FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Ottaviani intervention?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(01-02-2013, 01:49 PM)DustinsDad Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 01:41 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 01:09 PM)MRose Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 10:48 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]One of the ideas behind the reform was that it was important to avoid offending Protestants in order to reach out to them and bring them to the True Faith.  Given this assumption (which I do think was flawed) it is reasonable that they would want to ask Protestants what they found offensive.

Bring them to the True Faith is not the same thing as attempting to find an "as-yet-unrealized unity" which eschews an "outdated ecclesiology of return," to paraphrase.

It could be. 
Huh? You sure you've shaken remnants of liberal catholic theology (which one pope called an enemy of the faith if my memory is correct)?

I'm not sure.  If you have any specific corrections for me, I would appreciate them
(01-02-2013, 03:01 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 01:49 PM)DustinsDad Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 01:41 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 01:09 PM)MRose Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 10:48 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]One of the ideas behind the reform was that it was important to avoid offending Protestants in order to reach out to them and bring them to the True Faith.  Given this assumption (which I do think was flawed) it is reasonable that they would want to ask Protestants what they found offensive.

Bring them to the True Faith is not the same thing as attempting to find an "as-yet-unrealized unity" which eschews an "outdated ecclesiology of return," to paraphrase.

It could be. 
Huh? You sure you've shaken remnants of liberal catholic theology (which one pope called an enemy of the faith if my memory is correct)?

I'm not sure.  If you have any specific corrections for me, I would appreciate them
Sure. The Church already is one. True ecumanism is bringing those outside the fold into this One True Church. Such is the Great Commission given by Our Lord to the Church. To say that we are not seeking the return of souls into this One True Church, but seeking some sort of convergence with them in an as yet unrealized and unknown united New Church of the future flies in the face of Apostolic Tradition.
To take that ''approach'' is to deny the dogma that the Church already is One, which is exactly what the architects of the reform did, which is why I say they already lost the faith and built a ''new orientation'' around their faulty understanding of what the Church is.
(01-02-2013, 04:26 PM)DustinsDad Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 03:01 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 01:49 PM)DustinsDad Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 01:41 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 01:09 PM)MRose Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 10:48 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]One of the ideas behind the reform was that it was important to avoid offending Protestants in order to reach out to them and bring them to the True Faith.  Given this assumption (which I do think was flawed) it is reasonable that they would want to ask Protestants what they found offensive.

Bring them to the True Faith is not the same thing as attempting to find an "as-yet-unrealized unity" which eschews an "outdated ecclesiology of return," to paraphrase.

It could be. 
Huh? You sure you've shaken remnants of liberal catholic theology (which one pope called an enemy of the faith if my memory is correct)?

I'm not sure.  If you have any specific corrections for me, I would appreciate them
Sure. The Church already is one. True ecumanism is bringing those outside the fold into this One True Church. Such is the Great Commission given by Our Lord to the Church. To say that we are not seeking the return of souls into this One True Church, but seeking some sort of convergence with them in an as yet unrealized and unknown united New Church of the future flies in the face of Apostolic Tradition.
To take that ''approach'' is to deny the dogma that the Church already is One, which is exactly what the architects of the reform did, which is why I say they already lost the faith and built a ''new orientation'' around their faulty understanding of what the Church is.

I don't think rejecting an "ecclesiology of return" is the same as saying we are not seeking the return of souls to the One True Church.  It means using different terminology and imagery to talk about the unity of the Church.
(01-02-2013, 05:13 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 04:26 PM)DustinsDad Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 03:01 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 01:49 PM)DustinsDad Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 01:41 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 01:09 PM)MRose Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 10:48 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]One of the ideas behind the reform was that it was important to avoid offending Protestants in order to reach out to them and bring them to the True Faith.  Given this assumption (which I do think was flawed) it is reasonable that they would want to ask Protestants what they found offensive.

Bring them to the True Faith is not the same thing as attempting to find an "as-yet-unrealized unity" which eschews an "outdated ecclesiology of return," to paraphrase.

It could be. 
Huh? You sure you've shaken remnants of liberal catholic theology (which one pope called an enemy of the faith if my memory is correct)?

I'm not sure.  If you have any specific corrections for me, I would appreciate them
Sure. The Church already is one. True ecumanism is bringing those outside the fold into this One True Church. Such is the Great Commission given by Our Lord to the Church. To say that we are not seeking the return of souls into this One True Church, but seeking some sort of convergence with them in an as yet unrealized and unknown united New Church of the future flies in the face of Apostolic Tradition.
To take that ''approach'' is to deny the dogma that the Church already is One, which is exactly what the architects of the reform did, which is why I say they already lost the faith and built a ''new orientation'' around their faulty understanding of what the Church is.

I don't think rejecting an "ecclesiology of return" is the same as saying we are not seeking the return of souls to the One True Church.  It means using different terminology and imagery to talk about the unity of the Church.
You're breaking the rule of non-contradiction there ma'am. The ecclisology of return IS seeking the return of souls to the one true church.
(01-02-2013, 10:43 PM)DustinsDad Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 05:13 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think rejecting an "ecclesiology of return" is the same as saying we are not seeking the return of souls to the One True Church.  It means using different terminology and imagery to talk about the unity of the Church.
You're breaking the rule of non-contradiction there ma'am. The ecclisology of return IS seeking the return of souls to the one true church.

"Ecclesiology of return"  means talking about unity in terms of non-Catholic Christians returning to the Church.  A person could have this unity as a goal while believing that a different way to talk about it would be more effective.
(01-02-2013, 11:16 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 10:43 PM)DustinsDad Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 05:13 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think rejecting an "ecclesiology of return" is the same as saying we are not seeking the return of souls to the One True Church.  It means using different terminology and imagery to talk about the unity of the Church.
You're breaking the rule of non-contradiction there ma'am. The ecclisology of return IS seeking the return of souls to the one true church.

"Ecclesiology of return"  means talking about unity in terms of non-Catholic Christians returning to the Church.  A person could have this unity as a goal while believing that a different way to talk about it would be more effective.
Evangilization by deception? No thanks. All this has gotten us is a world where the vast majority of Catholics don't believe there is such a thing as one true church. And that's a fact.

Si si no no I heard somewhere before.
(01-03-2013, 12:14 AM)DustinsDad Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 11:16 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 10:43 PM)DustinsDad Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 05:13 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think rejecting an "ecclesiology of return" is the same as saying we are not seeking the return of souls to the One True Church.  It means using different terminology and imagery to talk about the unity of the Church.
You're breaking the rule of non-contradiction there ma'am. The ecclisology of return IS seeking the return of souls to the one true church.

"Ecclesiology of return"  means talking about unity in terms of non-Catholic Christians returning to the Church.  A person could have this unity as a goal while believing that a different way to talk about it would be more effective.
Evangilization by deception? No thanks. All this has gotten us is a world where the vast majority of Catholics don't believe there is such a thing as one true church. And that's a fact.

It is not about deception.  If you and I went shopping together and you asked a store clerk where we could find solanum lycopersicum, I would advise you not to use that term.  I would tell you to ask him about tomatoes instead.  A botanist will know what you mean if you say solanum lycopersicum, but it is not an effective way to communicate with a clerk.  Using a more effective term is not deception.
(01-03-2013, 03:11 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-03-2013, 12:14 AM)DustinsDad Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 11:16 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 10:43 PM)DustinsDad Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 05:13 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think rejecting an "ecclesiology of return" is the same as saying we are not seeking the return of souls to the One True Church.  It means using different terminology and imagery to talk about the unity of the Church.
You're breaking the rule of non-contradiction there ma'am. The ecclisology of return IS seeking the return of souls to the one true church.

"Ecclesiology of return"  means talking about unity in terms of non-Catholic Christians returning to the Church.  A person could have this unity as a goal while believing that a different way to talk about it would be more effective.
Evangilization by deception? No thanks. All this has gotten us is a world where the vast majority of Catholics don't believe there is such a thing as one true church. And that's a fact.

It is not about deception.  If you and I went shopping together and you asked a store clerk where we could find solanum lycopersicum, I would advise you not to use that term.  I would tell you to ask him about tomatoes instead.  A botanist will know what you mean if you say solanum lycopersicum, but it is not an effective way to communicate with a clerk.  Using a more effective term is not deception.
wonderful analogy.
(01-03-2013, 03:11 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-03-2013, 12:14 AM)DustinsDad Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 11:16 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 10:43 PM)DustinsDad Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 05:13 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think rejecting an "ecclesiology of return" is the same as saying we are not seeking the return of souls to the One True Church.  It means using different terminology and imagery to talk about the unity of the Church.
You're breaking the rule of non-contradiction there ma'am. The ecclisology of return IS seeking the return of souls to the one true church.

"Ecclesiology of return"  means talking about unity in terms of non-Catholic Christians returning to the Church.  A person could have this unity as a goal while believing that a different way to talk about it would be more effective.
Evangilization by deception? No thanks. All this has gotten us is a world where the vast majority of Catholics don't believe there is such a thing as one true church. And that's a fact.

It is not about deception.  If you and I went shopping together and you asked a store clerk where we could find solanum lycopersicum, I would advise you not to use that term.  I would tell you to ask him about tomatoes instead.  A botanist will know what you mean if you say solanum lycopersicum, but it is not an effective way to communicate with a clerk.  Using a more effective term is not deception.
Look, if you believe - as the Church has for 2000+ years - that souls outside her must enter her for the salvation of their souls, then you do not reject the ecclisiology of return. you can not believe the former and reject the latter. If you reject the latter you deny the former and have lost the faith. Period.

Spin it how you like. The word games are dragging souls to hell because those who should speak the truths of the faith boldly are worried more about offending people with the truth than in offending God with half truths and deceptions.
You cease to proclaim the truth that souls outside the One True Church need to enter her for salvation, eventually you will no longer believe it. And if you somehow manage to still believe it, your kids won't. we're about two generations into this mess and the evidence is all around us. Good grief.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7