Posted on 07/30/2005 8:48:42 AM PDT by Mary Kochan
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".
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.