Here's the problem with ecumenism as currently practised; if the Catholic faith is true, then Protestantism and Orthodoxy are sins, and if they are not sins, then the Catholic faith is not true. This is because a) the Church teaches that certain claims, which the Protestants deny, are divinely revealed, and that denying them is heresy, which is a sin; and b) the Church teaches that separating from communion with the Bishop of Rome, and not submitting to his legitimate authority, which the Orthodox do, is a sin. Of course many if not most Protestants and Orthodox only sin materially, not formally, since they do not realise that what they are doing is wrong, and their not realising this is not the result of any fault on their part. But that does not alter the fact that what they are doing is sin. Since it is sin, the duty of the Catholic Church is to get them to stop doing it, by getting them to confess the entire Catholic faith and accept the authority of the Pope. All ecumenical efforts should be for the sake of that goal. Such efforts however are not what is currently understood by ecumenism.
I don't think Cardinal Dulles' drivel deserves much comment.
Typical convergence rather than conversion garbage.
Reminds me of a "Journey Home" episode that had a guest who used to work for a Charismatic Episcopalian church. She stated that the greatest thing about becoming Catholic is that she didn't have to give anything up. She could still be charismatic, have a liturgy, and she was hired as a parish coordinator (a position that she proudly proclaimed put her in charge of the parish six days a week when the priest was gone). The Church asked nothing of her, in her estimation.
People should become Catholic because what She teaches is true, whether or not Her traditions are comfortable or familiar to you. As Chesterton once wrote, I don't want a religion that is right where I am right but one that is right where I am wrong.
According to Vatican II, if non-Catholics know the claims of the Catholic Church to be true and refuse to enter her fold, they cannot be saved (LG 16). If they don't know, through no fault of their own they can be saved, if they meet certain criteria. Don't most all participants in ecumenical dialouge with the Catholic Church know what she teaches? Hence, they must be invincibly, or, if you prefer, inculbably ignorant. Am I not correct?
Sorry for all the typos in the previous post. Also, I should have concluded with: inculpably ignorant ... or damned.
I think both John L's and Arieh's comments are insightful. One mark of a true and authentic conversion is submission to the traditions of the faith one is accepting. One PROTESTANT blogger writes:
"Such converts (especially to Catholicism) often claim that they have simply come into the fullness of what they were always taught. But from my perspective this is true only in a highly theoretical sense. Allegedly all the good things of Protestantism are implicitly possible in Catholicism (leaving Orthodoxy aside for the moment). But that is not the practical reality I find. I find that the traditions of Wesleyan Protestantism foster holiness and Christian faithfulness in ways that the structures and traditions of the Roman Communion do not (the reverse is also true). The priesthood of all believers (with a consequent tendency toward democracy in church polity), the evangelical conception of saving faith as an inseparable unit (as opposed to the Catholic compound of faith and charity), the vernacular hymn-singing tradition, and the stress on the study of Scripture as a central means of grace are all valuable aspects of Protestantism to me. Perhaps everything true in them can be reconciled with Catholicism (this is more obviously true of the latter two items than the former two). But for a convert to do so implies that one is converting to a tradition in order to change it.
This blogger continues: "Conversion, by its very name, implies a radical change of heart. It implies that one's priorities have been radically reoriented, however much continuity one may experience. It requires a radical humility toward the tradition one is accepting. That is not to say that the convert has nothing to offer from her former tradition--but all such offerings must be made humbly and tentatively, subject to the new rules by which one is playing. This requires an act of ultimate trust in the integrity of the tradition to which one is converting.
"It is this act of trust which I have so far found impossible in the case of Catholicism. Because it is precisely the central elements of my Wesleyan tradition that have led me toward Catholicism, I am only capable of considering conversion to Catholicism "if" those elements can be preserved within Catholicism. I would therefore be coming in with a set of mental qualifications. I can accept the hierarchical priesthood "if" it does not violate the underlying primacy of the universal baptismal priesthood. If I found that in practice the ministerial priesthood did not serve the universal priesthood, I would be compelled to question it. I can accept the equality of Scripture and Tradition "if" it does not make me regard Scripture with less reverence or see it as a less central means of grace than I have heretofore done. I can possibly accept the doctrine of unformed faith if it still allows me to place my trust in Jesus Christ with the same confidence and simplicity that my evangelical tradition has taught me to
do. On the face of it, judging from the behavior of the average Catholic and the life of the average Catholic congregation, it looks as if all these things would be very difficult. Not impossible, but working uphill at every step, against the inertia of centuries and against many of the cultural and devotional patterns that have become ingrained in Catholicism. I see many converts who are doing just that. I wish them well, but I'm not sure it's an enterprise I should embark on. . . . But if the newly discovered beliefs or practices _are_ necessary to a fuller incorporation in the mystery of Christ, then surely talk of respect for one's old tradition is rather disingenuous. As I said earlier, all Christian traditions claim before all else to be faithful to Christ and the Word of God. If this faithfulness involves abandonment of praise choruses for Gregorian chant, or institution of weekly communion, or adoption of prayer for the dead, then so be it. Methodists (to take the tradition I will probably embrace if I remain Protestant) claim that being Christian is more important than being Methodist. Why not take them at their word? That is to show true respect for a tradition--to challenge it to be more fully what it claims to be, rather than stuffing its good points into a metaphysical suitcase and packing oneself off to an allegedly fuller tradition (which one nonetheless finds the need to improve in myriad ways."
I think this person puts it correctly and he has reflected fully on the consequences of conversion. And all the Protestants who convert and then devise ways to incorporate elements or whole aspects of their previous faith traditions are guilty of inauthentic conversion. And notice that this person also brings up liturgical practices, which Cardinal Dulles always avoids.
The blogger I have quoted is: Ithilien at: http://
stewedrabbit.blogspot.com...testantism.html.
So in addition to there being an "ontological difference" between non-Catholic Christians and Catholics such that they have, apparently, *no* degree of common with the Catholic Church (and are therefore not Christian at all--a teaching in direct defiance of the teaching of the Church), La Popessa Janice I also dogmatically decrees that "all the Protestants who convert and then devise ways to incorporate elements or whole aspects of their previous faith traditions are guilty of inauthentic conversion."
Some of the elements of my previous faith tradition as an Evangelical include prayer, works of mercy, and bible study, just to name a few good things I did not jettison when becoming Catholic. Now, it turns out that these elements are also part of the Catholic tradition. But apparently, they are tainted by contact with my utterly non-Christian, ontologically different, Evangelical background. So I can't possibly have wanted to root them in the Catholic tradition. No, I was an "inauthentic convert", as are all the Protestant converts into whose souls La Popessa peers. They can't have been in imperfect union with the Church. La Popessa has already declared that to be ontologically impossible. So these sinister works of mercy, prayers to Christ, and attempts to learn God's word can only be "inauthentic".
It would appear that in the Church of La Popessa Janice I decrees (in marked distinction to the Catholic Church to which I belong) that not are Protestant not Christian at all (due to their ontological difference from La Popessa), but they cannot join La Popessa's Church unless they believe, profess, and proclaim the Creed of Her Holiness Janice I, that any convert who sees *any* good in his previous faith tradition is an "inauthentic convert".
Thanks be to God, yet again, that the reign of La Popessa Janice I extends only to these comboxes.
oops.
"not *only* are Protestants not Christian at all..."
As I have often told people who ask me about my conversion, everything good found in Protestantism Catholics had done centuries earlier and better.
My prayer and devotional life has changed dramatically and grown exponentially since becoming Catholic. Catholic Scriptural exegetes are unmatched, especially the Fathers. Anything comparable in Protestantism just seems shallow looking back (a mile wide but an inch deep). I don't think I have taken much of my "tradition" with me when I became Catholic because my "tradition" was just a stunted imitation of what the Catholic Church had done correctly first.
Lately at the Just Thomism Blog there have been a few very interesting posts related to ecumenism. They are worth looking at, especially the first, which made me smile.
It would be best to read them in this order:
http://thomism.wordpress.com/200...nd-protestants/
http://thomism.wordpress.com/200...-c-p-ecumenism/
http://thomism.wordpress.com/200...t-ecumenism-ii/
Cardinals Discuss Pentecostal Threats
http://ap.google.com/article/
ALe...p4ePBgD8T3HPC80
==
Ecumenism “is not an option but a sacred duty,” says Pope
http://www.asianews.it/index.php...rt=10884&
size=A
==
Arieh:
You are perfect right that Protestantism cannot add anything to the deposit of Faith. But it does not follow from this that Protestants who have lived faithfully those bits of Catholic tradition found in their own communion are not Christian (which is what Janice means with her "ontological difference" chatter aimed at erasing the validity of Protestant baptisms) and it does not follow that Protestants who become Catholic are guilty of "inauthentic conversion" if they retain a love and admiration for what is good in their own Protestant tradition. Grace builds on nature, even when the recipient of grace was once a Protestant.
Well Mark, even the Catholic Church can't add to the deposit if faith, it has been deposited. I wasn't talking about the deposit of faith. I don't think Protestants can add anything of their own invention (devotions, "church growth strategies," snappy worship, Bible codes, etc.) that will in any way benefit the Church.
I hear from converts and cradle Catholics alike constantly about how much we can learn from Protestants. But every example given is just lesser variant of something Catholics did first, and better.
You need to distinguish, as they used to say in disputations. It is true that Protestants, in converting to Catholicism, can be attracted to the fullness of Catholic elements that they partially possessed as Protestants - and, hence, they can truly say that they are not abandoning what is good about Protestantism. But it is not true that this process of growing in understanding and appreciation of truth can ever be the only thing that happens in converting from Protestantism to Catholicism. What also has to happen is that the convert has to realise and accept that as Protestants, they were wrong. They have to reject the false elements of Protestant belief and practice, and acknowledge them as wrong, when they become Catholics. When I myself was a Protestant, I was wrong about many things, and in converting, I (thank God) came to realise this and to reject these wrong beliefs. What I think is a valid concern on Janice's part is that many Protestants who convert do not fully go through this process. I say that I think this is valid because I have encountered such people myself. I think this is a problem with converts from Lutheranism and Anglicanism, who are fleeing from heresy and immorality in their denominations. Janice is also right that current understandings of ecumenism as promoted by the hierarchy, and exemplified by Card. Dulles' statement, encourage this problem. They do so because they give the impression - or even actually say - that all there is to converting from Protestantism to Catholicism is a growth in understanding of what one already possessed in part as Protestant; the idea that one must renounce one's Protestant errors is never mentioned. If it is never mentioned, that is going to lead to a problem of its sometimes not being done. This is just realism, and I don't think, Mark, that you address this genuine concern of Janice's.
Here are some quotations from the recent meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical/Theological Societies, which featured a session entitled "Catholics and Evangelicals in Dialogue." Two of the responses illustrate the problem of evangelical converts to Christianity as well as the clarity of those who stay within this sphere.
Mark Brumley (editor of Ignatius Press): "My thinking was not that I was jettisoning anything, but it was an idea of coming to a completion, a fulfillment." He cited the Apostles' Creed as an expression of common faith and argued that "the nature of the Church" was the fundamental disagreement between the two denominations. Commenting on this disagreement, he said, "The Baptist who says, 'Out of fidelity of Christ, I can't go with you on the papacy'; he is actually closer to Christ and closer to his Catholic brother than the Baptist who says, 'In order to get along, I'm going to go along.'" There is a closer Christian communion among people who differ, precisely because they are being faithful to Christ in their differences."
This is simply nonsense. Brumley hasn't "completed" anything; the doctrines and practices of evangelicalism and Catholicism are very different. On what basis is Brumley "completing" his journey to Christ, if not by jettisoning evangelical beliefs? He is either being careless or tendentious.
On the other hand: "President Copan stepped in to offer his own comment on truth: "Is there a relativism within Christianity...? No. All these expressions cannot be right. If the Catholic understanding of the Church and the Mass is correct, then the Evangelicals are incorrect. There are genuinely conflicting truth claims."
Coppan is being honest. There ARE genuinely conflicting truth claims and one cannot be a Catholic convert unless he/she jettisons evangelical truth claims.
I don't see what the problem with evangelical converts to Catholicism is. It's not rocket science. You have to make a decision about which "truth claims" you accept and act accordingly. There's no middle ground. But many evangelical converts continue to parse words and hold mental reservations about their new faith (and it IS a new faith; even Cardinal Dulles, in his essay in Evangelicals and Catholics Together, acknowledged the vast distance that separates the two). Not to acknowledge this is dishonest, either to oneself or to others. One may think one has achieved authentic conversion to Catholicism, but in lieu of accepting what the Church teaches, without continually adding evangelical doctrines/practices or neglecting Catholic ones, I don't see how such an authentic conversion is achieved. The effort has not been made.
And it's only going to become more difficult for ex-evangelicals to hold this syncretistic ground as the liturgy of the Church becomes more identifiably Catholic, as doctrinal points become the issue and not some amorphous "good feeling about our brothers and sisters in Christ" hermeneutic. And they have to hold the history and tradition of the Church as a whole, not simply (like the aggiornamentists) regard Vatican II as a new day in the Church, which repeals its previous history. Even some of those converts who deal with Trent, do so only in terms of their previous evangelical education and interpretive method. It's really time for them to decide whether they are Catholic or evangelical; they cannot be both.
And ex-evangelical converts (not all, but some) have to stop being naive about the underlying philosophy that supports the evangelical tradition; it is modernism. That is not true of Catholicism, which is pre-modern. The two cannot be reconciled. You might want to read Nancey Murphy on this or Stanley Grenz. They are very clear on the differences, unlike some of our evangelical converts. These underlying assumptions make one's reception of Catholic truth either more difficult or not. If one wants to be Catholic, it will require a sea-change in one's philosophical underpinnings.
Some evangelical converts to Catholicism remind me of the Sadduccees, who always made a pro forma bow to the "tradition" and "authority" of Judaism and its sacred books, but then went ahead and did whatever they wanted and made innovations that did not agree with Jewish tradition and Scripture. It's not enough to cite "authority" unless you're genuinely prepared to accept the entire authority of the Church, in matters liturgical, doctrinal, and in its practices.
And don't take Cardinal Kasper's umpteenth "we're wrong and must examine ourselves" hermeneutic seriously. Pope Benedict has already referred to evangelicals as belonging to sects and using aggression in their proselytism. Kasper also criticized the "presentation" of the CDF Response. Well, he also cried over Dominus Iesus. Kasper ". . . said encouraging signs had emerged from dialogue with Protestants despite "differences in the moral domain".
There are more than differences in the moral domain and Kasper knows this. He's being disingenuous or he's lying or he's careless. Take your pick. And wait for his replacement by Pope Benedict. It's coming soon.
Since you speak so warmly of conversion, Janice, no doubt you are eagerly living this call to conversion from Ut Unum Sint, 15:
Renewal and conversion
The messianic proclamation that "the time is fulfilled and the Kingdom of God is at hand," and the subsequent call to "repent, and believe in the Gospel" (Mk 1:15) with which Jesus begins his mission, indicate the essential element of every new beginning: the fundamental need for evangelization at every stage of the Church's journey of salvation.
This is true in a special way of the process begun by the Second Vatican Council, when it indicated as a dimension of renewal the ecumenical task of uniting divided Christians. "There can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without a change of heart."(21)
The Council calls for personal conversion as well as for communal conversion. The desire of every Christian Community for unity goes hand in hand with its fidelity to the Gospel. In the case of individuals who live their Christian vocation, the Council speaks of interior conversion, of a renewal of mind.(22)
Each one therefore ought to be more radically converted to the Gospel and, without ever losing sight of God's plan, change his or her way of looking at things. Thanks to ecumenism, our contemplation of "the mighty works of God" (mirabilia Dei) has been enriched by new horizons, for which the Triune God calls us to give thanks: *the knowledge that the Spirit is at work in other Christian Communities, the discovery of examples of holiness, the experience of the immense riches present in the communion of saints, and contact with unexpected dimensions of Christian commitment.*
In a corresponding way, there is an increased sense of the need for repentance: an awareness of certain exclusions which seriously harm fraternal charity, of certain refusals to forgive, of a certain pride, of an unevangelical insistence on condemning the "other side," of a disdain born of an unhealthy presumption. Thus, *the entire life of Christians is marked by a concern for ecumenism; and they are called to let themselves be shaped, as it were, by that concern.*
Ms. Weddell,
Conversion is just that: conversion. It doesn't mean reshaping the new faith to your old criteria. That's what you seem to forget.
No one's disdaining evangelicals or others; it is simply that the new convert should attend to the new tradition, not continue the old.
Ms. Weddell,
No one is rejecting ecumenism. I am not. What I do reject is the notion that one can join the Catholic Church and proceed to try to change the Church. An authentic conversion would be just the opposite. If you joined a new company, a new school or moved to a new country, you would honor their traditions and ways of doing things. So why do you think you can join the Catholic Church and proceed to justify your evangelicalism on the basis of ecumenism. You did not join a non-denominational body, you became Catholic. Nowhere in Ut unum sint does John Paul call for a radical change in Catholicism to become evangelicalism. He simply says that all of us have to be more radically converted to Christ and the "certain exclusions" that harm fraternity are not Catholic identity. That we don't have to surrender. If you want to be non-denominational, go work for Paula White.
I hope I misunderstand, but IMHO John Paul II was mistaken, and he has sowed the seeds of confusion, and possible future heresy. Forgive me if I am wrong. God help us if I am right.
"Each one therefore ought to be more radically converted to the Gospel and, without ever losing sight of God's plan, change his or her way of looking at things. Thanks to ecumenism, our contemplation of "the mighty works of God" (mirabilia Dei) has been enriched by new horizons, for which the Triune God calls us to give thanks: the knowledge that the Spirit is at work in other Christian Communities, the discovery of examples of holiness, the experience of the immense riches present in the communion of saints, and contact with unexpected dimensions of Christian commitment."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_fathe...um-
sint_en.html
In this innovative post-conciliar discovery of new horizons and immense riches (with corresponding change of viewpoint), who, according to John Paul II, who are are included in these (new) communion of saints, - Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Zwingli, and Lucaris? I wonder.
"The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/
hi...egratio_en.html
==
In this innovative post-conciliar discovery of new horizons and immense riches (with corresponding change of viewpoint), who, according to John Paul II, are included in the (new) communion of saints, - Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Zwingli, and Lucaris?
==
In my opinion, more often than not, modern ecumenism in the Church is a form of "false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded."
==
I am so happy/ecumenically hip that evangelical Pentecostal sects and protestant churches have the Holy Spirit working through them unto salvation to challenge, harm and perhaps even destroy the Catholic Church in Latin America and elswhere, and draw millions of Catholics away into their protestant heresy and apostasy. It is all clear to me now, the new salvation history.
==
Now lets go pray with some pagans for peace.
==
"...knowledge that the Spirit is at work in other Christian Communities..."
Is this a new dogma?
What about Satan, could he be at work too?
==
Paul,
In his book The Church, Ecumenism and Politics, Joseph Ratzinger said something pretty close to: "In my opinion, more often than not, modern ecumenism in the Church is a form of "false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded."
As an "old catholic", a "I-have-always-been-a-faithful-catholic", I can't grasp Janice prejudices against converts from evangelical backgrounds. We must all accept that the Church is broader than our own limited points of views.
For all of those beknighted people who continue to cite ONLY Vatican II documents as though there was no development after that, I offer this letter from John F. Long, S.J., who says he "was there," i.e., at Vatican II. He is commenting on an article Cardinal Dulles wrote for America. One paragraph is especially interesting.
"One point I found particularly painful. The ecumenical problem is reduced to a word-battle about the meaning of “subsists in the Catholic Church.” No attention is given to be the excellent developments that have taken place over 35 years as Catholics and other Christians reflect together on the many treasures found in a wide array of the conciliar documents. In this we have the reality, not the myth.
"With regard to “subsists,” the narrow interpretation of Cardinal Ratzinger, which Cardinal Dulles adopts, was certainly not the view held by the theological commission or in the secretariat as we were drafting texts and responding to the bishops and as the bishops accepted its introduction into the text. We were influenced, for example, by the recognition of the fact that in many churches not in communion with the Holy See, by the celebration of the Holy Eucharist “the Church of God is built up and grows in stature” (“Decree on Ecumenism,” No. 15). Obviously we were not speaking of any second church of God.
"This and other aspects of the mystery of communion, real even if imperfect between the Catholic Church and other Christians and their communities, indicate a deeper meaning than Cardinal Ratzinger will admit when discussing “subsists.” His view has been strongly contested by others, such as Cardinals Willebrands, Koenig and Kasper. Nor will these or others accept his restricted opinions on “communion,” even when these have been expressed in documents coming from his office.
"As one who participated in many of the activities and debates of the council, I believe that there are clear signs of retrenchment from what the council said or left open for legitimate future developments, as Paul VI put it."
It is clear that certain concepts have been "reinterpreted" or nuanced since Vatican II. Subsistit is only one of them. Therefore, everyone who says that Cardinal Dulles is only repeating what Vatican II said is incorrect. Subsistit, in Fr. Long's terminology, has been "narrowed," specifically by Cardinal Ratzinger, since Vatican II. And this has implications not only for ecumenism, but also for the notion of what is "authentically human," to use a phrase that Joseph Ratzinger has discussed many times. It is NOT the import or inclusion of every Protestant bit of doctrine, liturgical practice, or attitude.
By the way, in 2002, Joseph Ratzinger called relativism the "new intolerance." He was speaking in Spain in the context of inter-religious dialogue. He also said: "The gift of knowing Jesus does not mean that there are no important fragments of truth in other religions. In the light of Christ, we can establish a fruitful dialogue with a point of reference in which we can see how all these fragments of truth contribute to greater depth in our faith and to an authentic spiritual community of humanity."
This is an important addendum to the whole ecumenical-interreligious debate. Ratzinger acknowledges that there are fragments of truth in non-Christian religions. This is parallel to the "elements of holiness and sanctification" that UR, Dominus Iesus, and the CDF Response refer to in the ecumenical context.
Quoting just Vatican II (or post VII)or texts from before Vatican II : two sides of the same (mistaken) coin....
Janice:
is it fair to sum this up like this:
personally you appreciate that you and Cardinal Ratzinger/ Pope Benedict are less thrilled these days about the prospect of ecumenism in the Spirit of Vatican II. Furthermore Benedict actively is taking steps back towards the more hardened traditional catholic positions of 'supremacy'?
However, as your above quote also seem to indicate plenty of high level clerics and/or respected scholars of the Church (Koenig?, JPII) do not exactly agree with your and Benedicts insights.
What are we going to do?
Since you seem to be somehow under the impression that you are in position to call Cardinal Koenigs and others views 'dumb' nobody should be surprised that you can not even be bothered to maintain minimal decency when it comes to fellow 'lower level catholics who happen to disagree with your preferences - or heaven forbid attempt to incorporate their own preferences and insights.
Church is all of us.
While plenty of folks within the church are a bit tired these days to make the effort and accomodate our many fine christian or convert brothers and sisters - some do.
While plenty would rather lustily trash talk fellow christians in order to feel good about themself - some bother.
I am sure you can do better than you lead us on to believe.
Grega, give it a rest. The cardinals, etc., you cite were offering their opinions. Cardinal Ratzinger had the job, at the CDF, of maintaining Catholic doctrine. As Pope he also has that job. His exegesis of "subsistit" is normative; theirs are not. A lot of Vatican II "history" consists of proffering the private diaries and notes of individual bishops, periti, other counselors. While these are interesting for the sidelights they open onto the conciliar experience, they do not constitute normative expressions of Church doctrine, nor are they necessarily free of fundamental prejudices/judgments on a particular issue. Just because some bishop or peritus doesn't like what Benedict is doing or what he did at the CDF, doesn't necessarily mean anything. The Church is not a democracy.
Janice , yes the church is not a democracy - but neither a dictatorship.
Debate is encouraged - informed opinions are valued. The issues we are talking about here are not of the nature that would allow ex cathedra declarations.
Sure as Pope Benedict can influence how we perceive these things significantly - he can however not force a singular point of view ( nor does he attempt to do so IMHO).
I am quite sure Benedict understands this - he plants seeds - some will grow some will not grow. You do a good job watering one type of seed - this does not mean that well established plants have to be erradicated.
Grega,
Some issues in the Church may be discussed; others cannot.
The concept of "subsistit" has been a problem since Vatican II. As Cardinal Ratzinger, Benedict narrowed the definition and John Paul signed off on it. That makes it normative.
Janice:
"Some issues in the Church may be discussed; others cannot"
I doubt that even Benedict would cut it that short. Yes our Pope has firm positions but note how he leaves room for discussion, development and how he respects the other.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theo...gy/
OBDOMIHS.HTM
"...I am saddened to have to disagree again with Jüngel."
Note: Cardinal Ratzinger does not start out with "Juengel does not understand" - or "Juengel's points are trivial" "Juengel is stupid" "Juengels ideas are dumb" etc.
No - why not make your points without kicking other peoples shins .
For me I might not care much for the direction that Weddel or Shea want to take our church yet I can see much value in them doing what their heart and mind tells them to do.
They are not dumb - stupid- heretic or whatever one could come up with.
Yes you have some insights and opinions that coincide with Benedicts thinking - or more likely were influenced by his work - this is no licence to spew little insults towards others.
Than again as Luther I believe said finally :"Hier steh ich ich kann nicht anders".
This should give some people here fits. Beckwith on the goodness of many Protestant tidings.
Of course I appreciated it, hence the reference:
http://www.cuf.org/Laywitness/
LW...O07Beckwith.asp
Ecumenism in the light of Mortalium Animos.
Cardinal Dulles' "convergence" rather than "conversion" theory is tiring and not in keeping with reality.
The Church is visible, not invisible. It is one of the four marks of the Church.
Mark Shea thinks Christians and Muslims worship the same one God. Muslims would disagree.
I wonder what Mark Shea's theological credentials are other than he is in the "in" crowd among Catholic publishers in apologetics and he is a convert? I wonder?
Mark, please illuminate us.
Is that Mark Shea wrong when one consider - for exemple- the two following quotations ? :
- Catechism of the catholic Church : The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." (§ 841 )
- Benedict XVI (quoting Pope gregory VII) : (...) I would like to quote some words addressed by Pope Gregory VII in 1076 to a Muslim prince in North Africa who had acted with great benevolence towards the Christians under his jurisdiction. Pope Gregory spoke of the particular charity that Christians and Muslims owe to one another “because we believe in one God, albeit in a different manner, and because we praise him and worship him every day as the Creator and Ruler of the world.”
Joe,
It's a real shame that Beckwith doesn't know what "classical Christianity" is. His definition consists of taking snippets from the Fathers of the Church, which "prove" the truth of Christianity. The focus is on "proving," which is fundamental to foundationalism.
As far as his remark that Catholics are: "few Catholics are adequately catechized to understand the Creed’s scriptural and philosophical foundations," this is true only with respect to foundationalism. Moreover, Protestants distinguish between historical events and their revelational meaning, which Catholics don't. This is because to do so splits the incarnational "value" of the events themselves.
Foundationalism is not part of the Catholic philosophical milieu. It takes a "scientific" stance, i.e., human effort, in order to prove the events of the Scriptures and still ignores the issue of authority, which is not, as many Protestant converts think, substituting one form of human expertise for another, but in reality is accepting the givenness of the Scriptures and Church tradition as coming ultimately from God.
When Catholics say that the Creed is "what the Church teaches," they are acknowledging authority in its proper sense: that it is from God. It's converts like Beckwith, et al., who are inadequately catechized.
Joe, read some Gadamer and then talk to me. Read the Catechism, too.
Arnold,
Yes, in theory, Muslims profess the "same" God as Christians, in that they are monotheists. But one's God is revealed in the way His adherents live out their lives. There is no relationality in the Muslim God; as Benedict XVI pointed out at Regensburg, there is also a problem with respect to the place of rationality or reason with the Muslim God. The Christian "portrait" of God, based on the OT and NT, is much different than that coming out of the Koran.
Arnold,
Yes, there are also "elements of holiness and sanctification" in the Muslim world. That is due to the action of the Logos, who is the creator and sustainer of the world. There are also some of these elements in the Asian religions (read the Lotus Sutra, for example).
As far as the equivalence of the Catholic and Muslim conceptions of God is concerned: this is a typical canard, proffered by those who haven't delved beneath the label of "monotheism." The Muslim God is not characterized by relationality, which goes on to inform the life of the Catholic. As Pope Benedict indicated in his address at Regensburg, the Muslim concept of God also suffers from its lack of rationality/reason.
Of course, the Pope will address the Muslims as fellow monotheists, which is a convenience and a way of outreach. But that does not mean that there is a strict equivalence between Catholic and Muslim concepts of God.
Joe,
The recent influx of Protestants into the Catholic Church and the fact that their books, etc., are popular is distorting the relationship of Catholics with the Church. Catholics can adduce the reasons for their hope, but they do it with an entirely different understanding of the relationship between the faithful and the Church than do Protestants. The foundationalism that Beckwith, et al., offer up is purely human-generated and "scientific." It does not rest within the tradition of the Church. If one really believes that the Church is Christ's presence among us, then the reason for one's hope is expressed in a different way than the foundationalist assumptions of Protestants.
ENCYCLICAL LETTER
SPE SALVI
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS PRIESTS AND DEACONS MEN AND WOMEN RELIGIOUS AND ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL ON CHRISTIAN HOPE
http://www.vatican.va/holy_fathe...e-
salvi_en.html
Given in Rome, at Saint Peter's, on 30 November, the Feast of Saint Andrew the Apostle, in the year 2007, the third of my Pontificate.
BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
==
For those of you who are enamoured of the "gifts" of Protestantism, check out a few of the Pope's criticisms in his new encyclical, Spe salvi:
#7: where the Pope criticizes the subjectivist rendering of hypostasis used by Luther, against its clearly objective meaning in the Letter to the Hebrews. As he writes: "he also had to understand the term argumentum as a disposition of the subject. In the twentieth century this interpretation became prevalent—at least in Germany—in Catholic exegesis too, so that the ecumenical translation into German of the New Testament, approved by the Bishops, reads as follows: Glaube aber ist: Feststehen in dem, was man erhofft, Überzeugtsein von dem, was man nicht sieht (faith is: standing firm in what one hopes, being convinced of what one does not see). This in itself is not incorrect, but it is not the meaning of the text, because the Greek term used (elenchos) does not have the subjective sense of “conviction” but the objective sense of “proof”. Rightly, therefore, recent Protestant exegesis has arrived at a different interpretation: “Yet there can be no question but that this classical Protestant understanding is untenable." [quoted from Helmut Koester, a “liberal Protestant theologian,” according to John Allen].. Faith is not merely a personal reaching out towards things to come that are still totally absent: it gives us something. It gives us even now something of the reality we are waiting for, and this present reality constitutes for us a “proof” of the things that are still unseen. Faith draws the future into the present, so that it is no longer simply a “not yet”. The fact that this future exists changes the present; the present is touched by the future reality, and thus the things of the future spill over into those of the present and those of the present into those of the future."
All this Protestant "conviction" rather than Catholic "proof." Subjectivism vs. objective reality.
And here's that pesky "Church" again in Spe salvi.
#10: "I would like to begin with the classical form of the dialogue with which the rite of Baptism expressed the reception of an infant into the community of believers and the infant's rebirth in Christ. First of all the priest asked what name the parents had chosen for the child, and then he continued with the question: “What do you ask of the Church?” Answer: “Faith”. “And what does faith give you?” “Eternal life”. According to this dialogue, the parents were seeking access to the faith for their child, communion with believers, because they saw in faith the key to “eternal life”. Today as in the past, this is what being baptized, becoming Christians, is all about: it is not just an act of socialization within the community, not simply a welcome into the Church."
And here the Pope rehabilitates the crucial place of contemplative prayer and lives devoted to contemplation, which many converts neglect or dismiss as less important than "in your face" evangelization:
#15: "It was commonly thought that monasteries were places of flight from the world (contemptus mundi) and of withdrawal from responsibility for the world, in search of private salvation. Bernard of Clairvaux, who inspired a multitude of young people to enter the monasteries of his reformed Order, had quite a different perspective on this. In his view, monks perform a task for the whole Church and hence also for the world. He uses many images to illustrate the responsibility that monks have towards the entire body of the Church, and indeed towards humanity; he applies to them the words of pseudo-Rufinus: “The human race lives thanks to a few; were it not for them, the world would perish ...”. Contemplatives—contemplantes—must become agricultural labourers—laborantes—he says. The nobility of work, which Christianity inherited from Judaism, had already been expressed in the monastic rules of Augustine and Benedict. Bernard takes up this idea again. The young noblemen who flocked to his monasteries had to engage in manual labour. In fact Bernard explicitly states that not even the monastery can restore Paradise, but he maintains that, as a place of practical and spiritual “tilling the soil”, it must prepare the new Paradise. A wild plot of forest land is rendered fertile—and in the process, the trees of pride are felled, whatever weeds may be growing inside souls are pulled up, and the ground is thereby prepared so that bread for body and soul can flourish. Are we not perhaps seeing once again, in the light of current history, that no positive world order can prosper where souls are overgrown?"
And here's a discussion of the individualistic orientation, begun by Luther and continued in society and society:
#16: “How could the idea have developed that Jesus's message is narrowly individualistic and aimed only at each person singly? How did we arrive at this interpretation of the “salvation of the soul” as a flight from responsibility for the whole, and how did we come to conceive the Christian project as a selfish search for salvation which rejects the idea of serving others? In order to find an answer to this we must take a look at the foundations of the modern age. These appear with particular clarity in the thought of Francis Bacon. That a new era emerged—through the discovery of America and the new technical achievements that had made this development possible—is undeniable. But what is the basis of this new era? It is the new correlation of experiment and method that enables man to arrive at an interpretation of nature in conformity with its laws and thus finally to achieve “the triumph of art over nature” (victoria cursus artis super naturam).14 The novelty—according to Bacon's vision—lies in a new correlation between science and praxis. This is also given a theological application: the new correlation between science and praxis would mean that the dominion over creation —given to man by God and lost through original sin—would be reestablished.”
#19: “In 1792 he [Kant] wrote Der Sieg des guten Prinzips über das böse und die Gründung eines Reiches Gottes auf Erden (“The Victory of the Good over the Evil Principle and the Founding of a Kingdom of God on Earth”). In this text he says the following: “The gradual transition of ecclesiastical faith to the exclusive sovereignty of pure religious faith is the coming of the Kingdom of God.” 17 He also tells us that revolutions can accelerate this transition from ecclesiastical faith to rational faith.” THIS IS RIGHT OUT OF THE PROTESTANT PLAYBOOK.
#26: “This is what it means to say: Jesus Christ has “redeemed” us. Through him we have become certain of God, a God who is not a remote “first cause” of the world, because his only-begotten Son has become man and of him everyone can say: “I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:20).” Here is another critique of the Protestant playbook, foundationalism.
And for those converts who dismiss traditional piety and prayers:
#34: “For prayer to develop this power of purification, it must on the one hand be something very personal, an encounter between my intimate self and God, the living God. On the other hand it must be constantly guided and enlightened by the great prayers of the Church and of the saints, by liturgical prayer, in which the Lord teaches us again and again how to pray properly. Cardinal Nguyen Van Thuan, in his book of spiritual exercises, tells us that during his life there were long periods when he was unable to pray and that he would hold fast to the texts of the Church's prayer: the Our Father, the Hail Mary and the prayers of the liturgy.27 Praying must always involve this intermingling of public and personal prayer. This is how we can speak to God and how God speaks to us. In this way we undergo those purifications by which we become open to God and are prepared for the service of our fellow human beings. We become capable of the great hope, and thus we become ministers of hope for others. Hope in a Christian sense is always hope for others as well. It is an active hope, in which we struggle to prevent things moving towards the “perverse end”. It is an active hope also in the sense that we keep the world open to God. Only in this way does it continue to be a truly human hope.”
Another passage on traditional Catholic piety:
#40: “I would like to add here another brief comment with some relevance for everyday living. There used to be a form of devotion—perhaps less practised today but quite widespread not long ago—that included the idea of “offering up” the minor daily hardships that continually strike at us like irritating “jabs”, thereby giving them a meaning. Of course, there were some exaggerations and perhaps unhealthy applications of this devotion, but we need to ask ourselves whether there may not after all have been something essential and helpful contained within it. What does it mean to offer something up? Those who did so were convinced that they could insert these little annoyances into Christ's great “com-passion” so that they somehow became part of the treasury of compassion so greatly needed by the human race. In this way, even the small inconveniences of daily life could acquire meaning and contribute to the economy of good and of human love. Maybe we should consider whether it might be judicious to revive this practice ourselves.”
But notice the Pope recognizes the inherent necessity for imagery in Catholicism [remember the whitewashing of churches by Calvinists]:
#43: “Christians likewise can and must constantly learn from the strict rejection of images that is contained in God's first commandment (cf. Ex 20:4). The truth of negative theology was highlighted by the Fourth Lateran Council, which explicitly stated that however great the similarity that may be established between Creator and creature, the dissimilarity between them is always greater.32 In any case, for the believer the rejection of images cannot be carried so far that one ends up, as Horkheimer and Adorno would like, by saying “no” to both theses—theism and atheism. God has given himself an “image”: in Christ who was made man. In him who was crucified, the denial of false images of God is taken to an extreme. God now reveals his true face in the figure of the sufferer who shares man's God-forsaken condition by taking it upon himself.”
And here is Benedict's presentation of Logos theology: even the Greeks had intimations of God, long before Unitatis redintegratio:
#44: “Here I would like to quote a passage from Plato which expresses a premonition of just judgment that in many respects remains true and salutary for Christians too. Albeit using mythological images, he expresses the truth with an unambiguous clarity, saying that in the end souls will stand naked before the judge. It no longer matters what they once were in history, but only what they are in truth: “Often, when it is the king or some other monarch or potentate that he (the judge) has to deal with, he finds that there is no soundness in the soul whatever; he finds it scourged and scarred by the various acts of perjury and wrong-doing ...; it is twisted and warped by lies and vanity, and nothing is straight because truth has had no part in its development. Power, luxury, pride, and debauchery have left it so full of disproportion and ugliness that when he has inspected it (he) sends it straight to prison, where on its arrival it will undergo the appropriate punishment ... Sometimes, though, the eye of the judge lights on a different soul which has lived in purity and truth ... then he is struck with admiration and sends him to the isles of the blessed.”
In sum, Spe salvi is a very traditional exegesis on meditation on Christian hope. I would hope that some of our friends who have converted would read this encyclical seriously and think about living within the Catholic tradition, rather than coming at it from the outside.
Beat that dead horse Janice! BEAT IT!
Obviously it's not a dead horse or there wouldn't be so many semi-Prots in the Catholic Church today.
Yes Janice. Protestant converts are the greatest threat to the Church since the Arians and Modernists. Thank God we have you to stalk them with the persistence and obsession of a creepy ex-girlfriend.
Yeah, Luke, when you don't have a cogent argument to offer, always go for the invective and libel.
By the way, "Luke," Protestants ARE the greatest threats since Arians and Modernists. Protestants, in fact, ARE Modernists. That's what their so-called theologies are founded upon: their so-called "science of the Scriptures," the way they divorce revelation from historical events, their shoddy attempts to "prove" the Scriptures, their subjectivism, which makes a mockery of objective Truth.
Should I continue?
Protestants ARE the greatest threats since Arians and Modernists.
September 11, 2001: The day four planeloads of people were used as human missiles against Crusaders by fanatical readers of Scott Hahn. And how can overlook the immense menace posed to the Church by all those members of Focus on the Family and Prison Fellowship Ministry bent on, well, saying nice things about the Pope.
Great exegesis, Janice. Clearly this encyclical was specifically written to counter the gravest threat facing the Catholic Church today: the menace of Evangelical converts to the Catholic Faith.
See? Nothing makes Mark Shea drop a pants load quicker than unkind -- though not unjust -- words against protestants. Makes Pavlov's dogs look like a pack of rugged individualists.
Mr. Shea,
My exegesis WAS great. And right on target. Protestantism is founded on Modernist principles. Although their interest in the "scientific" exegesis of Scripture stopped around the time of Bishop Ussher, the underlying foundations and assumptions are the same as those of the Jesus Seminar: what can we, as humans, PROVE about Scriptural veracity? That's the entire basis of Scriptural "inerrancy." It is VASTLY different from Catholic understandings of authority (divine). This informs everything else about their approach to God and religion. It is the difference between the pre-modern and modernist vision of the world. And pre-modern does not mean "old-fashioned" or "out-of-date." It is an attitude toward God. And, yes, that's why I'm so skeptical about evangelical converts to Catholicism as well as our "alliances" with various evangelical entities.
"what can we, as humans, PROVE about Scriptural veracity? That's the entire basis of Scriptural "inerrancy." It is VASTLY different from Catholic understandings of authority (divine)"
Absolutely. And this contributes to an understanding of many things. Three of them are:
(1) why America, always captivated by the new and the do-it-yourself, flourishes as a "protestant" nation
(2) why protestant denominations in America have strayed so far from their humble beginnings that their founders would scarcely recognize them as anything more than social clubs
(3) why AmChurch has from the beginning been hell-bent on shedding Catholicism's own traditions and taking up those of protestant denominations -- it wants to make itself indistinguishable from them, not necessarily in doctrine (which is increasingly irrelevant anyway), but in behavior (which is do-it-yourself individualism -- every man his own pope)
(4) why V2 has so often been described as an "Americanization" of the Church
Er, four of them.
Brings me back to that Balthazarean masterpiece of literary criticism, "The American Religion". Harold Bloom recounts an insight of Sydney Ahlstrom, that "there was no distinctive American theology, even though he . . . spoke of "the American religion":
"If that religion had a theologian, according to Ahlstrom, it was Emerson. Of America, Emerson observed: 'Great country, diminutive minds. America is formless, has no terrible and no beautiful condensation.' . . . . The essence of the American is the belief that God loves her or him . . . . I remain startled by and obsessed with the revivalistic element in our religious experience. Revivalism, in America, tends to be the perpetual shock of the individual discovering yet again what she and he always have known, which is that God loves her and him on an absolutely personal and indeed intimate basis."
I think Bloom nails it, and the bifurcation of this personal "insight" from the Catholic understanding of it, which has always been far more intellectually complex, accounts for the degradation of both protestant denominations (which were doomed by the egoism of their founders anyway) and the Catholic Church in America, especially with its post-V2 revivalistic gumbo of ecumenism, "healing" Masses (in which lay healers ply their "charisms", almost as if a revivalist tent had been thrown up inside the Church), "charismatic" Catholicism, "evangelical" Catholicism, etc, etc.
Formless? Novus Ordo. Diminutive? The USCCB!
My exegesis WAS great. And right on target.
Not to mention modest.
Janice - What do you think of Anglo-Catholics, both the occasional ones who have converted, and the rest?
I can't follow the core of the problem : protestant convert became catholic, that's why they're convert. That means a two faces aspect :
- As protestant, they possessed several (depends of the background of the protestant type they come from) means of salvation, that are good in themselves : CEC 819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."
- As convert, they renounced to what was fallacy in their older faith, that is for exemple : rejection of papacy, denial of the real presence, of the visibility of the Chruch, usw...
All that means continuity and discontinuity. It follows that such convert can see there's not too much differences and such other see many and deep differences.
Commenting by HaloScan
