholic Church. He of course split from the Church to create the SSPX, which is now considered schismatic.

You and others seem to think that if what is regarded as the Magisterium says or does something that appears to contradict the Deposit of Faith, it really doesn't, because it is impossible that it should.

Questioning the authority of the Magesterium to me is like pitting one mind against hundreds of the brightest theologians in history. What may *appear* a contradiction to you is most likely in fact not. There is usally a reasonable explanation.

 

[Maximus]

No one is questioning the authority of the Magisterium.

We were talking about the limits of that authority, and you agreed with me that the Magisterium is limited by the Deposit of Faith (which I was happy to hear, BTW).

I think that was an important principle to establish and an important one to keep in mind.

Most of the time you are probably right: what at first glance looks like an error, when properly explained and prayed over, will turn out to be a simple misunderstanding.

But it is important to remember that we must not just blindly acquiesce in everything simply because some authority figures say it is so.

 

[Rising_Suns]

No one is questioning the authority of the Magisterium.

Perhaps it is not your intention, but it sounds to me like you are by painting this blurry picture of multiple counterfeit Magesteriums, which ultimately raises doubt and calls it into question.

But it is important to remember that we must not just blindly acquiesce in everything simply because some authority figures say it is so.

Maximus,
I am a little bewildered by this last comment; "some authority figures". The Catechism was created by these authority figures, and if the CCC is not infallible, then I'd say it's as darn close as infallibility can get, even above and beyond the outdated encyclicals that you prefer.

In fact, the last passage that you cited from the words of St. Paul supports the importance that authority comes from a communal effort (i.e., the Magesterium); "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." [Gal 1:8]

You're right. Even Peter was admonished by Paul; a friendly reminder that our past popes are not infallbile in all things, and can possibly err. It is thus I tend to have a more scrutinous eye when reading older encyclicals (especially pre-Vatican II) than when reading the Catechism. The CCC, beyond anything else, is what I would blindly accept.

Blessings!

 

[Alexis OCA]

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

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

AMEN Max!

"Such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, 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. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion."
Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos, par. 2

 

[Alexis OCA]

Article 4 of Unitatis Redintegratio states that 'The Sacred Council exhorts, therefore, all Catholics to recognize the signs of the times and to take an active and intelligent part in the work of ecumenism.' What are the signs of the times that one is exhorted to recognize? UR does not say. And what is 'the work of ecumenism,' given that ecumenism itself is not defined? No answer is given.

To this day Catholics have been given no clear idea of what 'the work of ecumenism' is. In Article 6 of UR we are told that 'the participation of Catholics in ecumenical work is distinct from preparation and reception into the Church [of those who] desire full communion.' That is, ecumenism is something other than evangelization or catechesis, but UR does not explain precisely what that something is. We are told only that Catholics must now engage in the ill-defined "ecumenical movement" which involves ill-defined "ecumenical work." Such nebulous directives have no parallel in any prior conciliar or papal document at any time in Church history.

UR nevertheless employs the term [ecumenism] repeatedly, as if it had always had definite meaning: 'Sacred theology must be taught with due regard for an ecumenical point of view." What is an ecumenical point of view exactly????

 

[geocajun]

If its good enough for the pope, its good enough for me.

CCC-816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him." The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."

 

[geocajun]

Also, this is the Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church, Promulgated by the Pope as a "sure norm for teaching the faith" - If you find yourself in disagreement with it, then you should ask yourself if its you who disagrees with the Catholic Church, or the Catholic Church who disagrees with you.

Toward unity

CCC-820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time." Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me." The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.

CCC-821 Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call:

- a permanent renewal of the Church in greater fidelity to her vocation; such renewal is the driving-force of the movement toward unity;

- conversion of heart as the faithful "try to live holier lives according to the Gospel"; for it is the unfaithfulness of the members to Christ's gift which causes divisions;

- prayer in common, because "change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name 'spiritual ecumenism;"'

- fraternal knowledge of each other;

- ecumenical formation of the faithful and especially of priests

- dialogue among theologians and meetings among Christians of the different churches and communities;

- collaboration among Christians in various areas of service to mankind. "Human service" is the idiomatic phrase.

 

[nyj]

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.

Then you should have no problem with ecumenism as Vatican II spoke about.

You think that Vatican II issued in "new things", but that's not true. Vatican II spoke of the already existing Truths found within the faith. It's not different in that regard to the Council of Trent, which reiterated many things that the Church had already been teaching for centuries, and in some cases for at least a millenium.

 

[nyj]

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

Hmmm, perhaps I thought too highly of you.

To say it plainly, I meant conversion. Or do you mean to tell me that the only "True Christians" are Catholics?

 

[Benedicta00]

My 2 cents, I don’t think there is anything wrong with what the Church toady teaches on Ecumenism but I see way to many priests and parishes taking it out of context to mean sky is the limit and from what we have seen on this board alone, there are those who just do not understand it correctly. The same way many take Marian devotion and Marian apparitions too far, Ecumenism is taken to far by some. I think Vatican 2’s main problem was being to elusive and having those think they do have the freedom to take things too far.

With that said, I don’t see how the magisterium is getting the blame for individual pastors and parishes for going to far. Just because abuses are taking place that does not mean there is something wrong with what the Church teaches, that does not mean we should drop it. I think the pope should pay more attention to the bishops and diocese who do allow abuses, and bishops should pay more attention to their parishes but it’s par for the course as far as I am concerned.

I accept the teaching but I would never participate in service where the teaching was being abused.

 

[Axion]

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

Amazingly prophetic. Obviously Pius XII saw these destructive forces in motion in the 1920s and 1930s, long before they came out in the open.

I really believe the devil hates the mass, hates eucharistic adoration, devotion and beauty in worship, and monastic devotion. These are things which historically enemies of the Faith have always tried to destroy. Think of the Barbarians, the Vikings, Iconoclasts, the Reformation excesses, the French Revolution, Secularism, Communism. Always the same targets. I used to wonder why. Now I think it is because the things all these different forces have attacked do great harm to the devil.

 

[Benedicta00]

I really believe the devil hates the mass, hates eucharistic adoration, devotion and beauty in worship, and monastic devotion. These are things which historically enemies of the Faith have always tried to destroy. Think of the Barbarians, the Vikings, Iconoclasts, the Reformation excesses, the French Revolution, Secularism, Communism. Always the same targets. I used to wonder why. Now I think it is because the things all these different forces have attacked do great harm to the devil.

Interesting, perhaps that was the enemies driving force behind the reformation- to do away with the Mass more so than to divide.

 

[Epiphanygirl]

My 2 cents, I don’t think there is anything wrong with what the Church toady teaches on Ecumenism but I see way to many priests and parishes taking it out of context to mean sky is the limit and from what we have seen on this board alone, there are those who just do not understand it correctly. The same way many take Marian devotion and Marian apparitions too far, Ecumenism is taken to far by some. I think Vatican 2’s main problem was being to elusive and having those think they do have the freedom to take things too far.

With that said, I don’t see how the magisterium is getting the blame for individual pastors and parishes for going to far. Just because abuses are taking place that does not mean there is something wrong with what the Church teaches, that does not mean we should drop it. I think the pope should pay more attention to the bishops and diocese who do allow abuses, and bishops should pay more attention to their parishes but it’s par for the course as far as I am concerned.

I accept the teaching but I would never participate in service where the teaching was being abused.

Bravo! It is how the "teachings" are being abused, not used or performed properly. Instead of blaming the Magisterium, I actually blame the priests,bishops and lay people of the church. I think both priests and nuns got a little too much freedom and got caught up in it(especially in the U.S)

 

[Benedicta00]

Bravo! It is how the "teachings" are being abused, not used or performed properly. Instead of blaming the Magisterium, I actually blame the priests,bishops and lay people of the church. I think both priests and nuns got a little too much freedom and got caught up in it(especially in the U.S)

Due to misinterpreting Vatican 2, not due to any errors on Vatican 2’s part.

IMO, Vatican 2 was given at the dawn of the hippie age, “make love, not war” and all that radical nonsense. I think Paul John was trying to head off the abuses that would inevitable come from the way the culture was taking shape and for what ever reason it backfired.

It’s was the early the culture of death that was really beginning to take root and I believe this is the crux of the problem. The era that interpreted the document, not anything contained in the document but the way fallen human nature works is we never blame us, we blame the Church. I don’t think there is anything wrong with the spirit of Vatican 2, I think plenty is wrong it was the “Age of Aquarius” who interpreted it.

There is a great movement out there of priest that the our mother Mary is calling who is restoring our Church. There will be a new spring time coming and it isn’t the spring time the liberals think it is.

 

[Epiphanygirl]

Due to misinterpreting Vatican 2, not due to any errors on Vatican 2’s part.

IMO, Vatican 2 was given at the dawn of the hippie age, “make love, not war” and all that radical nonsense. I think Paul John was trying to head off the abuses that would inevitable come from the way the culture was taking shape and for what ever reason it backfired.

It’s was the early the culture of death that was really beginning to take root and I believe this is the crux of the problem. The era that interpreted the document, not anything contained in the document but the way fallen human nature works is we never blame us, we blame the Church. I don’t think there is anything wrong with the spirit of Vatican 2, I think plenty is wrong it was the “Age of Aquarius” who interpreted it.

There is a great movement out there of priest that the our mother Mary is calling who is restoring our Church. There will be a new spring time coming and it isn’t the spring time the liberals think it is.

EG HI-Fives Shelb5!! Exactly!!!

 

[Alexis OCA]

Hmmm, perhaps I thought too highly of you.

To say it plainly, I meant conversion. Or do you mean to tell me that the only "True Christians" are Catholics?

ROFL

Well if you could define "True Christian" I might be able to answer.

 

[Alexis OCA]

You think that Vatican II issued in "new things", but that's not true. Vatican II spoke of the already existing Truths found within the faith. It's not different in that regard to the Council of Trent, which reiterated many things that the Church had already been teaching for centuries, and in some cases for at least a millenium.

Wow, yo do have a bright outlook. Then do tell dear friend where all the novelty and new ways of proceeding came from. From what seed did these things germanate?

To compare Trent to Vatican II is laughable.

 

[Alexis OCA]

Due to misinterpreting Vatican 2, not due to any errors on Vatican 2’s part.

IMO, Vatican 2 was given at the dawn of the hippie age, “make love, not war” and all that radical nonsense. I think Paul John was trying to head off the abuses that would inevitable come from the way the culture was taking shape and for what ever reason it backfired.

It’s was the early the culture of death that was really beginning to take root and I believe this is the crux of the problem. The era that interpreted the document, not anything contained in the document but the way fallen human nature works is we never blame us, we blame the Church. I don’t think there is anything wrong with the spirit of Vatican 2, I think plenty is wrong it was the “Age of Aquarius” who interpreted it.

There is a great movement out there of priest that the our mother Mary is calling who is restoring our Church. There will be a new spring time coming and it isn’t the spring time the liberals think it is.

I thought what you wrote above was well put and I could almost come to terms with it. May I ask you this though...what exactly is 'the spirit of Vatican II' that you refer to and what was wrong with the Church that it was needed?

Regards.