|
|
|
 |
||
| A Journal of Catholic News and Views |  |
2 Nov 2001 |
Posted on 07/26/2002 9:02:57 PM PDT by narses
A.nav1 {color: #FFFFFF; text-decoration: none; font-size: 12px;} A.nav1:hover {color: #FFFF00; text-decoration: underline; font-size: 12px;}
|
Seattle Catholic is not affiliated with the Archdiocese of Seattle | |||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
Home Articles Letters to the Editor Assistance Needed Further Reading Links & Resources
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle... |
The "Spirit" of Ecumenism The Church's new orientation and its consequences In the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks and retaliatory measures in Afghanistan, the responses of Catholics leaders have varied. Some view this in its historical context as the most recent in a series of battles between Islam and the West dating back to the holy wars personally launched by Mohammed. In the 1930's, Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc predicted that the forces of Islam would rise again to threaten Western civilization.1 Indeed since the time of Napoleon, Arabic nations have been actively attempting to rebuild their dominance in military strength and technology.
Others in the Church have seen this as a failure to adequately deploy the novel concepts of "religious tolerance" and "respect for plurality". Apart from seeing the actual or potential harm caused by this new orientation of the Church to the world, they say "we haven't gone far enough". The overused catch phrases are heard again and again: "engage in dialogue", "seek an understanding", "emphasize our similarities rather than differences". The Catholic Church's former stand against its enemies has turned into something called "ecumenism". Simply put, it is an effort to negotiate with other religions and groups of people rather than seek conversions or fight against them. The appropriateness of this approach has been debated for years. Whether this novel attitude represents a new approach to evangelization, a desperate effort for "peace" or a misguided theology, there is no denying that it a striking departure from the actions and teachings of Church Fathers before Vatican II.
Strange behavior The ecumenical routines on every level are familiar and predictable, whether it's parish bible study with the neighboring Protestants, a bishop deferring authority to a interreligious "church council" or the Vatican holding prayer sessions with Jews and Hindus. The most publicized actions are those of our ailing Holy Father who continues to be abused by the world as he travels to foreign countries and offers countless apologies.
Rather than inspire a "spirit of cooperation", these apologies have seemed to increase the gall of those who are always demanding more. They have also contributed to the modern mindset of anti-Catholic revisionism which has condemned the Crusades as unprovoked violence, the Inquisition as a papal holocaust, Blessed Pope Pius IX as anti-Semitic and Pope Pius XII as a nazi. Rather than crediting the Catholic Church with its deserving role in the development of Western civilization, vague apologies are taken as affirmations of anti-Catholic propaganda painting the Church throughout history as primarily an instrument of oppression and injustice.
Other strange papal actions including kissing to the Koran (which calls the Trinity a blasphemy), visiting a mosque in Rome and participating in a "multi-faith" prayer session at Assisi with heretics and pagans of every sort.
Unfortunately, this "generosity" has not been reciprocated. Although a historic church in Rome was donated to the Eastern Orthodox schismatics, Pope John Paul II was still insulted and verbally abused while travelling to Greece earlier in the year. When he extended an open hand to China and apologized for unspecified misdeeds, the most evil and destructive government of today demanded he further apologize for the canonization of 120 martyrs!
Is conversion necessary? While such discouraging actions are not explicit repudiations of Catholic doctrine, they are potentially scandalous and seem to support the neo-Masonic idea that one religion is as good as another. In carrying this appreciation of false religions and heresy to its logical conclusion, some Church leaders have begun denying the necessity of conversion for eternal salvation. Bishop Tauran declared:
"It would be erroneous to consider the faithful believer of another religion as someone to be converted. He is rather someone to be understood, leaving to God the role of enlightening his conscience. Different religions ought not to enter into competition with one another, but should rather be like brothers and sisters who walk hand in hand to construct the channels of brotherhood, building up a good world in which it is possible to live and to work." (emphasis mine here and throughout) 2 According to Cardinal Kasper:
"The old theory of substitution is no longer relevant since the Second Vatican Council. For we, today's Christians, the alliance with the Jewish people is a living heritage...There cannot be a simple coexistence between two testaments. Jews and Christians, by their respective specific identities, are intimately bound to one another. The Church believes that Judaism, that is to say the faithful response of the Jewish people to God's irrevocable covenant, has the effect of saving them, for God is faithful to his promises." 3 And an agreement with schismatic churches makes the claim:
While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remains secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation. There is a question of achieving together the will of Christ for His own and the design of God for His Church by means of a common quest by the Churches for a full accord on the content of the faith and its implications. 4 Such statements are a far cry from the instructions of Christ:
Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Matt. 28:19-20) Apparently, many see Christ's command to baptize all nations is no longer relevant since the 1960's. The new version is "walk hand in hand with 'people of faith'". Gentle, yet misleading euphemisms such as "separated brethren" and "people of God" have now become commonplace in this post-conversion mentality. Has the "One Holy and Apostolic Church" in which Catholics profess belief been expanded to include anyone "religious"?
Insult to missionaries and martyrs On All Saints Day we honored those souls who, throughout the two thousand year history of the Church, defended the One True Faith. These monks, nuns, priests, missionaries and martyrs didn't believe they belonged to just one of many religions each "worthy of respect". They lived and died accepting the Truth revealed by Christ.
Who would dedicate their life and even accept death for beliefs that may not be true or necessary for salvation? For what is the point of missionaries bringing the Gospel and sacraments to foreign lands if the people they encounter are not in need of conversion? Were they merely humanitarian workers? St. Isaac Jocques did not return to be killed by the Native American savages (who previously chewed off his fingers) to "walk hand in hand" with them without regressing to such "outdated" concepts as conversion. He took seriously God's command to baptize all nations and was willing to give his life to save their souls.
Either thousands of missionaries and martyrs were misinformed simpletons which outdated beliefs, or there is something wrong with much of what is passing today for "ecumenism". Regardless of the intent, many of the actions taken by the Church hierarchy are outrageously insulting to those who've died for the Faith, and a betrayal of the thousands of Catholics still being persecuted, tortured and executed in the modern world (particularly in communist and Islam nations).
Heaven on ecumenism We already heard Christ's command to convert all nations and His subsequent condemnation of nonbelievers. Almost 1,900 years later, Our Lady of Fatima offered similar words when she spoke of hell and the necessity of Russia's conversion as a step towards for world peace. 5 When referring to the problems of the World, the Mother of God spoke of consecration and conversion, not "dialogue" and "understanding". She did not propose an interreligious prayer meeting at Assisi or the establishment of the United Nations. She said that for the salvation of souls, God wishes to establish devotion to Mary's Immaculate Heart in the world — not just among Catholics.
She even established the First Saturday devotion as reparation for those who offend her Immaculate Conception, perpetual virginity, sacred images or divine maternity. The perpetrators of these offenses include most Protestants, schismatics, Jews, pagans and atheists — those no longer regarded as possible converts, but "respected". Why is it that those things offensive to heaven are not offensive to Catholic bishops? They were when Our Lady appeared at Fatima, as evidenced by Belgian Cardinal Mercier's statement the following year:
"In the name of the Gospel, and in the light of the Encyclicals of the last four Popes, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X, I do not hesitate to affirm that this indifference to religions which puts on the same level the religion of divine origin and the religions invented by men in order to include them in the same skepticism is the blasphemy which calls down chastisement on society far more than the sins of individuals and families." 6 Ecumenical goals and the cost The exact goal or justification for recent ecumenical actions has not been clearly stated. Typically, Catholic bishops prefer to pretend their actions are consistent with their predecessors. Or when that doesn't work, lay claim to the Holy Spirit's special assistance to which all previous generations were deprived. Unfortunately, such techniques are only successful because of the number of Catholics who are either ignorant of their Faith or are (out of a misguided sense of loyalty) willing to extend infallibility to any action ever to take place in Rome. What Dominican theologian Melchior Cano emphatically stated at the Council of Trent is just as true today as it was during the Protestant Revolution and the Arian Heresy:
"Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See—they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations." The goal of these ecumenical efforts appears to be the establishment of a utopian society, free of wars and violence (which is a humanist rather than Catholic priority). As Pius XI taught in Quas Primas, there can be no peace worthy of the name without the Social Kingship of Christ over every man and every nation. The Church's mission of saving souls has been put aside in favor of helping people and nations get along. Cardinal Arinze describes this process as promoting "the example of a pluralist [society], welcoming and respectful of the dignity of man." 7 If that isn't modern Freemasonry, what is?
Such a mentality is the culmination of the humanist and naturalist errors that have been infecting the modern world for hundreds of years. When those entrusted with the governance of the Church decided to stop fighting against these evils and instead to vigorously embrace them, the consequence was the natural virtues receiving a place of prominence over the supernatural.
The cost, on the other hand, has been extreme. If conversion is now, according to Cardinal Kasper, "no longer relevant", how relevant is obeying God's laws? If it doesn't matter whether one is Catholic, no one is going to be. A fact not lost upon the droves of Catholics who have left the Church in the past 30 years, or (worse yet) have decided to remain and defy the Magisterium. For if your "religious association" doesn't matter, surely such minor details of Faith and morals matter even less. "Issues" such as abortion, contraception, fornication, priestly celibacy, homosexuality and anything else unpopular or inconvenient are now seen in the context of a more "tolerant" Church attitude. Some argue that if Jews are saved by their "good-faith" decision to reject Christ, how can one be condemned for a "good-conscience" decision to use contraception?
Finally, those who claim our present crisis is due to these new changes not going far enough are not living in reality. Over the years, there have been numerous gestures, apologies, statements, concessions and pleas with little benefit and mass confusion to show for it. Are Jews & Muslims any closer to accepting Christ and His Church ("he that believeth not shall be condemned")? Are Protestants, Masons and Atheists any closer to conforming to the Laws of God? If not, what more is there left to do? At what point are we going to witness the fruits of these previously condemned efforts that have cost the Bride of Christ so dearly? How many more souls must be lost in this crusade for earthly peace? While every experimental action or novel idea is "worth a try", the only thing considered out of the question is a return to the attitudes and beliefs which have sustained the Church for two thousand years.
As Pope St. Pius X clearly warned earlier in the century:
"...the gravity of the evil is daily growing and must be checked at any cost. We are no longer dealing, as at the beginning, with opponents 'in sheep's clothing', but with open and bare-faced enemies in our very household, who, having made a pact with the chief foes of the Church are bent on overthrowing the Faith. These are men whose haughtiness in the face of heavenly wisdom is daily renewed, claiming the right to correct it as if it were corrupted. They want to renovate it as if it were consumed by old age, increase it and adapt it to worldly tastes, progress and comforts, as if it were opposed not just to the frivolity of a few, but to the good of society." Peter W. Miller
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
Home | Articles | Letters to the Editor | Mission Statement | Assistance Needed
© Copyright 2001-2002 Seattle Catholic. All rights reserved. To join our mailing list or submit a letter to the editor, send an email to seattlecatholic@hotmail.com. |
Gruner has attacked JPII, and has been suspended by no less that Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos.
This Seattle source, and Peter Miller in particular, is just this side of rebellion.
Who would dedicate their life and even accept death for beliefs that may not be true or necessary for salvation?
Who said they did? Or is this, as I suspect, a dig at Vatican II's acknowledgement that those outside the Church can be saved if they are seeking the truth earnestly?
Narses, I'm not one to side with Catholicguy, but Miller appears to be a REMNANT adherent, with his constant criticisms of JPII.
It seems that the point is that Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Haitian Voodooists, Aztecs, etc. are no longer targets for conversion to Catholicism. Apparently the ONLY remaining "targets for conversion" are the so-called "Integers."
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.
