ECUMENISM: Post Vatican II - Help or Hurt RCC?


#1

Since Vatican II the hierarchy and clerics have practiced a type of Ecumenism not evident before that Council, at least in modern times to my knowledge. Do you believe that this ecumenical movement has improved the holiness of the Catholic Church or has been detrimental. My personal feelings are expressed by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical, Mortalium Animos.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11Morta.HTM


#2

Define what you think Ecumenism is and what the Church after Vatican II thinks it is.


#3

[quote=cmom]Define what you think Ecumenism is and what the Church after Vatican II thinks it is.
[/quote]

My very brief definition of Ecumenism is that effort to unite and re-unite all religious beliefs (but most importantly Christian denominations) into the One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church. My question is not about what the CHURCH believes, but about the practices of many in the hierarchy and many priests.

I see many accepting the de-emphasizing of the dogmas concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary; many avoiding declaring that ONLY the Catholic Church has the fullness of Truth, avoiding the Truth that no other “church” has the fullness of Truth. I see many movements to protestantize the Church go unchallenged. I see an almost complete lack of condemnation of heresy (anathema sit), including heresy from the Catholic pulpit.

As stated in the referenced thread, I am in complete agreement with the Pius XI encyclical, Mortalium Animos.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11Morta.HTM


#4

[quote=GeorgeCooney]My very brief definition of Ecumenism is that effort to unite and re-unite all religious beliefs (but most importantly Christian denominations) into the One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church. My question is not about what the CHURCH believes, but about the practices of many in the hierarchy and many priests.

I see many accepting the de-emphasizing of the dogmas concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary; many avoiding declaring that ONLY the Catholic Church has the fullness of Truth, avoiding the Truth that no other “church” has the fullness of Truth. I see many movements to protestantize the Church go unchallenged. I see an almost complete lack of condemnation of heresy (anathema sit), including heresy from the Catholic pulpit.

As stated in the referenced thread, I am in complete agreement with the Pius XI encyclical, Mortalium Animos.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11Morta.HTM
[/quote]

I know very little actually, so my comments may be misguided, but here goes anyway. It seems to me that when you compare, say, the Council of Trent with that of Vatican II, the latter just is not quite so full of solemn dogmas as was the former. When one thinks of Trent, as least bearing in mind the Protestants, one thinks of the various (or numerous) “anathemas.” When one thinks of Vatican II this does not seem to be so much the case. So, if in practice there has been a shift away from so strong an adherence to solemn dogmas, as you say there has been among “many” could we really fault them so much? This would seem to simply be in keeping with the spirit of the latest ecumenical Council. And you say, “many avoiding declaring that ONLY the Catholic Church has the fullness of Truth.” I recall reading in Sullivan’s somewhat recent book on the Magisterium that the original draft of the line from Vatican II which reads “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church” went like this: “The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.” Again, this would seem to be following the spirit of the Council if “many” are doing what you seem to think they are.

Don’t get me wrong, I have an antecedent commitment to the ecumenical Councils of the Church as being truly guided over by the Spirit of God. So, I would never challenge the teachings of the Councils. But, at the same time, infallibility is the property of the Church, not inspiration. Sure, God could have said many of the truths of Vatican II better than they were said. And maybe the fullness of truth remains to be seen in some of the areas addressed by Vatican II specifically because it wasn’t solemn enough. Who knows? But, at least if we rest in the Church, we know that at the very least nothing was in error in the most recent Council, though perhaps truths could have been expressed better to give further clarification of the apostolic deposit.

Que piensas?


#5

By their fruits you shall know them. I think that the “false ecumenism” that has been propagated by many priests and religious in the years following the Second Vatican Council has led to the decrease in vocations and understanding of the faith in general. While Vatican II stated the proper form of ecumenism, some have run with the mistaken idea that it “changed everything” and opened salvation to everyone. In this “Spirit of Vatican II”, many misguided people, both clergy and laity, have watered down the faith for the sake of appealing to more people.


#6

Some thoughts:

  1. Vatican II was focused primarily on matters of discipline. Likewise the Novus Ordo was instituted as a matter of discipline. Discipline is not protected by infallibility.

  2. The spirit of the time was alive and well even among the clergy who participated. We see the influence of the sixties in its fruits.

  3. God allowed the changes to be made. It is likely that He intends to made good come out Vatican II, even if it is in bad judgement.

  4. Doctrine is demonstrated through the validity of the minimalist Novus Ordo Mass. It is now more obvious to those of us who follow Rome’s lead what the essentials of the Sacraments are.

  5. As we (including many converts for Protestantism) gain an understanding of the essentials, we are filled with a desire to adorn those essentials appropriately.

  6. Young priests are making the Tabernacle prominent once again. They are renewing an empahasis on Penance. They are introducing more and more Latin into the Novus Ordo.

  7. The laity is following the lead of these young and faithful priests.

Perhaps our Lord has designed this to be an evangelistic descent?


#7

You all my find the following informative:

“Pre-Vatican II Ecumenism”

  1. Vatican II was focused primarily on matters of discipline. Likewise the Novus Ordo was instituted as a matter of discipline. Discipline is not protected by infallibility.

Yes and no.

First, the Council did issue two Dogmatic Constitutions (i.e. Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum).

Secondly, there is a sense in which disciplinary decisions are infallible. For example, the Church can never impose upon the faithful a sacramental rite that is invalid.

Thirdly, Vatican II did infallibly settle many issues that till then were controversial. These include:

  1. The sub-diaconate is not a sacrament, but only a sacramental. 2) Consecration to the episcopate is not a new sacrament but rather the fullness of the sacrament of orders. 3) The Council of Trent did not declare that Scripture and Tradition were 2 separate sources but two parts of the same source – Divine Revelation. 4) The details of religious liberty in relation to the state were defined solemnly and definitively.5) The Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of the Church and is properly understood as a member of the Church. (ie, Mariology is most properly subsumed under ecclesiology rather than Christology.) 6) Lumen Gentium Chapter 25 provides the watershed understanding of the doctrine of infallibility and completes the work that VCI was not able to deal with in 1870 and which Pius XII dealt with partially in Humani Generis. There is no more comprehensive explication and defense of the Magisterium in any other Magisterial document. There are other important issues but these are the ones that come to mind at the moment.

Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council, and therefore infallible. If not by Extraordinary Magisterium, then certainly by Ordinary.


#8

And this indirect settling of doctrine is alluded to in my comments above.

Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council, and therefore infallible. If not by Extraordinary Magisterium, then certainly by Ordinary.

To the extent that it defined doctrines, yes. To the extent that it implemented policy, no, because policy may be changed. In disciplinary matters the Council speaks with authority and thus should be followed. This is to be contrasted with infallibility, which is more closely related to belief.


#9

Jesus has but one flock and He gave the ‘keys’ of authority to the Shepard (Now called Pope) to care for His flock. When a sheep strays is it not the Shepard’s job to find the lost sheep and bring it back?

How can our Church do its job if we do not communicate with other religions and shine our light so that others may follow? Other churches also have lights that might even help us?

We are all Christians but not all united in one truth. Ecumenism is good and I think Jesus would be happy that all Christians, or at least some, are trying to act like Christians and be united under Him as was His wish.

God loves all His children. We should be one flock not 33,000+.

Jn 10:16 “I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.”

Jn 17:11 “Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are.”

Rom 13:1-4 “Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. 2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, 4 for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.”

Act 2:42-44 “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, …All who believed were together and had all things in common…”

Mal 2:10 “10 Have we not all the one Father? Has not the one God created us? Why then do we break faith with each other, violating the covenant of our fathers?

Mt 12:25 “25 …"Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste, and no town or house divided against itself will stand.”

Mt 24:10-13 “10 And then many will be led into sin; they will betray and hate one another. 11 Many false prophets will arise and deceive many; 12 and because of the increase of evildoing, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.”

Etc, etc, etc…

Malachi4U


#10

A few observations regarding Vatican II.

Vatican II reached out to non-Catholics. This is a necessary start to meaningful discussions with non-Catholics.

Vatican II reaffirmed the previous Councils, noe dogma or doctrines were “changed” though disciplines were.

Regarding Catholic theologians and clergy who promote dissent in the “Spirit of Vatican II”. There were many dissenters before Vatican II (Saint Pius X addressed the Modernists for example) and the previous councils were called to address controversies etc. So the mission of the Church to proclaim the Truth will continue.

We now have the teachings of the Vatican II Popes, Blessed John XXIII, Paul VI (life of John Paul I) John Paul II that are so helpful and "updated’ to guide us that I believe the Second Vatican Council is truely a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Read the Bible (RSV -CE, NAB and Jerusalem) and the CCC then go to all the references and you will see what I am talking about.


#11

**Its been my feeling that the American bishops went too far in ecumentizing the Mass. A fix that didn’t need fixing.

There were plenty of good English translations of the old Mass if they needed a vernacular Mass. Trying to make it more palpable to Protestants hasn’t resulted in any stampeded to the Church. The other why around it has alienated many Catholics, Lord spare us from the newest is truest the latest is the greatest crowd.

TOM
**


#12

I think that Vatican II had more of a negative affect on the catholic church than a positive effect. After the council there has been less stress on many of the doctrines. I also think that it has made it more easy for people to abuse the mass.
Since then many catholics don’t know many of there doctrines - you must be in Gods grace to recieve communion - and this causes people to abuse the body of Christ.

I believe that it was a valid council but I also think that what was said in the council was misused and stretched.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.