Is Christian Unity possible?
#51
(11-25-2010, 12:46 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: True unity, described by Pope Pius XI (Mortalium Animos) and reaffirmed by the Holy Office in December of 1949, is not currently sought by the Vatican. See the Balamand Declaration: http://catholicism.org/russia-conversion.html (Scroll down to the bottom.)

:(

First, no proselytizing the Eastern Orthodox, and now no direct praying for the conversion of the Jews...EENS has truly become a meaningless formula (cf. Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 27).

:(

Except you forgot to mention that most Traditional Catholics will be readily told that they are heretics and schismatics for not drooling like a zombie over Vatican II.
Reply
#52
(11-27-2010, 12:57 AM)NorthernTrad Wrote:
(11-25-2010, 12:46 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: True unity, described by Pope Pius XI (Mortalium Animos) and reaffirmed by the Holy Office in December of 1949, is not currently sought by the Vatican. See the Balamand Declaration: http://catholicism.org/russia-conversion.html (Scroll down to the bottom.)

:(

First, no proselytizing the Eastern Orthodox, and now no direct praying for the conversion of the Jews...EENS has truly become a meaningless formula (cf. Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 27).

:(

Except you forgot to mention that most Traditional Catholics will be readily told that they are heretics and schismatics for not drooling like a zombie over Vatican II.

Yes, it was the fruit of the post-conciliar reforms which "exhort the faithful to take an active part in the role of ecumenism." If that means compromising the True Faith--and indeed it does--I can not participate in such an exhortation.
Reply
#53
May I be so bold as to say that next we'll be told not to seek the conversion of the Protestants? After all, they're already "members of Christ's body,"* and have "the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit," and their sects have "significance and importance in the mystery of salvation" and are "means of salvation" (Vatican Council II, Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 3).

With all of that, what do they need us [the Catholic Church] for?  ???


P.S. - I ask the above question in all sincerity.

Thank goodness Unitatis Redintegratio "overturned the narrow post-Tridentine Counter-Reformation outlook of the church" (PCPCU, The Decree on Ecumenism – Read Anew After Forty Years; 11 November 2004)!  ::)

Honestly, how do we reconcile this: "From this eschatological and spiritual perspective the goal of ecumenism cannot be described simply as 'the others’ returning to the fold of the Catholic Church" - with this - "The Catholic understanding of ecumenism ... includes unity in the faith, in the sacraments and in church ministry."

???  It is a fact that Protestants need to abjure their heresies and accept the Catholic Faith whole and entire, that Faith without which no man was ever justified.


*See also: "Non-Catholic Christians are therefore not outside of the one church, they already belong to it in a most fundamental way (LG, 11, 14; UR, 22)" (PCPCU, op. cit.).

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...io_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontif...sm_en.html
Reply
#54
(11-27-2010, 11:39 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: May I be so bold as to say that next we'll be told not to seek the conversion of the Protestants? After all, they're already "members of Christ's body," and have "the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit," and their sects have "significance and importance in the mystery of salvation" and are "means of salvation" (Vatican Council II, Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 3).

With all of that, what do they need us [the Catholic Church] for?  ???


P.S. - I ask the above question in all sincerity.

Indeed. I ask the same question in all sincerity.

"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed." (Mystici Corporis Christi, no. 22)

"But even in spite of [these obstacles of doctrine, discipline, or ecclesiastical structure] it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)" (Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 3).

It here seems to imply that the Second Vatican Council did define something doctrinally new: that there is now a distinction between "Mystical Body of Christ" and "Body of Christ." It seems that the Body of Christ includes all who are "justified by faith in baptism," while the Mystical Body of Christ includes only those who also profess the Catholic Faith.

Again, this is why the question of "substitit in" is so controversial: what is the Church according to Vatican II?
Reply
#55
Or how about this?

"The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

"It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means 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 Church.

"For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is 'the all-embracing means of salvation,' that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation." (Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 3)

So it looks like these separated "Churches and Communities" are means of salvation outside the Church, means animated by their participation in some truthful elements stolen from the Catholic Church; but the Catholic Church is the "all-embracing means of salvation" in which Christian unity is "realized."

So there is salvation outside the Catholic Church after all . . .
Reply
#56
INPEFESS,
Your observation of a distinction between the "Mystical Body of Christ" and the "Body of Christ" seems to be confirmed by the Council itself:

"The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government"(Orientalium Ecclesiarum, n. 2).


I say "seems" because who am I to challenge the new ecclesiology of the Council Fathers?
Reply
#57
(11-27-2010, 12:10 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: what is the Church according to Vatican II?

Well, this is my take on it:

[Image: churchv2.jpg]

The Church of Christ is the large circle wich comprises different denominations with varying degrees of truth. So, the Church of Christ does subsist in the Catholic Church (perhaps even "fully"), as well as in other denominations which, in fact, have "significance and importance in the mystery of salvation" and which the Holy Ghost does not refrain from using "as means of salvation."
Reply
#58
(11-27-2010, 11:39 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Thank goodness Unitatis Redintegratio "overturned the narrow post-Tridentine Counter-Reformation outlook of the church" (PCPCU, The Decree on Ecumenism – Read Anew After Forty Years; 11 November 2004)!  ::)

Honestly, how do we reconcile this: "From this eschatological and spiritual perspective the goal of ecumenism cannot be described simply as 'the others’ returning to the fold of the Catholic Church" - with this - "The Catholic understanding of ecumenism ... includes unity in the faith, in the sacraments and in church ministry."

???  It is a fact that Protestants need to abjure their heresies and accept the Catholic Faith whole and entire, that Faith without which no man was ever justified.


*See also: "Non-Catholic Christians are therefore not outside of the one church, they already belong to it in a most fundamental way (LG, 11, 14; UR, 22)" (PCPCU, op. cit.).

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...io_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontif...sm_en.html

False ecumenism, feeding off the ambiguity of Vatican II, yet justifying itself with the "traditional interpretation" of Vatican II, is a sure means by which the dogmatic mutability of the Modernists can be brought about and actuated. Though this end has not yet been officially declared, pronounced, or taught, it is the sure means by which this end is accomplished. Perceiving the Church's teachings according to the principles of "modern thought" (as stated by John XXIII) is the very purpose of the Second Vatican Council.

It seems they are deluding themselves who insist that we must interpret these documents "in light of tradition." That is specifically contrary to the very intention of the teachings of this council. Nevertheless, the "traditional interpretation" is what we are told we must consider every time one of these novel implementations is contradicted by some aspect of Church teaching. The implementation of this ecumenical activity appeals to "modern thought" as the means by which this false ecumenical activity is justified, but, when Catholics object, the "traditional interpretation" is the justification of sorts that can look so good on paper when it cites magisterial teachings as its base.

It is brilliant, it is deceptive, and it is the language of the devil speaking in the Church.

I don't see how anyone with understanding of this method can assert that this is not the work of Modernism.
Reply
#59
(11-27-2010, 12:38 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-27-2010, 12:10 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: what is the Church according to Vatican II?

Well, this is my take on it:

[Image: churchv2.jpg]

The Church of Christ is the large circle wich comprises different denominations with varying degrees of truth. So, the Church of Christ does subsist in the Catholic Church (perhaps even "fully"), as well as in other denominations which, in fact, have "significance and importance in the mystery of salvation" and which the Holy Ghost does not refrain from using "as means of salvation."

Interesting. Did you see my thread on this subject?
Reply
#60
(11-27-2010, 12:33 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: INPEFESS,
Your observation of a distinction between the "Mystical Body of Christ" and the "Body of Christ" seems to be confirmed by the Council itself:

"The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government"(Orientalium Ecclesiarum, n. 2).


I say "seems" because who am I to challenge the new ecclesiology of the Council Fathers?

Yes, that seems to speak only of a formal union between members under one head, under one government, and in one organic unity (organic as a unique, but not salvific, element), but not of the the unique salvific efficacy of the Catholic Church.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)