Pope St. John Paul II's Ut Unum Sint
#1
I was discussing the Dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla Salus, and someone recommended Pope St. John Paul II's Ut Unum Sint, and I'd like hear what the experts on hear have to say about this document.

Also, did Karol Wojtyla ever follow and hold the Nouvelle Theologie school? I mean I know he spent most of his time in Communist Poland, so he was sort of isolated from most of that stuff for most of his life, but I want know about Karol Wojtyla's relationship with this considering most of our problems concerning this and other issues stem from the Nouvelle Theologie school.
[Image: Blessed_Virgin_Mary_Holding_Jesus_with_S...abriel.jpg]
Glory to God
and
Hail Mary!
Reply
#2
(04-07-2018, 12:54 PM)MaryLover Wrote: I was discussing the Dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla Salus, and someone recommended Pope St. John Paul II's Ut Unum Sint, and I'd like hear what the experts on hear have to say about this document.

Also, did Karol Wojtyla ever follow and hold the Nouvelle Theologie school? I mean I know he spent most of his time in Communist Poland, so he was sort of isolated from most of that stuff for most of his life, but I want know about Karol Wojtyla's relationship with this considering most of our problems concerning this and other issues stem from the Nouvelle Theologie school.

Ut Unum Sint is perhaps one of the absolute worst of John Paul II's encyclicals as regards the destruction of the traditional principles of Ecclesiology. It de facto, denies EENS with jewels like :

§42: “The very expression ‘separated brethren’ tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions."

§9 : Where these "separated brethren" are truly “disciples of Christ ... in a common membership to Christ."

§11 : "By the grace of God, that which belongs to the structure of the Church of Christ has not yet been destroyed, nor the communion which endures with the other churches and ecclesial communities." (He means schism and heresy have not broken the communion of schismatics and heretics with the Church of Christ)

As far as the Nouvelle Théologie, yes. The very notion of a Church of Christ which is wider than the Catholic Church, and of which all share certain elements (against the immemorial notion that the Catholic Church was an exclusive Society to which one was a member or was not), is one of the fundamental principles of the Nouvelle Théologie. Ut unum sint is a perfect expression of the Ecclesiology of La Nouvelle Théologie.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • MaryLover
Reply
#3
St Pope JP II hailed from the Lublin School of Thomism. Which is a mixture of Thomism and Phenomenology.
[-] The following 1 user Likes austenbosten's post:
  • MaryLover
Reply
#4
(04-09-2018, 06:48 AM)austenbosten Wrote: St Pope JP II hailed from the Lublin School of Thomism.  Which is a mixture of Thomism and Phenomenology.

Yes, strictly, La Nouvelle Théologie was French Neo-Thomist reincarnation of Modernism, often called Neo-Modernism, whose principal proponent was Henri de Lubac.

It was Modernism re-founded on so-called-Thomism and Existentialism.

Lublin was more focused on Phenomenology, but not really so far distant, that it did not embrace the same basic theological conclusions.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • MaryLover
Reply
#5
(04-09-2018, 05:40 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-07-2018, 12:54 PM)MaryLover Wrote: I was discussing the Dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla Salus, and someone recommended Pope St. John Paul II's Ut Unum Sint, and I'd like hear what the experts on hear have to say about this document.

Also, did Karol Wojtyla ever follow and hold the Nouvelle Theologie school? I mean I know he spent most of his time in Communist Poland, so he was sort of isolated from most of that stuff for most of his life, but I want know about Karol Wojtyla's relationship with this considering most of our problems concerning this and other issues stem from the Nouvelle Theologie school.

Ut Unum Sint is perhaps one of the absolute worst of John Paul II's encyclicals as regards the destruction of the traditional principles of Ecclesiology. It de facto, denies EENS with jewels like :

§42: “The very expression ‘separated brethren’ tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions."

§9 : Where these "separated brethren" are truly “disciples of Christ ... in a common membership to Christ."

§11 : "By the grace of God, that which belongs to the structure of the Church of Christ has not yet been destroyed, nor the communion which endures with the other churches and ecclesial communities." (He means schism and heresy have not broken the communion of schismatics and heretics with the Church of Christ)

As far as the Nouvelle Théologie, yes. The very notion of a Church of Christ which is wider than the Catholic Church, and of which all share certain elements (against the immemorial notion that the Catholic Church was an exclusive Society to which one was a member or was not), is one of the fundamental principles of the Nouvelle Théologie. Ut unum sint is a perfect expression of the Ecclesiology of La Nouvelle Théologie.
Wow! Okay thanks for letting me know, are there any other encyclical or document I should look out for that often gets tossed around like this?
[Image: Blessed_Virgin_Mary_Holding_Jesus_with_S...abriel.jpg]
Glory to God
and
Hail Mary!
Reply
#6
Oh! I almost forgot, that guy I was talking with about EENS, he claimed that the Traditional Catholic understanding of EENS, or at the very least, the way I was presenting it, was based off of a 19th Protestant misunderstanding of EENS, is there any truth to this?
[Image: Blessed_Virgin_Mary_Holding_Jesus_with_S...abriel.jpg]
Glory to God
and
Hail Mary!
Reply
#7
(04-10-2018, 12:53 AM)MaryLover Wrote: Oh! I almost forgot, that guy I was talking with about EENS, he claimed that the Traditional Catholic understanding of EENS, or at the very least, the way I was presenting it, was based off of a 19th Protestant misunderstanding of EENS, is there any truth to this?

Well, how were you presenting it?
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#8
(04-10-2018, 01:01 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(04-10-2018, 12:53 AM)MaryLover Wrote: Oh! I almost forgot, that guy I was talking with about EENS, he claimed that the Traditional Catholic understanding of EENS, or at the very least, the way I was presenting it, was based off of a 19th Protestant misunderstanding of EENS, is there any truth to this?

Well, how were you presenting it?

Well I talked about defective Faith, I explained that non-Catholics couldn't be saved because their Faith is defective. Also, one of my friends pointed out that if we reject EENS, than the old charge that Protestants had in the past of us, "earning our way into Heaven" becomes totally legit as Faith goes totally out the window with the rejection of EENS. I can't think of anyway my explanation could have been misunderstood (unless of course I'm missing something or poorly explaining in what I said above) other than the fact that I left out invincible ignorance, but I assumed he knew that I accepted the proper understanding of invincible ignorance.
[Image: Blessed_Virgin_Mary_Holding_Jesus_with_S...abriel.jpg]
Glory to God
and
Hail Mary!
Reply
#9
(04-10-2018, 12:52 PM)MaryLover Wrote:
(04-10-2018, 01:01 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(04-10-2018, 12:53 AM)MaryLover Wrote: Oh! I almost forgot, that guy I was talking with about EENS, he claimed that the Traditional Catholic understanding of EENS, or at the very least, the way I was presenting it, was based off of a 19th Protestant misunderstanding of EENS, is there any truth to this?

Well, how were you presenting it?

Well I talked about defective Faith, I explained that non-Catholics couldn't be saved because their Faith is defective. Also, one of my friends pointed out that if we reject EENS, than the old charge that Protestants had in the past of us, "earning our way into Heaven" becomes totally legit as Faith goes totally out the window with the rejection of EENS. I can't think of anyway my explanation could have been misunderstood (unless of course I'm missing something or poorly explaining in what I said above) other than the fact that I left out invincible ignorance, but I assumed he knew that I accepted the proper understanding of invincible ignorance.

That's a very odd way to approach EENS.

A Protestant's faith is not defective, it is non-existent.

A Catholic accepts the Gospel of Matthew (and the Divinity of Our Lord proved therin) because by Faith he accepts what the Church teaches (the book is Inspired, it is Inerrant, and thus the claims of Christ contained therein are true).

A Protestant accepts the Gospel of Matthew (and the Divinity of Our Lord proved therin) because he is personally convinced that the Gospel is inspired and inerrant and thus the claims of Christ are true, or he accepts what his Pastor or scripture scholars tell him.

The former is supernatural (based on the authority of God which has established a Church which can teach authoritatively). The latter is opinion—a human hypothesis accepted because one has convinced himself of it—or human faith.

There is a formal difference between those "faiths". One is supernatural and the foundation for Hope, Charity and Sanctifying Grace. The other is natural, and the foundation for nothing but sincerely-held other opinions.

It is not a matter of defect (which is a accidental difference), but of a lack of a due good (an evil, which is a formal difference).

It may be that a some Protestants have a true Supernatural Faith because it was infused at Baptism and, because of the invincibility of their ignorance (thus no culpability), it was never lost, and also somehow have managed to keep the State of Grace, but even so that is because while not visibly part of the Catholic Church, they are actually members in potency.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, MaryLover
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)