Which Do the Majority of Catholics Love More, Catholic Dogma or Modern Ecumenism

[To Know is to Serve]

Do you as a Catholic love Catholic Dogma or modern ecumenism more?

Keep in mind that the Dogmatic Councils of the Catholic Church are not compatible with modern ecumenism.

[To Know is to Serve]

Holy Bible Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Holy Bible Luke 16:13
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

[Catholica]

Catholic dogmas certainly are compatible with ecumenism. The problem is not with the Church but with confusing false ecumenism with true ecumenism. Catholic dogma is not at odds with true ecumenism which the church still proclaims, even if she has sometimes failed to practice it.

[epiphanius]

Holy Bible Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Holy Bible Luke 16:13
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

We must serve God--I think that's clear enough, and there's no disagreement on that point.

The whole point of Catholic dogma is always to direct and lead us to God, but the words with which it is expressed are limited, and can never express every facet of the truth about God.  If we understand these words only in a superficial sense, we can easily fall under the illusion that we "know" what they're all about, and that we can use them as an infallible litmus test to see who's a heretic and who isn't.  Reality isn't quite so simple.

(FWIW, "mammon" refers to worldly values, particularly the pursuit of wealth, power, prestige, etc.)

[mclees8]

Holy Bible Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Holy Bible Luke 16:13
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

We must serve God--I think that's clear enough, and there's no disagreement on that point.

The whole point of Catholic dogma is always to direct and lead us to God, but the words with which it is expressed are limited, and can never express every facet of the truth about God.  If we understand these words only in a superficial sense, we can easily fall under the illusion that we "know" what they're all about, and that we can use them as an infallible litmus test to see who's a heretic and who isn't.  Reality isn't quite so simple.

(FWIW, "mammon" refers to worldly values, particularly the pursuit of wealth, power, prestige, etc.)

Thanks for defining mammon. I have always associated with just money. This gives us a clearer perspective. You cannot love the world or its values and love Christ at the same time. You are given to one or the other. Mixture is compromise.

[Catholica]

Holy Bible Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Holy Bible Luke 16:13
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

We must serve God--I think that's clear enough, and there's no disagreement on that point.

The whole point of Catholic dogma is always to direct and lead us to God, but the words with which it is expressed are limited, and can never express every facet of the truth about God.  If we understand these words only in a superficial sense, we can easily fall under the illusion that we "know" what they're all about, and that we can use them as an infallible litmus test to see who's a heretic and who isn't.  Reality isn't quite so simple.

(FWIW, "mammon" refers to worldly values, particularly the pursuit of wealth, power, prestige, etc.)

Thanks for defining mammon. I have always associated with just money. This gives us a clearer perspective. You cannot love the world or its values and love Christ at the same time. You are given to one or the other. Mixture is compromise.

That's right, one must choose.  But that  doesn't mean that if one loves God he must shun wealth, power, prestige.  He must simply love God and be detached from wealth and power and prestige and other worldly things.  These worldly things are good and can be used for God's purposes and have been in the past, but they must not be our loves.

[FireSword]

Yeah, Jesus prayed we stay in the world not to be taken from it.

[epiphanius]

Catholic dogmas certainly are compatible with ecumenism. The problem is not with the Church but with confusing false ecumenism with true ecumenism. Catholic dogma is not at odds with true ecumenism which the church still proclaims, even if she has sometimes failed to practice it.

Catholica,

Thanks.  And I would hasten to add that both authentic Catholic dogma and true ecumenism can only be understood in the light of charity.

[To Know is to Serve]

Catholic dogmas certainly are compatible with ecumenism. The problem is not with the Church but with confusing false ecumenism with true ecumenism. Catholic dogma is not at odds with true ecumenism which the church still proclaims, even if she has sometimes failed to practice it.

Catholica,

Thanks.  And I would hasten to add that both authentic Catholic dogma and true ecumenism can only be understood in the light of charity.

Vatican 2 is not true ecumenism since Vatican 2 is not compatible with infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church.

[Catholica]

Catholic dogmas certainly are compatible with ecumenism. The problem is not with the Church but with confusing false ecumenism with true ecumenism. Catholic dogma is not at odds with true ecumenism which the church still proclaims, even if she has sometimes failed to practice it.

Catholica,

Thanks.  And I would hasten to add that both authentic Catholic dogma and true ecumenism can only be understood in the light of charity.

Vatican 2 is not true ecumenism since Vatican 2 is not compatible with infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church.

Describe to us what you perceive as "Vatican 2 ecumenism".  Provide church document statements to support your assertions that you have correctly perceived "Vatican 2 ecumenism".  And please explain what makes you think that this ecumenism is not compatible with dogma.

[To Know is to Serve]

Catholic dogmas certainly are compatible with ecumenism. The problem is not with the Church but with confusing false ecumenism with true ecumenism. Catholic dogma is not at odds with true ecumenism which the church still proclaims, even if she has sometimes failed to practice it.

Catholica,

Thanks.  And I would hasten to add that both authentic Catholic dogma and true ecumenism can only be understood in the light of charity.

Vatican 2 is not true ecumenism since Vatican 2 is not compatible with infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church.

Describe to us what you perceive as "Vatican 2 ecumenism".  Provide church document statements to support your assertions that you have correctly perceived "Vatican 2 ecumenism".  And please explain what makes you think that this ecumenism is not compatible with dogma.

Vatican II council hijacked by Freemasons, communists and Modernist

[AVZ]

Catholic dogmas certainly are compatible with ecumenism. The problem is not with the Church but with confusing false ecumenism with true ecumenism. Catholic dogma is not at odds with true ecumenism which the church still proclaims, even if she has sometimes failed to practice it.

Catholica,

Thanks.  And I would hasten to add that both authentic Catholic dogma and true ecumenism can only be understood in the light of charity.

Vatican 2 is not true ecumenism since Vatican 2 is not compatible with infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church.

Describe to us what you perceive as "Vatican 2 ecumenism".  Provide church document statements to support your assertions that you have correctly perceived "Vatican 2 ecumenism".  And please explain what makes you think that this ecumenism is not compatible with dogma.

I may be wrong here, but I was always under the impression that Vatican II "decisions" are not really to be perceived as dogma, even on the points where it addresses dogmatic issues.

[epiphanius]

I may be wrong here, but I was always under the impression that Vatican II "decisions" are not really to be perceived as dogma, even on the points where it addresses dogmatic issues.

AV,

You are correct.  Pope John XXIII , who called the council, really believed that the truth, spoken plainly and clearly, was ultimately more effective than statements that were given force of law.

[epiphanius]

Vatican 2 is not true ecumenism since Vatican 2 is not compatible with infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church.

TK,

Here is what Vatican II says regarding ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio article 3 par. 1):

Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20)  But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces them as brothers, with respect and affection.  For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.  The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church--whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church--do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion.  The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles.  But even in spite of them 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)

The footnotes indicated above refer to these:

19. Cf. 1Cor 11:18-19; Gal 1:6-9; 1Jn 2:18-19.

20. Cf. 1Cor 1:11ff; 11:22.

21. Cf. CONC. FLORENTINUM, Sess. VIII (1439), Decretum Exultate Deo: Mansi 31, 1055 A.

22. Cf. S. AUGUSTINUS, In Ps. 32, Enarr. 11, 29: PL 36, 299

[Catholica]

Catholic dogmas certainly are compatible with ecumenism. The problem is not with the Church but with confusing false ecumenism with true ecumenism. Catholic dogma is not at odds with true ecumenism which the church still proclaims, even if she has sometimes failed to practice it.

Catholica,

Thanks.  And I would hasten to add that both authentic Catholic dogma and true ecumenism can only be understood in the light of charity.

Vatican 2 is not true ecumenism since Vatican 2 is not compatible with infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church.

Describe to us what you perceive as "Vatican 2 ecumenism".  Provide church document statements to support your assertions that you have correctly perceived "Vatican 2 ecumenism".  And please explain what makes you think that this ecumenism is not compatible with dogma.

Vatican II council hijacked by Freemasons, communists and Modernist

I have learned much about Vatican II and the influences there, and I don't doubt that the devil was trying to undermine Vatican II.  And I do believe that the documents of Vatican II were too vague, and this vagueness was encouraged by modernists and brought about by modernists. 

However that is not a reason to undermine Vatican II and act as if it was a false council.  It was not.  What is important is to carefully interpret Vatican II in light of the dogmatic teachings of the Church, as Pope Benedict XVI stated, with a "hermeneutic of continuity".  Within that framework, we can avoid the ways the vague language of those documents allows modernists to undermine the true teachings of the Catholic Church, and then we can actually understand the good message that Vatican II conveyed.

I'm not willing to sit through an hour long video/audio cast to try to figure out what you are saying.  It has been said before and there is truth in what the priest was saying at the beginning.  So what if modernists were trying to undermine the faith, if masons were infiltrating.  Its all happened before.  They will never be successful because Christ is behind the Catholic Church.  In concert with the demons, masons and modernists have had some success in some circles.  That's why dogmas are important, they keep us grounded against the forces of evil and revolution.  That's why, rather than saying that Vatican II is incompatible with dogmas, it is only correct to say that Vatican II is only correctly interpreted when dogmas are considered.  This will help us to avoid modernist interpretations.

I have experienced what a mind bender modernist thinking is, having run into a couple on various forums.  They change the meaning of words to undermine what they stand for, to further their own agenda.  Even the words of dogma could be undermined by modernists, potentially.  It takes a carefully formulated sentence to be impenetrable to modernists.  That's why the Church and her authority is absolutely critical to fighting modernism.  It takes more than clinging to traditional formulation to fight against it.  It takes proclaiming the truths of the church among every generation, even in new ways, while remaining in the Church and still proclaiming the same truth.

So really, any rejection of Vatican II is misguided.  It is a simpleton way of seeing Vatican II.  Rejecting Vatican II will lead to apostasy, and it has led not too few.  Take the messy approach and help others to see the truths that are present in Vatican II, if not sometimes in a less than perfectly clear way, by explaining them to the masses within the hermeneutic of continuity, not prompting them to abandon Vatican II.  There was a reason that the Holy Spirit prompted Blessed Pope John XXIII to call the Second Vatican council.  It is our mission to the world to accept the guidance of the Church Christ founded and yet remain in orthodoxy by clinging to the truths of the dogmas of the Catholic faith.  The two are not incompatible.

[Work it Out]

Catholic dogmas certainly are compatible with ecumenism. The problem is not with the Church but with confusing false ecumenism with true ecumenism. Catholic dogma is not at odds with true ecumenism which the church still proclaims, even if she has sometimes failed to practice it.

Catholica,

Thanks.  And I would hasten to add that both authentic Catholic dogma and true ecumenism can only be understood in the light of charity.

Vatican 2 is not true ecumenism since Vatican 2 is not compatible with infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church.

Describe to us what you perceive as "Vatican 2 ecumenism".  Provide church document statements to support your assertions that you have correctly perceived "Vatican 2 ecumenism".  And please explain what makes you think that this ecumenism is not compatible with dogma.

Vatican II council hijacked by Freemasons, communists and Modernist

I have learned much about Vatican II and the influences there, and I don't doubt that the devil was trying to undermine Vatican II.  And I do believe that the documents of Vatican II were too vague, and this vagueness was encouraged by modernists and brought about by modernists. 

However that is not a reason to undermine Vatican II and act as if it was a false council.  It was not.  What is important is to carefully interpret Vatican II in light of the dogmatic teachings of the Church, as Pope Benedict XVI stated, with a "hermeneutic of continuity".  Within that framework, we can avoid the ways the vague language of those documents allows modernists to undermine the true teachings of the Catholic Church, and then we can actually understand the good message that Vatican II conveyed.

I'm not willing to sit through an hour long video/audio cast to try to figure out what you are saying.  It has been said before and there is truth in what the priest was saying at the beginning.  So what if modernists were trying to undermine the faith, if masons were infiltrating.  Its all happened before.  They will never be successful because Christ is behind the Catholic Church.  In concert with the demons, masons and modernists have had some success in some circles.  That's why dogmas are important, they keep us grounded against the forces of evil and revolution.  That's why, rather than saying that Vatican II is incompatible with dogmas, it is only correct to say that Vatican II is only correctly interpreted when dogmas are considered.  This will help us to avoid modernist interpretations.

I have experienced what a mind bender modernist thinking is, having run into a couple on various forums.  They change the meaning of words to undermine what they stand for, to further their own agenda.  Even the words of dogma could be undermined by modernists, potentially.  It takes a carefully formulated sentence to be impenetrable to modernists.  That's why the Church and her authority is absolutely critical to fighting modernism.  It takes more than clinging to traditional formulation to fight against it.  It takes proclaiming the truths of the church among every generation, even in new ways, while remaining in the Church and still proclaiming the same truth.

So really, any rejection of Vatican II is misguided.  It is a simpleton way of seeing Vatican II.  Rejecting Vatican II will lead to apostasy, and it has led not too few.  Take the messy approach and help others to see the truths that are present in Vatican II, if not sometimes in a less than perfectly clear way, by explaining them to the masses within the hermeneutic of continuity, not prompting them to abandon Vatican II.  There was a reason that the Holy Spirit prompted Blessed Pope John XXIII to call the Second Vatican council.  It is our mission to the world to accept the guidance of the Church Christ founded and yet remain in orthodoxy by clinging to the truths of the dogmas of the Catholic faith.  The two are not incompatible.

If you do not believe the Infallible teachings of the Catholic Church, you are an anathema. Do you believe the Infallible teachings of the Catholic Church?

[AVZ]

If you do not believe the Infallible teachings of the Catholic Church, you are an anathema. Do you believe the Infallible teachings of the Catholic Church?

Absolutely. The ones that are true are definitely infallible.

[AVZ]

If you do not believe the Infallible teachings of the Catholic Church, you are an anathema. Do you believe the Infallible teachings of the Catholic Church?

Absolutely. The ones that are true are definitely infallible.

[Catholica]

Catholic dogmas certainly are compatible with ecumenism. The problem is not with the Church but with confusing false ecumenism with true ecumenism. Catholic dogma is not at odds with true ecumenism which the church still proclaims, even if she has sometimes failed to practice it.

Catholica,

Thanks.  And I would hasten to add that both authentic Catholic dogma and true ecumenism can only be understood in the light of charity.

Vatican 2 is not true ecumenism since Vatican 2 is not compatible with infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church.

Describe to us what you perceive as "Vatican 2 ecumenism".  Provide church document statements to support your assertions that you have correctly perceived "Vatican 2 ecumenism".  And please explain what makes you think that this ecumenism is not compatible with dogma.

Vatican II council hijacked by Freemasons, communists and Modernist

I have learned much about Vatican II and the influences there, and I don't doubt that the devil was trying to undermine Vatican II.  And I do believe that the documents of Vatican II were too vague, and this vagueness was encouraged by modernists and brought about by modernists. 

However that is not a reason to undermine Vatican II and act as if it was a false council.  It was not.  What is important is to carefully interpret Vatican II in light of the dogmatic teachings of the Church, as Pope Benedict XVI stated, with a "hermeneutic of continuity".  Within that framework, we can avoid the ways the vague language of those documents allows modernists to undermine the true teachings of the Catholic Church, and then we can actually understand the good message that Vatican II conveyed.

I'm not willing to sit through an hour long video/audio cast to try to figure out what you are saying.  It has been said before and there is truth in what the priest was saying at the beginning.  So what if modernists were trying to undermine the faith, if masons were infiltrating.  Its all happened before.  They will never be successful because Christ is behind the Catholic Church.  In concert with the demons, masons and modernists have had some success in some circles.  That's why dogmas are important, they keep us grounded against the forces of evil and revolution.  That's why, rather than saying that Vatican II is incompatible with dogmas, it is only correct to say that Vatican II is only correctly interpreted when dogmas are considered.  This will help us to avoid modernist interpretations.

I have experienced what a mind bender modernist thinking is, having run into a couple on various forums.  They change the meaning of words to undermine what they stand for, to further their own agenda.  Even the words of dogma could be undermined by modernists, potentially.  It takes a carefully formulated sentence to be impenetrable to modernists.  That's why the Church and her authority is absolutely critical to fighting modernism.  It takes more than clinging to traditional formulation to fight against it.  It takes proclaiming the truths of the church among every generation, even in new ways, while remaining in the Church and still proclaiming the same truth.

So really, any rejection of Vatican II is misguided.  It is a simpleton way of seeing Vatican II.  Rejecting Vatican II will lead to apostasy, and it has led not too few.  Take the messy approach and help others to see the truths that are present in Vatican II, if not sometimes in a less than perfectly clear way, by explaining them to the masses within the hermeneutic of continuity, not prompting them to abandon Vatican II.  There was a reason that the Holy Spirit prompted Blessed Pope John XXIII to call the Second Vatican council.  It is our mission to the world to accept the guidance of the Church Christ founded and yet remain in orthodoxy by clinging to the truths of the dogmas of the Catholic faith.  The two are not incompatible.

If you do not believe the Infallible teachings of the Catholic Church, you are an anathema. Do you believe the Infallible teachings of the Catholic Church?

I do believe the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church.  Why do you ask?

Do you agree with this statement?

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.

At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand.

Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a "hierarchy" of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith. Thus the way will be opened by which through fraternal rivalry all will be stirred to a deeper understanding and a clearer presentation of the unfathomable riches of Christ.

[Work it Out]

Enemies And Those Outside The Church
The Lord has also commanded us, to pray for those that persecute and calumniate us. The practice of praying
for those who are not within the pale of the Church, is, as we know on the authority of St. Augustine, of
Apostolic origin. We pray that the faith may be made known to infidels; that idolaters may be rescued from the
error of their impiety; that the Jews, emerging from the darkness with which they are encompassed, may arrive
at the light of truth; that heretics, returning to soundness of mind, may be instructed in the Catholic faith; and
that schismatics may be united in the bond of true charity and may return to the communion of their holy
mother, the Church, from which they have separated.

Many examples prove that prayers for such as these are very efficacious when offered from the heart. Instances
occur every day in which God rescues individuals of every condition of life from the powers of darkness, and
transfers them into the kingdom of His Beloved Son, from vessels of wrath making them vessels of mercy. That
the prayers of the pious have very great influence in bringing about this result no one can reasonably doubt.

[epiphanius]

I have learned much about Vatican II and the influences there, and I don't doubt that the devil was trying to undermine Vatican II.

From what I know of Church Councils, this hardly makes it unique among them.

And I do believe that the documents of Vatican II were too vague, and this vagueness was encouraged by modernists and brought about by modernists.

I'm not sure if that's entirely true.  Previous councils sought to define things with great precision, and sometimes brought about new problems in the process--the problem being that human language is extremely limited when attempting to deal with divine truths.  An example of this would be Chalcedon, which produced beautiful statements about the Trinity of God and the Incarnation of Christ, and yet led to the alienation of the Churches of Egypt and Armenia, who to this day refer to themselves as "Non-Calcedonian." 

Their theologians have been in dialogue with both the Catholic and Orthodox churches since the 1960s, and all parties now agree that neither Egypt nor Armenia ever taught what was condemned at Chalcedon.  (There are still some issues that remain, however, one of them being that they cannot be reconciled with both Rome and Constantinople at the same time!)

[Catholica]

Enemies And Those Outside The Church
The Lord has also commanded us, to pray for those that persecute and calumniate us. The practice of praying
for those who are not within the pale of the Church, is, as we know on the authority of St. Augustine, of
Apostolic origin. We pray that the faith may be made known to infidels; that idolaters may be rescued from the
error of their impiety; that the Jews, emerging from the darkness with which they are encompassed, may arrive
at the light of truth; that heretics, returning to soundness of mind, may be instructed in the Catholic faith; and
that schismatics may be united in the bond of true charity and may return to the communion of their holy
mother, the Church, from which they have separated.

Many examples prove that prayers for such as these are very efficacious when offered from the heart. Instances
occur every day in which God rescues individuals of every condition of life from the powers of darkness, and
transfers them into the kingdom of His Beloved Son, from vessels of wrath making them vessels of mercy. That
the prayers of the pious have very great influence in bringing about this result no one can reasonably doubt.

Ministers In Case Of Necessity

Those who may administer Baptism in case of necessity, but without its solemn ceremonies, hold the last place; and in this class are included all, even the laity, men and women, to whatever sect they may belong. This office extends in case of necessity, even to Jews, infidels and heretics, provided, however, they intend to do what the Catholic Church does in that act of her ministry. These things were established by many decrees of the ancient Fathers and Councils; and the holy Council of Trent denounces anathema against those who dare to say, that Baptism, even when administered by heretics, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true Baptism.

Fourth Effect Of Baptism: Infused Virtues And Incorporation With Christ

This grace is accompanied by a most splendid train of all virtues, which are divinely infused into the soul along with grace. Hence, when writing to Titus, the Apostle says: He saved us by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost, whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour. St. Augustine, in explanation of the words, poured forth abundantly, says: that is, for the remission of sins and for abundance of virtues.

By Baptism we are also united to Christ, as members to their Head. As therefore from the head proceeds the power by which the different members of the body are moved to the proper performance of their respective functions, so from the fullness of Christ the Lord are diffused divine grace and virtue through all those who are justified, qualifying them for the performance of all the duties of Christian piety.

Fifth Effect Of Baptism: Character Of Christian

By Baptism, moreover, we are sealed with a character that can never be effaced from the soul. On this point, however, we need not speak at length, for what we have already sufficiently said on the subject, when treating of the Sacraments in general, may be applied here.

[Catholica]

I have learned much about Vatican II and the influences there, and I don't doubt that the devil was trying to undermine Vatican II.

From what I know of Church Councils, this hardly makes it unique among them.

I don't doubt it.

And I do believe that the documents of Vatican II were too vague, and this vagueness was encouraged by modernists and brought about by modernists.

I'm not sure if that's entirely true.  Previous councils sought to define things with great precision, and sometimes brought about new problems in the process--the problem being that human language is extremely limited when attempting to deal with divine truths.  An example of this would be Chalcedon, which produced beautiful statements about the Trinity of God and the Incarnation of Christ, and yet led to the alienation of the Churches of Egypt and Armenia, who to this day refer to themselves as "Non-Calcedonian."

Their theologians have been in dialogue with both the Catholic and Orthodox churches since the 1960s, and all parties now agree that neither Egypt nor Armenia ever taught what was condemned at Chalcedon.  (There are still some issues that remain, however, one of them being that they cannot be reconciled with both Rome and Constantinople at the same time!)

I think the Vatican II document on the liturgy was too vague and was wrongly interpreted by liturgists post-Vatican II. That is not to say that I believe that the Novus Ordo is invalid; I submit to the authority of the Church and believe that it is in the Pope's jurisdiction to change the mass, and I attend Novus Ordo masses nearly every week, with the rare Extraordinary Form once in awhile (though my kids find the High Latin mass too long).  Oh I also attended a Byzantine Catholic Liturgy one time. :-)

I see the statement you made about Chalcedon interesting.  The document itself though was accurate, though perhaps the understanding of what was taught by those churches of Egypt and Armenia was not accurately understood.  I think true dialog (a dialog coming from truth and understanding) the kind promoted by Vatican II could probably have helped avoid that schism, but we always have to remember that dialog was not as easy then as it was today.  Communication lines were not quite as efficient.  At least, that could be one reason, another might be simple pride and impatience or even righteous prudence too hastily applied.

But it seems that it wasn't an accurately written document that was the problem at Chalcedon, but rather an incomplete understanding of what another group believed.  Even precise documents need to be explained and understood.  That's why we have a living Church, and that's why true dialog as promoted by Vatican II is a good thing for ecumenism.

I guess its sort of more "conspiracy theorist" than I usually like to be to make the statement that I made above.  I think in general the documents of Vatican II are quite good and I believe, correct, when interpreted within the hermeneutic of continuity.

[BlackSepulcher]

Do you as a Catholic love Catholic Dogma or modern ecumenism more?

Keep in mind that the Dogmatic Councils of the Catholic Church are not compatible with modern ecumenism.

They are of the same driving force.


THE SPIRIT

[epiphanius]

Do you agree with this statement?

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.

At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand.

Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a "hierarchy" of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith. Thus the way will be opened by which through fraternal rivalry all will be stirred to a deeper understanding and a clearer presentation of the unfathomable riches of Christ.

Catholica,

Thanks for posting this--Article 11 of Unitatis Redintegratio really highlights the vital distinction between true ecumenism and denial of Catholic dogma.   The fact remains that no matter how precisely we have sought to express the truth of the Gospel by dogmatic statements, we still "see in a mirror, dimly" (c.f. 1Cor. 13:12), and there is always the possibility of explaining the Faith "more profoundly and precisely."

Furthermore, the Faith itself is not merely a collection of affirmations about God, or even our assent to those affirmations, but the opening of our hearts to God himself--made possible by ("actual") grace--and our subsequent sharing in the divine life (a.k.a. "sanctifying grace").

Now, while the part that says "... in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand" sounds somewhat condescending (i.e. implying that the Catholic understanding is fundamentally superior), I would contend that real ecumenical dialogue involves the sharing of perspectives, which enables all parties to see more clearly the divine truth that lies beyond the words.

[AnnaM]

Do you as a Catholic love Catholic Dogma or modern ecumenism more?

Keep in mind that the Dogmatic Councils of the Catholic Church are not compatible with modern ecumenism.

I love Catholic dogma. The modern ecumenism you're referring to it false ecumenism.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#10), Jan. 6, 1928: "... the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it ..."