Bishop Ketteler: An Early Perspective on Ecumenism
#11
(09-29-2010, 05:46 PM)kgurries Wrote:
(09-29-2010, 05:13 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(09-29-2010, 11:29 AM)MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote: Don't poison this bishop's memory by suggesting he was a dissident.  From what I've read, he was well loved by the papacy.

Being well loved by one pope or even many does not necessarily mean that one's opinions are orthodox.

His writings were well known and widely distributed in many languages -- even inspiring Papal Encyclicals.  His orthodoxy has never been called into question. 

I wasn't calling his orthodoxy into question. I was just saying that one's being liked and approved of by one or more popes does not necessarily make one orthodox.
Reply
#12
Quote:None of these are contradictory if you read and understand what they say.  For example, Ketteler speaks of avoiding controversies "among ourselves" (among Catholics) so as to be examples of charity and not giving scandal to others.  MA is denouncing the tendency to overlook or bury all differences between Catholics and non-Catholics.  These are different things altogether.

That's not clear at all, especially since the the Bishop just before that recommends a,  "society for common prayer[8] among all of those who still believe that Christ was the incarnate Son of God," which you explain in footnote 8 includes the possibility of joint prayer, a forbidden practice. 
Reply
#13
(09-29-2010, 07:55 PM)PeterII Wrote:
Quote:None of these are contradictory if you read and understand what they say.  For example, Ketteler speaks of avoiding controversies "among ourselves" (among Catholics) so as to be examples of charity and not giving scandal to others.  MA is denouncing the tendency to overlook or bury all differences between Catholics and non-Catholics.  These are different things altogether.

That's not clear at all, especially since the the Bishop just before that recommends a,  "society for common prayer[8] among all of those who still believe that Christ was the incarnate Son of God," which you explain in footnote 8 includes the possibility of joint prayer, a forbidden practice.   

I also explained that Pope Pius XII allowed for such prayer in common within an ecumenical context.  Yes, normally there is no prayer in common, however, the Popes have made exceptions to this rule in certain contexts.  Recently the good traditional priest on Papa Stronsay have posted about various historical cases where communicatio in sacris has been allowed by the Popes:  http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/
Reply
#14
(09-29-2010, 05:46 PM)kgurries Wrote:
(09-29-2010, 05:13 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(09-29-2010, 11:29 AM)MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote: Don't poison this bishop's memory by suggesting he was a dissident.  From what I've read, he was well loved by the papacy.

Being well loved by one pope or even many does not necessarily mean that one's opinions are orthodox.

In fact, Pope Pius X placed a loving tribute upon his grave... 

I'll mention that this was the Pope who founded the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity...
Reply
#15
(09-29-2010, 04:49 PM)PeterII Wrote: If you would have read it even more closely, you would realize how much sentimental manure in the extract is a catalyst for ecumenical errors that are addressed and condemned in Mortalium Animos (conveniently not included in the footnotes I may add).

For example:

Ketteler Wrote:His entire exalted task is summed up in the words which he spoke to His Father on the night before He died: “It is not for them that I pray; I pray for those who are to find faith in me through their word; that they may all be one; that they too may be one in us, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee…(John 17: 20-21).

Mortalium Animos Wrote:7. And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,"[14] with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment.

You've compared an apple and an orange.  This is not Bishop Ketteler's view of the passage.  For those condemned in Mortalium Animos took a position similar to that of Cardinal Newman held in his early years as an Anglican: namely, that because of the separation in her members, the Church lacked the ability to govern authoritatively (Newman actually said that the Church no longer had the grace of infallibility due to schism-a view he later rejected after studying the Monophysite controversy).  However this is clearly not Bishop Kettler's sentiment.  He says that groups simply united in prayer and dialogue can not have true unity (although it can be a starting point), but instead says: "Whatever great zeal we may have for effecting a reunion of all Christian churches, we Catholics may never conceal the truth that such reunion can mean nothing else but a return to the Catholic Church."

Quote:
Ketteler Wrote:This descent of Divine Wisdom and Love from Heaven has not enjoyed the triumphant success which it should have on earth among the human beings which they were to liberate and make happy.


Mortalium Animos Wrote:For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist.

Again a misinterpretation.  Ketteler is not saying the Church has been unsuccessful because of schism.  He is saying that the work of the Church would be more successful if men had united themselves to the work of Christ.  I can't see how you'd find any fault in this principle.  If men avoided sin and obeyed Christ's will, wouldn't you agree that more good would be carried out in the world?  Likewise, wouldn't all believers be better off if united in the Church under one shepherd? 

Quote:
Ketteler Wrote:The second method of working for Christian reunion consists in our avoiding all controversies among ourselves and in trying to depict the great supernatural truths of Christianity by the way we live our lives

Mortalium Animos Wrote:Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers.

Selective quoting?  The preceding sentence of MA gives the context of this quote: "They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils."

Pius XI is condemning the notion that we must disregard dogmas that cause division, and return to an ante-Nicean Christianity.  However, "controversy" is not univocal in meaning.  And the way in which the Bishop uses it is different from Pius XI.  We must "avoid all controversies among ourselves".  He is saying that the most powerful impetus towards a unification is not dialogue and prayer, but that the world sees us as models of Christian virtue.  I don't think many would object to the idea that the Reformation itself and the prejudices of Protestants against the Catholic Church are often fostered by Catholics not "living in accord with the call you have received" (Ephesians 4).  The lack of virtue in some members (especially the most visible ones) affects the unity of the whole.  This was true in St. Paul's time (in fact that whole fourth chapter is a call to unity through virtue).  It is certainly true today.  If all Catholics were models of divine virtue, I do not doubt that all prejudices would immediately cease, and the unity of Christendom would be restored immediately.  However, because many of us (myself included) are not living in such a manner, prejudices inhibit non-Catholics from seeing the divine in the Catholic Church (and thus perhaps obscure their ability to freely accept or reject it).

Quote:And of course there is the problem of communio in sacris proposed by the Bishop.

This has been referenced already.  The prohibitions against communicatio in sacris are largely based on the pastoral judgment of the Pope, and not a divine law.   The Transalpine Redemptorists actually have briefly responded to this charge on their blog today (apparently their faithful are wondering about the Pope's recent visit to the UK.  To quote Benedict XVI's judgment: "Communicatio in divinis with heretics cannot and should not be so readily and so generally pronounced forbidden in absolutely every circumstance."  This is not a matter of divine law, but a matter of judgment on part of the Pope.  As has already been stated, Pius XII loosened the restrictions on prayer with non-Catholics.  And even today, there is no sharing of Communion (which is the primary thrust of the condemnation).
Reply
#16
(09-29-2010, 08:36 PM)kgurries Wrote:
(09-29-2010, 07:55 PM)PeterII Wrote:
Quote:None of these are contradictory if you read and understand what they say.  For example, Ketteler speaks of avoiding controversies "among ourselves" (among Catholics) so as to be examples of charity and not giving scandal to others.  MA is denouncing the tendency to overlook or bury all differences between Catholics and non-Catholics.  These are different things altogether.

That's not clear at all, especially since the the Bishop just before that recommends a,  "society for common prayer[8] among all of those who still believe that Christ was the incarnate Son of God," which you explain in footnote 8 includes the possibility of joint prayer, a forbidden practice.   

I also explained that Pope Pius XII allowed for such prayer in common within an ecumenical context.  Yes, normally there is no prayer in common, however, the Popes have made exceptions to this rule in certain contexts.  Recently the good traditional priest on Papa Stronsay have posted about various historical cases where communicatio in sacris has been allowed by the Popes:  http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/

And what are those contexts?  Qualified people with permission from their bishop accompanied by knowledgable priests may open or close a meeting with a common prayer.  So we take that loophole to justify prayer gatherings with non-Catholics.  I also don't know of any "good traditional" priests that spend their blogging time defending the Novus Ordo.  
Reply
#17
MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote:This has been referenced already.  The prohibitions against communicatio in sacris are largely based on the pastoral judgment of the Pope, and not a divine law.  The Transalpine Redemptorists actually have briefly responded to this charge on their blog today (apparently their faithful are wondering about the Pope's recent visit to the UK.  To quote Benedict XVI's judgment: "Communicatio in divinis with heretics cannot and should not be so readily and so generally pronounced forbidden in absolutely every circumstance."  This is not a matter of divine law, but a matter of judgment on part of the Pope.  As has already been stated, Pius XII loosened the restrictions on prayer with non-Catholics.  And even today, there is no sharing of Communion (which is the primary thrust of the condemnation).

Latin Mass Magazine, Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fidei seu Decreta Instructiones Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus (Ex Typographia Polyglotta, Roma, 1907) pg. 100 n. 311 (1729) Wrote:The Supreme Congregation stated that participation in schismatic and heretic worship is "universally prohibited by natural and divine law...[from which] no one has the power to dispense ...[and with respect to this participation] nothing excuses."

Reply
#18
(09-29-2010, 11:08 PM)PeterII Wrote:
MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote:This has been referenced already.  The prohibitions against communicatio in sacris are largely based on the pastoral judgment of the Pope, and not a divine law.   The Transalpine Redemptorists actually have briefly responded to this charge on their blog today (apparently their faithful are wondering about the Pope's recent visit to the UK.  To quote Benedict XVI's judgment: "Communicatio in divinis with heretics cannot and should not be so readily and so generally pronounced forbidden in absolutely every circumstance."  This is not a matter of divine law, but a matter of judgment on part of the Pope.  As has already been stated, Pius XII loosened the restrictions on prayer with non-Catholics.  And even today, there is no sharing of Communion (which is the primary thrust of the condemnation).

Latin Mass Magazine, Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fidei seu Decreta Instructiones Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus (Ex Typographia Polyglotta, Roma, 1907) pg. 100 n. 311 (1729) Wrote:The Supreme Congregation stated that participation in schismatic and heretic worship is "universally prohibited by natural and divine law...[from which] no one has the power to dispense ...[and with respect to this participation] nothing excuses."

Nobody has cited any example of participation in that which is schismatic or heretical.  Common prayer, for example, does not automatically involve schism or heresy.  Again, you are comparing apples and oranges.
Reply
#19
kgurries Wrote:Nobody has cited any example of participation in that which is schismatic or heretical.  Common prayer, for example, does not automatically involve schism or heresy.  Again, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Bishop Ketteler is advocating an act of religion with heretics, which is heretical.  Common prayer that is customary, like grace before meals or an assembly does not have the same intent that an ecumenical prayer gathering does.  The latter is sacrilege. 
Reply
#20
(09-30-2010, 01:42 AM)PeterII Wrote:
kgurries Wrote:Nobody has cited any example of participation in that which is schismatic or heretical.  Common prayer, for example, does not automatically involve schism or heresy.  Again, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Bishop Ketteler is advocating an act of religion with heretics, which is heretical.  Common prayer that is customary, like grace before meals or an assembly does not have the same intent that an ecumenical prayer gathering does.  The latter is sacrilege. 

I think you are confused.  Prayer for unity is not a sacrilege.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)