Posted on 07/30/2005 8:48:42 AM PDT by Mary Kochan
Jesus prayed “that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that Thou has sent Me.” The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, sets forth principles for the way in which the Church is striving to answer the prayer of Jesus that all may be one.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicexchange.com ...
Yes Jesus desires all to be one, but did he not also say that many are selected and few will be chosen? Or it will be easier for a rich man to be saved than for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle?
The entire council was flawed, and the decree on ecumenism was the document that set the lynch pin for making the council pastoral.
Dominus Iesus, published on September 5 and signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (before he became our Holy Father) , stated that the churches which grew out of the Reformation of the 16th century were not "churches in the proper sense." This really got Kaspers goat!
The great danger of ecumenism is that it places all religions on the same footing. Modern ecumenism would have us believe that all men of whatever religious persuasion are equally "on their way to God." They are merely taking different means to get there... so if you re a Protestant, be a GOOD Protestant, if you're a Jew, be a GOOD Jew, if you're a Moslem, be a GOOD MOSLEM, if youre a Hindu, be a GOOD Hindu. God is portrayed as being at the summit of a mountain, and there are many roads and paths up that mountain that lead to Him. ANY MAN IS FREE TO CHOOSE THE PATH HE WILL. TO GOD IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHICH ROAD A MAN CHOOSES TO COME TO HIM. CERTAINLY NO MAN CAN DECLARE HIMSELF TO HAVE THE "ONLY WAY!"
Now once Catholics get the bug of "Ecumenitis" into their bloodstream, the infection can only bring about spiritual sickness and death. They will start to be careless about their own Catholicism. They will join in worship with persons of false religions and end by abandoning the True Church of Christ. They will come to look upon the Seven Sacraments as merely "optional" means of grace, no better than the ceremonies of other cults... free to use, free to reject with no consequences upon their eternal salvation.
Modern ecumenism is at odds with the mandate of our Lord Jesus Christ to His Apostles when He entrusted them with His Divine Law, established His Church with Peter as the head, (Matt. 16: 18-19) and gave them the Divine commission to "Go... and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. 18:19). It ignores the warning of Christ when he told us "no-one comes to the Father but through Me."(John 14:6) and furthermore, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned."(Mark 16:16) It is in opposition to the will of Christ: "There shall be one fold and one Shepherd," (John 10:16) He being the Shepherd. Modern ecumenism is opposed to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ... it is ecclesiastical lunacy.
Therefore Ms Kochan, I do think you may need to stick to your post as Moderator for Catholic Exchange and not invade here with your liberal postings!
FYI, ecumenism is flat out anathematized as heresy. The anthema was issued in 1983 and is included in the Synodicon of Orthodoxy. As you are probably aware, it does not take an Ecumenical Council to issue an anathema binding on the entire Church. Any regional council can issue an anthema, and many did in fact do exactly that even before the First Council of Nicaea met in A.D. 325.
So nothing more need be said. Ecumenism is anathema.
If you dont know Mary Kochan, she is the nasty belligerant moderator of Catholic exchange, where discussions on Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, pedophilia,, anything except the most mundane of subjects, which she can defend is allowed. When you post in favor of FSSP, the Indult, or forget about SSPX, she makes fun of you, belittles you and then bans anyone who is Orthodox. I understand from a good friend she was recently reprimanded for such actions as donations to Catholic exchange have been dropping faster than the Nasdaq in the year 2000. If you read the bottom of her article, she is a former Jehova's witness, not that it should matter, but to expect her to actually understand what Pope Pius IX meant in one of his encyclicals on Ecumenism, when she is a recent convert and all she has been fed is the post Vatican II brainwash is to much to ask.
A little snippet of Ms Kochan in action, she is so anti Conservative, and I dont think she even realizes that there are two forms of approved masses. check it out for yourself
http://www.catholicexchange.com/messageboard/docs/viewtopic.asp?mbid=2&DocumentID=3743
Mary Kochan
Moderator
Joined: 11/6/2004
Posts: 344
Location:
Posted: 4/27/2005 9:01:01 PM
________________________________________
Well you see it really isn't impossible even though you had to get in your little dig with "I can almost hear the words of Pope Pius IX as he wrote that he was just a pope and could not change the immemorial." but you are coming along. You actually almost made it through several solid paragraphs without resorting to negativity.
Now the whole lot of you are on serious warning. Keep your posts clean of criticism of the NO which is a valid Mass. We are up to the eyeballs in your endless ranting. We know there are abuses of the NO, but an abuse does not invalidate a practice and the NO is not in and of itself an abuse. And if you disagree with that, we really don't care to hear about it. Stop switching evey subject on this forum to your hobby-horse.
Start participating in these discussions as though you realy thought that the other Catholics on here loved Jesus and the Church as much as you do. Show yourselves willing to learn and be gentle with seekers. Make yourselves examples of Philippians 2:3 and perhaps you will actually attract someone to the riches of TLM.
So you're telling us "Mary Kochan Moderator" is of that ilk someimes referred to as a "God-king (queen?)" in internet lingo?
I understand there's a movement of individuals organizing to find a way of ridding the internet of these "God-king" types. They are indeed a plague.
The holy and Ecumenical synod, which by the grace of God and most pious command of the God-beloved and orthodox Emperors, Constantine and Leo, now assembled in the imperial residence city, in the temple of the holy and inviolate Mother of God and Virgin Mary, surnamed in Blachernæ, have decreed as follows. ...(9) If anyone ventures to represent in human figures, by means of material colours, by reason of the incarnation, the substance or person (ousia or hypostasis) of the Word, which cannot be depicted, and does not rather confess that even after the Incarnation he [i.e., the Word] cannot be depicted, let him be anathema!
(10) If anyone ventures to represent the hypostatic union of the two natures in a picture, and calls it Christ, and thus falsely represents a union of the two natures, etc.!
(11) If anyone separates the flesh united with the person of the Word from it, and endeavours to represent it separately in a picture, etc.!
(12) If anyone separates the one Christ into two persons, and endeavours to represent Him who was born of the Virgin separately, and thus accepts only a relative union of the natures, etc.
(13) If anyone represents in a picture the flesh deified by its union with the Word, and thus separates it from the Godhead, etc.
(14) If anyone endeavours to represent by material colours, God the Word as a mere man, who, although bearing the form of God, yet has assumed the form of a servant in his own person, and thus endeavours to separate him from his inseparable Godhead, so that he thereby introduces a quaternity into the Holy Trinity, etc.
(16) If anyone shall endeavour to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their virtues as living images in himself, etc.
(19) If anyone does not accept this our Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Synod, let him be anathema from the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and from the seven holy Ecumenical Synods!
Synod of Constantinople, 754 AD.
So, do you accept these anathemas, Graves? If not, why not?
"So, do you accept these anathemas, Graves?"
Yes
Interesting-I had only thought that there were papal encyclicals teaching on the errors of Ecumenism, I had never thought that it was previously taught as well in a council. Does that not make it pastoral and not binding, and how can the Novus Ordo post Vatican II church keep pushing this hogwash then so hot and heavy?
"Interesting-I had only thought that there were papal encyclicals teaching on the errors of Ecumenism, I had never thought that it was previously taught as well in a council. Does that not make it pastoral and not binding, and how can the Novus Ordo post Vatican II church keep pushing this hogwash then so hot and heavy?"
The anathema was urged in 1983 by St. Philaret the New Confessor upon the Synod of Bishops (aka Sobor), of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and it adopted unanimously.
Quite obviously, as the NO Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the ROCOR nor the ROCOR the NO Roman Catholic Church (or at least it certainly did not do so in 1983), Pope of Rome Benedict XVI could probably care less. Pope John Paul II certainly didn't give a hoot.
Here is the wording of the anathema:
"Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called 'branches' which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all 'branches' or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!"
You accept the anathemas of the Iconoclast Synod of Constantinople?! (I think you read a little too fast!) It follows by anathematizing St. John Damascene and St. Germanus.
What makes these anathemas invalid, but Trullo valid? The consent of the Church? But that never accrued to Trullo, either.
Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called 'branches' which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all 'branches' or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body;
“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”. In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”. “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”. (Pope John Paul II, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Declaration Dominus Iesus §17)
who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation;
This, on the other hand, according to the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church, is incorrect. Heretics, indeed, cannot receive the sacraments unto salvation; this does not mean, however, that those sacraments are not sacraments of the Church which are truly effectual for salvation. St. Augustine, defending against the Donatist heretics, makes this distinction clearly:
And what they themselves think that they conferred on those persons whom Felicianus baptized in schism, when they admitted them to reconcilation with themselves, viz., not that they should receive that which they did not as yet possess, but that what they had received to no advantage in schism, and were already in possession of, should be of profit to them, this God really confers and bestows through the Catholic communion on those who come from any heresy or schism in which they received the baptism of Christ; viz., not that they should begin to receive the sacrament of baptism as not possessing it before, but that what they already possessed should now begin to profit them. (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, I, 5:7)
St. Alphonsus Liguori notes: "Thus also Concina and Antoine say that it is not licit to seek the Sacraments from a heretic and/or schismatic, except in the case of extreme and/or the most grave necessity" (Theologia Moralis, Vol. III, Tract I, Chapter III, No. 89). Obviously this could not be possible at all if the sacraments of heretics were not, in fact, effectual to salvation for those belonging to the the one, holy, catholic, apostolic, and Roman Church.
This statement conflicts with the teaching of the Orthodox Church: "Obviously this could not be possible at all if the sacraments of heretics were not, in fact, effectual to salvation for those belonging to the the one, holy, catholic, apostolic, and Roman Church."
Apostolic Canon XLVI.
We ordain that a bishop, or presbyter, who has admitted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics, be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath a believer with an infidel?
Apostolic Canon XLVII.
Let a bishop or presbyter who shall baptize again one who has rightly received baptism, or who shall not baptize one who has been polluted by the ungodly, be deposed, as despising the cross and death of the Lord, and not making a distinction between the true priests and the false.
Apostolic Canon LXVIII.
If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall receive from anyone a second ordination, let both the ordained and the ordainer be deposed; unless indeed it be proved that he had his ordination from heretics; for those who have been baptized or ordained by such persons cannot be either of the faithful or of the clergy
THE BEGINNING OF CANON 2 OF THE COUNCIL "IN TRULLO": Declaring the Apostolic Canons to be a part of Orthodox canon law.
"It has also seemed good to this holy Council, that the eighty-five canons, received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles, should from this time forth remain firm and unshaken for the cure of souls and the healing of disorders. And in these canons we are bidden to receive the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles [written] by Clement."
Hmm. The dubious "Apostolic Canons" never accepted by the Catholic Church - or the First Council of Nicaea?
Canon 8. Concerning those who have given themselves the name of Cathars [the Novatians], and who from time to time come over publicly to the catholic and apostolic church, this holy and great synod decrees that they may remain among the clergy after receiving an imposition of hands. But before all this it is fitting that they give a written undertaking that they will accept and follow the decrees of the catholic church ... when some come over in places where there is a bishop or presbyter belonging to the catholic church, it is evident that the bishop of the church will hold the bishop's dignity, and that the one given the title and name of bishop among the so-called Cathars will have the rank of presbyter, unless the bishop thinks fit to let him share in the honour of the title.
Or perhaps what St. Siricius declared:
On the first page of your letter, therefore, you indicated that multitudes who were baptized by the impious Arians were hastening to the catholic faith, and that certain of our brothers wished to baptize these same people again. This is not allowed, since both the Apostle forbids and the canons oppose doing it; and after the Council of Rimini was annulled, the general decrees sent to the provinces by my predecessor of venerable memory Liberius prohibit it. We unite these people, and the Novatianists and other heretics, to the assembly of Catholics, just as it was constituted in the synod, solely through invocation of the sevenfold Spirit by imposition of the bishop's hand. Indeed all the East and the West preserves this practice, and it is also inappropriate henceforth for you to deviate from that path, if you do not wish to be separated from our company by synodal sentence. (Letter to Himerius of Tarragona, 385 AD)
As Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, he, unlike the pseudonymous author of the "Apostolic Canons", actually had authority to decree men excommuicate.
Re "As Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, [St. Siriacus] unlike the pseudonymous author of the 'Apostolic Canons', actually had authority to decree men excommunicate", and your two long posts.
Nothing you say changes anything. Roman Catholic teaching is at odds with the the teaching of the Orthodox Church. So what else is new? Move on.
You say that Trullo - a council which never received acceptance in the universal Church, nor was confirmed by the Apostolic See, and so fails the tests of St. Irenaeus and St. Vincent of Lerins - is God-inspired, but you refuse to treat Constantinople III as God-inspired when it declared Pope St. Agatho's letter teaching the infallibility of the Apostolic Roman See "divinely written as by the Chief of the Apostles" and announced to the Emperor: "But the highest prince of the Apostles fought with us: for we had on our side his imitator and the successor in his see, who also had set forth in his letter the mystery of the divine word. For the ancient city of Rome handed thee a confession of divine character, and a chart from the sunsetting raised up the day of dogmas, and made the darkness manifest, and Peter spoke through Agatho". Why is that?
And therefore I beseech you with a contrite heart and rivers of tears, with prostrated mind, deign to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the Apostolic doctrine which the co-worker of your pious labours, the blessed apostle Peter, has delivered, that it be not hidden under a bushel, but that it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bugle: because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred. This is the living tradition of the Apostles of Christ, which his Church holds everywhere, which is chiefly to be loved and fostered, and is to be preached with confidence, which conciliates with God through its truthful confession, which also renders one commendable to Christ the Lord, which keeps the Christian empire of your Clemency, which gives far-reaching victories to your most pious Fortitude from the Lord of heaven, which accompanies you in battle, and defeats your foes; which protects on every side as an impregnable wall your God-sprung empire, which throws terror into opposing nations, and smites them with the divine wrath, which also in wars celestially gives triumphal palms over the downfall and subjection of the enemy, and ever guards your most faithful sovereignty secure and joyful in peace. For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, “Peter, Peter, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that (thy) faith fail not. And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all. ...Who does not hate, and rage against, and avoid such blind errors, if he have any desire to be saved and seek to offer to the Lord at his coming a right faith? Therefore the Holy Church of God, the mother of your most Christian power, should be delivered and liberated with all your might (through the help of God) from the errors of such teachers, and the evangelical and apostolic uprightness of the orthodox faith, which has been established upon the firm rock of this Church of blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, which by his grace and guardianship remains free from all error, [that faith I say] the whole number of rulers and priests, of the clergy and of the people, unanimously should confess and preach with us as the true declaration of the Apostolic tradition, in order to please God and to save their own souls.
Where are the Orthodox who accept all of St. Agatho's letter today? They are in the Catholic Church, because only there is the true apostolic teaching found. "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. Which some promising, have erred concerning the faith" (1 Tim. 6:20-1).
If Trullo - a doubtful synod - is to be treated as such an authority on every matter of history, etc., why does not the III Synod of Constantinople, certainly received by all the Church catholic and the Apostolic See of Rome, not receive the same treatment? The Holy Roman Church "has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself". Amen.
"The unity of Christians cannot otherwise be obtained than by securing the return of the separated to the one true Church of Christ from which they once unhappily withdrew. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, that stands forth before all and that by the will of its Founder will remain forever the same as when He Himself established it for the salvation of all mankind." (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos
Dear Mary Kochan,
Welcome to FR.
sitetest
Pope Pius XI, in reference to efforts of religious unity without due considerations to doctrine, warns that “unity can only arise from one teaching authority” (Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI, 6 January 1928, Section 9). If one fails to acknowledge that, one goes down the slippery slope towards indifferentism. As Pius XI went on to explain:We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it. Those who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessitates of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being accommodated to human life. The idea or practice of promoting ecumenism without agreement in regards to doctrine is false ecumenism. The union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it.” (Ibid, Section 10)Denying Catholic doctrine in the name of ecumenism or unity is clearly against the clear teachings of the Catholic Church throughout history and against the Decree on Ecumenism.
By the way, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity" was not said by St. Augustine, but by a 17th century Protestant theologian. It was later mistakenly attributed to our great Saint.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine/quote.html
Thank you. I will pass this to the author.
Sure, if you say so, but clearly in the clear practice of ecumenism you can twist doctrine, obfuscate it, omit it; confuse it; downplay it, pretend it doesn't matter and ignore it. As long as you don't outright deny doctrine (meaning you don't get caught doing it) it's all good.
Ugh. I am so sick to death of Ecumenism. It makes my skin crawl. All of the "buzz words" are like needles in my ears.
My most hated words at this point:
Dialogue.
Separated Brethren
Mutual understanding.
Mutual exchange of gifts.
Mutual anything.
the "Key" to ecumenism
Here's the real key to ecumenism:
The bishops have to learn the Catholic faith,
The priests have to learn the Catholic faith.
I just spent 3 hours on Friday with a Maronite priest in conversation. It took about an hour for him to open up enough to tell me the filioque is wrong.
Then a little later he loosened up and told me that the Devil and Angels don't exist. That Thomas Aquinas has a fallacy of dualism in his theology,
That Men is the creator of sin. That Demonic possession is actually the spirits of humans who are dead and the possessed person is "in comunion" with them.
That whether there was an actual physical resurrection is unimportant.
And there were many other examples I could present.
How can anyone expect "ecumenism" from priests and bishops that believe this modernism? Answer you can't.
Until Catholics start being taught and believing Catholic doctrine, ecumenism is pointless.
Enforcing a proper dress code would be the first step towards ecumenism. Protestants and I'm sure Orthodox probably look at the mode of dress coming out of Catholic Churches and they know these people don't take anything seriously.
Until the Catholic Church removes the log of modernism from its eye. Ecumenism is pointless and just destructive to the faith of the already confused millions of Catholics.
clearly in the clear practice of ecumenism you can twist doctrine, obfuscate it, omit it; confuse it; downplay it, pretend it doesn't matter and ignore it.
Another manner in which false ecumenism presents itself is in the denial or minimizing of true Catholic doctrine in dialogue with other Christians.The manner and order in which Catholic belief is expressed should in no way become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism which harms the purity of Catholic doctrine and obscures its genuine and certain meaning. At the same time, Catholic belief must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms that our separated brethren can also really understand it.It is false ecumenism to withhold or disguise true Catholic doctrine in order to attempt to achieve unity when it in fact is not achieved. False ecumenism in practice leads to the indifferentism and modernism. The blending of all Christians without reference to doctrine, known at times as “pan-Christians,” is false ecumenism that was condemned by Pope Pius XI and is incompatible with the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism.
From the OP.
Sounds more like a relic of paganism than modernism.
The author should be telling this to the cardinals bishops and priests.
They have a thousand noxious devices at their disposal.
One interesting thing was "Angels are actually from Persia." "There is no record of them in Judaism prior to the Babylonian captivity, in the the oral tradition."
I was really curious to ask "how do you know the oral tradition?"
I was trying to figure out if he was trying to explain Eastern theology to me at first. But then came an explanation of the Trinity, the Incarnation and Salvation. And eventually the "poetry" of it all was leading to a denial of virtually everything.
I finally got a foothold of where he was coming from when I asked for recommendations to read and follow up.
He said, "Karl Rahner."
Why not tell it to laymen, too? After all, if the local ecclesiastical hierarchy is in need of instruction, much more the laity who are instructed by them, and who have been widely corrupted by various false ideas drawn from the poisoned wellsprings of heresy and false ecumenism.
It's going to have to start at the top. B16 is going to have to teach from the ground up. (not the language of Tubungen)
He's got to make up for decades of his predecessors being asleep at the switch.
Plain language as Pope St.Pius X insisted is necessary. I was encouraged to read his comparison of the new compendium to the Pius X catechism. I haven't read it yet so, I'll keep my hopes reserved.
It was the lack of discipline coming from the top that allowed this confused era to grow into a crisis. It's going to take a Pope willing to be hated and willing to let a lot of obstinate Catholics leave in order to clean it up.
Ah, Karl Rahner, S.J. ...
The "existence of the angels cannot be disputed by a sincere Christian. They are mere creatures and like man, they are created for a supernatural goal. Their saving grace came from Christ, who is their Head too, and round the Word they form a true society of persons. They are a part of the Christian Message." (Karl Rahner, Encyclopedia of Theology, from the EWTN website)
Perhaps you can quote that to him next time you see him - the priest, I mean. The whole thing about "Angels are actually from Persia" is specious, anyway. Even if the explicit idea was, how would that disprove their existence? Are they not testified to us in Scripture, even if their existence was not known to the Jews before the Captivity? The whole matter is because of a denial of the authority of revealed truth, without which the entire edifice of the Christian religion tumbles, since religion becomes a matter of private opinion - in short, the imaginary fantasy of each man, to be determined as he pleases.
"You say that Trullo - a council which never received acceptance in the universal Church, nor was confirmed by the Apostolic See, and so fails the tests of St. Irenaeus and St. Vincent of Lerins...blah blah blah"
Above assumes facts not in evidence.
1) Trullo received acceptance of all of the patriarchates except the West.
2) The Patriarchate of the West subsequently left the Church and re-established itself as "The [Roman] Catholic Church".
3) I'm not sure about this test of St. Irenaeus you speak of (please quote it or link me to it), but the Council in Trullo does meet the test of St. Vincent of Lerins as to universality and consent. And as it conflicts with no earlier council, it also meets the test of St. Vincent as to antiquity.
4) Nothing in the Tradition requires confirmation by any particular see. Such a requirement would be an absurdity because if this or that see should fall into heresy, such a requirement would mean everyone would have to follow along, "Willy Nilly". If that were so, there would be no need for the Vincentian Canon.
Now you speak of some council or other that you think the Orthodox do not accept but should accept. I think you said the III Council of Constantinople. According to my information III Constantinople was received by the Church as Ecumenical. There is nothing, however, in the acts of this council that requires anyone to believe that the Pope of Rome is infallible or that the Pope of Rome and his entire jurisdiction (the Patriarchate of the West), cannot fall into heresy. Just ask any member of the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht and that Old Catholic will tell you exactly the same thing.
No, the Eastern Churches subsequently left the Church and reestablished themselves as "The Orthodox Church".
I'm not sure about this test of St. Irenaeus you speak of (please quote it or link me to it)
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III, 3:2)
Nothing in the Tradition requires confirmation by any particular see.
Without whom [the Romans presiding in the seventh Council] a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (St. Nicephorus of Constantinople, Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25)
There is nothing, however, in the acts of this council that requires anyone to believe that the Pope of Rome is infallible or that the Pope of Rome and his entire jurisdiction (the Patriarchate of the West), cannot fall into heresy.
What do you think of what I quoted, then?
Just ask any member of the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht and that Old Catholic will tell you exactly the same thing.
Old Catholics will also tell me that it's okay to ordain women. Sorry, but I'll pass.
"No, the Eastern Churches subsequently left the Church and reestablished themselves as 'The Orthodox Church'."
I guess we do not agree.
"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III, 3:2)"
Note that this requirement is based upon the fact that, as of at that time, Rome had indeed kept the Tradition.
"Without whom [the Romans presiding in the seventh Council] a doctrine..."
Same point as above.
"What do you think of what I quoted, then?"
Irrelevant material as usual.
"Sorry, but I'll pass"
Afraid he'll clean your clock are you?
How it it irrelevant? It states that the Apostolic Church of Rome will never lose the faith:
For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself ... Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all.
Afraid he'll clean your clock are you?
The "Old Catholics" are a joke.
"The 'Old Catholics' are a joke" Trying to pick a fight with another denomination are we?
Thanks for that quote. I'll keep it handy in case I need it.
I suspect however that he'll have some other reason for disagreeing. He rejected "anonymous Christianity" and defended "magisterial infallibility" in one of the most clever ways I've seen yet. Aquinas is wrong now because it was correct during Medieval times. But now that we have such a deeper understanding of God, Transubstantiation is no longer correct.
Modernists like to pick and choose from other modernists. Part of what they say is actual solid Catholic teaching and then there's a twist somewhere from someone that will throw doubt on that teaching.
It was interesting to see how he kept toggling back and forth between Eastern Uniate terminology and Mysticism and the Germanic School and modern science all to undermine Thomistic philosophy.
He was saying that St. Thomas and Augustine both suffered from the fallacy of creating a dualism. I asked him if he'd read the Summa Contra Gentiles and he said, "No." So, I checked my copy and it seems Aquinas dealt with all of his arguments. They were just simply ignored because they are not in the more famous book.
No, that wasn't from St. Irenaeus, it was an excerpt of what I had previously posted from the Tome of Pope St. Agatho to the Third Synod of Constantinople. As I noted, the Council wrote back to St. Agatho:
Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up, having been urged to making a decree by Constantine who divinely reigns, and wields a most clement sceptre.
To the Emperor, the Council declared (in the Prosphoneticus):
Thereafter being inspired by the Holy Ghost, and all agreeing and consenting together, and giving our approval to the doctrinal letter of our most blessed and exalted pope, Agatho, which he sent to your mightiness, as also agreeing to the suggestion of the holy synod of one hundred and twenty-five fathers held under him, we teach that one of the Holy Trinity, our Lord Jesus Christ, was incarnate, and must be celebrated in two perfect natures without division and without confusion. ... But the highest prince of the Apostles fought with us: for we had on our side his imitator and the successor in his see, who also had set forth in his letter the mystery of the divine word. For the ancient city of Rome handed thee a confession of divine character, and a chart from the sunsetting raised up the day of dogmas, and made the darkness manifest, and Peter spoke through Agatho, and thou, O autocratic King, according to the divine decree, with the Omnipotent Sharer of thy throne, didst judge.
From all this it is undeniable that St. Agatho's letter (the Roman Church "remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself") was approved by the Council and belongs to its own teaching, and while St. Irenaeus was not infallible, I think we can both agree that III Constantinople was. And the promise referred to is not Mt. 16:18, but Lk. 22:32, as you will see if you consult the longer excerpts of the letter I gave in my post 19 on this thread.
Trying to pick a fight with another denomination are we?
The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is not a "denomination".
I stand coprected. But "...and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written as by the Chief of the Apostles..."
They were being duly respectful and had no desire to pick a fight with the Primus inter Pares.
Well, if the reference is to Lk. 22:32, that prayer is fulfilled in all of St. Peter's successors, but not in all of the sees he established or helped establish because, as history points out, some went one way and somewent another.
"The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is not a 'denomination'." No, but the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht is a denomination, just as is yours, and it's not the OHCAC any more than your denomination is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.