Ecumenism-Why the Euphoria and what is the Gain for Catholics?

The question is asked, what does the Catholic Church gain by continuing on this dangerous path of Ecumenism?


All Religions on the Same Footing

The great danger of ecumenism is that it places all religions on the same footing. Modern ecumenism would have us believe that all men of whatever religious persuasion are equally “on their way to God.” They are merely taking different means to get there… so if you re a Protestant, be a GOOD Protestant, if you’re a Jew, be a GOOD Jew, if you’re a Moslem, be a GOOD MOSLEM, if you’re a Hindu, be a GOOD Hindu. God is portrayed as being at the summit of a mountain, and there are many roads and paths up that mountain that lead to Him. ANY MAN IS FREE TO CHOOSE THE PATH HE WILL. TO GOD IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHICH ROAD A MAN CHOOSES TO COME TO HIM. CERTAINLY NO MAN CAN DECLARE HIMSELF TO HAVE THE “ONLY WAY!”

Why is Ecumenism to be avoided?

Modern Ecumenism is to be avoided because it is a false principle “concealed beneath the mask of virtue.” It can only operate to the destruction of the Catholic Church. The most striking problems are:

1) IT SUBVERTS THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST.

The mission of the Church is the mission of Christ. Christ came to redeem man from sin and teach him what he must believe and do in order to gain salvation. Christ came also to govern and sanctify… and we must accept the full message of Christ, not a slim or distorted portion of it.

2) IT PLACES A MERE EXTERNAL/MATERIAL UNION OF RELIGIOUS BODIES AS ITS HIGHEST POSSIBLE GOOD.
Theological truth and the acceptance of it is no longer the primary aspect of religion. (It should be noted that no other religious body has made such sweeping changes for the sake of Ecumenism than has the post-Vatican II Church. Protestants, Jews, Moslems, etc. have not changed anything… only Catholicism.)

3) THE FIRST CASUALTY IN THE SEARCH FOR UNITY IS CATHOLIC UNITY

The authorities in our Holy Church have sacrificed their own unity on the altar of ecumenism causing a severe fragmentation of the Catholic Church. ECUMENISM IS UNITY AT THE EXPENSE OF CATHOLICISM!

May Catholics Question Vatican II’s Ecumenism?

Vatican ll was not a doctrinal Council… it did not make any solemn definitions binding our conscience on Faith and Morals. It was a pastoral Council… a Council for guiding souls. We may therefore, be permitted to ask “To where have we been guided?” This does not mean, however, that Catholics and non-Catholics cannot work together in the civil order for the common good, particularly within the very household of the Faith.

The Only True Unity: The Catholic Church

No matter what the odds, we must diligently and unceasingly work toward all men coming within the fold of the one true Church. As far as Christ is concerned, nothing else will do. Even if this idea seems “next to impossible” in our day - another illusion - we must not abandon this ideal, for the eternal salvation of the non-Catholic depends on it. It is only cowardice, lack of conviction, and a distorted notion of Christian Charity that looks to ecumenism for the answer. Let us fervently pray that perhaps, through the grace of God, we may return to the Catholic principle of Pope Pius XI who in his no-nonsense 1928 Encyclical Mortalium Animos,(ON FOSTERING TRUE RELIGIOUS UNITY) left no room for doubt:

*"lt seems opportune to expound and refute a certain false opinion on which that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring union of Christian Churches depends. They add that the Church, in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections, that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remains separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless, disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and thus, in their contention, the Church was one and undivided from, at the most, the Apostolic age until the First Ecumenical Council. Controversies, therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion, which have kept asunder till the present day members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and for the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers… *

Crusader,

Just a couple of comments on your post. First, there is an erroneous assumption about the status of the Second Vatican Council. You call it a “pastoral council” – but there is no such beast. There are local synods of councils and ecumenical councils. The Second Vatican Council was, indeed, an ecumenical council. It happened to have a pastoral focus since Pope John XXIII stated he did not want to address dogmatic or doctrinal issues that had already been resolved. Nevertheless, the Council did address issues of infallibilty clarifying the teaching of the First Vatican Council. Thus, claims that one can “question” or ignore aspects of the Second Vatican Council are not in keeping with the teaching of the Church.

You have also misrepresented the Church’s understanding of ecumenicsm. It does not place all religions on an equal footing, but it does respect the Truth where it is found, whether in the Catholic Church or in a faith community not in communion with Rome. God works where God will, and we have to recognize His hand when we see it.

Finally, the whole purpose of the Church is to continue the saving mission of Jesus on earth. In order to do that we must “proclaim the Good News to all the earth.” That includes those who hold other beliefs. Yet we must do so beginning with what we have in common so that we can understand each other and find a vocabulary that allows us to dialog, to show what we have and what others are lacking. Only when this is done with respect can we follow the command of Jesus to “love one another as I have loved you.”

Deacon Ed

[quote=Deacon Ed]Crusader,

Only when this is done with respect can we follow the command of Jesus to “love one another as I have loved you.”
[/quote]

Well done!

[quote=Deacon Ed]Crusader,

Just a couple of comments on your post. First, there is an erroneous assumption about the status of the Second Vatican Council. You call it a “pastoral council” – but there is no such beast. There are local synods of councils and ecumenical councils. The Second Vatican Council was, indeed, an ecumenical council. It happened to have a pastoral focus since Pope John XXIII stated he did not want to address dogmatic or doctrinal issues that had already been resolved. Nevertheless, the Council did address issues of infallibilty clarifying the teaching of the First Vatican Council. Thus, claims that one can “question” or ignore aspects of the Second Vatican Council are not in keeping with the teaching of the Church.

You have also misrepresented the Church’s understanding of ecumenicsm. It does not place all religions on an equal footing, but it does respect the Truth where it is found, whether in the Catholic Church or in a faith community not in communion with Rome. God works where God will, and we have to recognize His hand when we see it.

Finally, the whole purpose of the Church is to continue the saving mission of Jesus on earth. In order to do that we must “proclaim the Good News to all the earth.” That includes those who hold other beliefs. Yet we must do so beginning with what we have in common so that we can understand each other and find a vocabulary that allows us to dialog, to show what we have and what others are lacking. Only when this is done with respect can we follow the command of Jesus to “love one another as I have loved you.”

Deacon Ed
[/quote]

Most excellent, Deacon! Your post is an excellent antitdote to triumphalism and spiritual pride, not to mention misinformation.

Deacon, So I guess then that you know more than Pope Pius XI. With all due respect, and I note that your peanut gallery consisted of an Orthodox and ultra liberal catholic who would love for the church to sell out. The orthodox I mention continues to post “questions” that are loaded and have an agenda to them that are meant to weaken the church and sell out to the Orthodox.

The ecumenical movement as it exists today owes its origin to a conference of Protestant missionaries at Edinburgh in 1910. Its original purpose was among Protestant missionaries of different denominations to promote a spirit of collaboration in order to “evangelize” the pagan world. Doctrinal differences were to be played down… unity of action and what was held in common by all was to be exalted.
It was during this time that Charles Brent, an American Episcopal Bishop of the Philippines conceived the idea of assembling a great conference of delegates from all Christian confessions. A second conference was formed shortly after by Brent called the “Conference on Faith and Order.” In 1919, the Holy See being invited to send delegates, politely declined. Pope Benedict XV explained that although his earnest desire was one fold and one shepherd, it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to join with others in search of unity. As for the Church of Christ, it is already one and could not give the appearance of searching for itself or for its own unity. It is reported that the Holy Father did not disapprove of the movement as something outside the Catholic Church, but by his own words it is obvious he knew it was not only futile, but dangerous and even scandalous to the Catholic Faithful to participate in seeking unity in such a manner.

It was through this movement that the World Council of Churches was born.

This movement was criticized by Pope after Pope until the modernists stole the Council. So please expand on, and you did not answer the question as to what the church is gaining by this distortion that all paths lead to heaven, what you stated is just a portion of the church position on ecumenism, and yes you can find some truth possibly any religion, but again, what you are saying is actually hersey as the church is indefectible and contains the WHOLE truth, not part, and if you dont believe that then maybe the seminaries are not teaching what they should be (and I know they are not as I know from first hand experience as most are now filled with liberal formation directors, nuns who want to be ordained, and a gay contingent that makes any God fearing, orthodox seminarian feel out of place because he is not dating another man).

[quote=Deacon Ed]Crusader,

Just a couple of comments on your post. First, there is an erroneous assumption about the status of the Second Vatican Council. You call it a “pastoral council” – but there is no such beast. There are local synods of councils and ecumenical councils. The Second Vatican Council was, indeed, an ecumenical council. It happened to have a pastoral focus since Pope John XXIII stated he did not want to address dogmatic or doctrinal issues that had already been resolved. Nevertheless, the Council did address issues of infallibilty clarifying the teaching of the First Vatican Council. Thus, claims that one can “question” or ignore aspects of the Second Vatican Council are not in keeping with the teaching of the Church.

You have also misrepresented the Church’s understanding of ecumenicsm. It does not place all religions on an equal footing, but it does respect the Truth where it is found, whether in the Catholic Church or in a faith community not in communion with Rome. God works where God will, and we have to recognize His hand when we see it.

Finally, the whole purpose of the Church is to continue the saving mission of Jesus on earth. In order to do that we must “proclaim the Good News to all the earth.” That includes those who hold other beliefs. Yet we must do so beginning with what we have in common so that we can understand each other and find a vocabulary that allows us to dialog, to show what we have and what others are lacking. Only when this is done with respect can we follow the command of Jesus to “love one another as I have loved you.”

Deacon Ed
[/quote]

**

1) IT SUBVERTS THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST.

**

I do love my neo-traditionalist friends, the keep me entertained.

Of course, the theology of the Mystical Body of Christ was very controversial in the early 20th century and unwelcome by the conservative elements of the Church. It was a development of the liturgical renewal and stridently denounced by the conservative Archbishop Conrad Graber of Freiburg in part of his overall condemnation of the liturgical reform movement.

**Grober’s (in)famous letter was answered by Pius XII in 1943 with his letter endorsing the theology of the Mystical Body fo Christ to the great joy of the proponents of liturgical renewal. **

**Even today SSPX and some neo-traditionalists groups within the Church cite Grober’s letter as the unheard warning against all that was to come. **

[quote=CrusaderNY]Deacon, So I guess then that you know more than Pope Pius XI. With all due respect, and I note that your peanut gallery consisted of an Orthodox and ultra liberal catholic who would love for the church to sell out. The orthodox I mention continues to post “questions” that are loaded and have an agenda to them that are meant to weaken the church and sell out to the Orthodox.

The ecumenical movement as it exists today owes its origin to a conference of Protestant missionaries at Edinburgh in 1910. Its original purpose was among Protestant missionaries of different denominations to promote a spirit of collaboration in order to “evangelize” the pagan world. Doctrinal differences were to be played down… unity of action and what was held in common by all was to be exalted.
It was during this time that Charles Brent, an American Episcopal Bishop of the Philippines conceived the idea of assembling a great conference of delegates from all Christian confessions. A second conference was formed shortly after by Brent called the “Conference on Faith and Order.” In 1919, the Holy See being invited to send delegates, politely declined. Pope Benedict XV explained that although his earnest desire was one fold and one shepherd, it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to join with others in search of unity. As for the Church of Christ, it is already one and could not give the appearance of searching for itself or for its own unity. It is reported that the Holy Father did not disapprove of the movement as something outside the Catholic Church, but by his own words it is obvious he knew it was not only futile, but dangerous and even scandalous to the Catholic Faithful to participate in seeking unity in such a manner.

It was through this movement that the World Council of Churches was born.

This movement was criticized by Pope after Pope until the modernists stole the Council. So please expand on, and you did not answer the question as to what the church is gaining by this distortion that all paths lead to heaven, what you stated is just a portion of the church position on ecumenism, and yes you can find some truth possibly any religion, but again, what you are saying is actually hersey as the church is indefectible and contains the WHOLE truth, not part, and if you dont believe that then maybe the seminaries are not teaching what they should be (and I know they are not as I know from first hand experience as most are now filled with liberal formation directors, nuns who want to be ordained, and a gay contingent that makes any God fearing, orthodox seminarian feel out of place because he is not dating another man).
[/quote]

Once again, you’ve called me a liberal, when all I’m trying to be is a faithful Catholic, in obedience to the Pope and the Magisterium. My friends who are actually liberal would find the accusation laughable, but forge ahead, it’s terribly constructive. The deacon pointed out your errors about the Council. He also clarified, for people who might take your posting as the actual teaching of the Church on the subject of our relations with our seperated brethren, what the Catechism and the Pope have said. And he managed to do it all with charity And, may I ask, where did you get the origianl post? Was it yours? If not, could you cite sources and provide us with a link, if applicable? Thanks!

The ecumenism promoted by today’s post-Conciliar leaders would have horrified any pre-Vatican II pope. Take for example the 1993 Directory for the Application of the Principle and Norms of Ecumenism, from the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

This Directory “mandates” ecumenism into every aspect of Church life, and encourages numerous unprecedented interfaith practices that have always been condemned by the Church as grave sins against Faith.

The Directory:
[list]
]• allows Protestants to conduct the readings (except the Gospel) in a Catholic Church #133]
• encourages common “spiritual exercises” and “retreats” between Catholics and Protestants #114]
• allows non-Catholics to lecture in seminaries #81]
• commands that young children be taught ecumenism in the schools #68]
• mandates ecumenism for priests and religious in their years of formation #'s 51, 70]
• commands priests to take part in the "continuous aggiornamento" of ecumenical teaching and practice #91]
• encourages diocesan bishops to
lend their parish churches to non-Catholics* for their prayer services #137]
• promotes interdenominational prayer-services among Catholics and Protestants in each other’s churches #112]
• encourages the joint publication of an interdenominational Bible between Catholics and Protestants #185]
• discourages Catholics from attempting to convert non-Catholics #'s 23, 79, 81, 125]
• encourages Catholics to “rejoice in the grace of God” in Protestants #206]
• recommends the construction of a single church to be owned and used by both Catholics and non-Catholics #138]
• further recommends that in these joint churches, the Blessed Sacrament be placed in a separate chapel or room so as not to offend non-believers. #139].
[/list]This document was produced under the leadership of Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy, who was then Prefect of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Cardinal Cassidy’s successor is Cardinal Walter Kasper.

Cardinal Kasper is on record as telling Jews that the Old Covenant is still in force, and that they do not have to convert to the Catholic Church for salvation. Cardinal Cassidy and Baltimore’s Cardinal Keeler said the same thing, even though Scripture and defined Church doctrine teach infallibly that the Old Covenant is no longer in force and has been super- seded by the New Testanent.

Cardinal Kasper also said recently that Vatican II and *Ut Unum Sint, *“acknowledge explicitly that the Holy Spirit is operating in the other Churches and church communities. Consequently, there is no idea of an arrogant claim to a monopoly of salvation”. He compounded the outrage saying:

“Several aspects of being church are better realized in other churches. Therefore, ecumenism is no one-way street, but a reciprocal learning process, or, as stated in *Ut Unum Sint, *an exchange of gifts.****The way to unity is therefore not the return of others into the fold of the Catholic Church”**.

I used Spirit daily archives, EWTN, and sources that I have accumulated over the years of my education. Let it lie,

Peace to you Jkirk

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Once again, you’ve called me a liberal, when all I’m trying to be is a faithful Catholic, in obedience to the Pope and the Magisterium. My friends who are actually liberal would find the accusation laughable, but forge ahead, it’s terribly constructive. The deacon pointed out your errors about the Council. He also clarified, for people who might take your posting as the actual teaching of the Church on the subject of our relations with our seperated brethren, what the Catechism and the Pope have said. And he managed to do it all with charity And, may I ask, where did you get the origianl post? Was it yours? If not, could you cite sources and provide us with a link, if applicable? Thanks!
[/quote]

I used Spirit daily archives, EWTN, and sources that I have accumulated over the years of my education. I recant my assertion and as far as Vatican II, that would take an entire string as many theologians differ from what Deacon stated.
Peace to you Jkirk

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Once again, you’ve called me a liberal, when all I’m trying to be is a faithful Catholic, in obedience to the Pope and the Magisterium. My friends who are actually liberal would find the accusation laughable, but forge ahead, it’s terribly constructive. The deacon pointed out your errors about the Council. He also clarified, for people who might take your posting as the actual teaching of the Church on the subject of our relations with our seperated brethren, what the Catechism and the Pope have said. And he managed to do it all with charity And, may I ask, where did you get the origianl post? Was it yours? If not, could you cite sources and provide us with a link, if applicable? Thanks!
[/quote]

Yes, but whom are you quoting from those sources and in what context? Was this a cut and paste of one of their statements? It’s only fair to allow us to examine the documents that you cite. And peace to you as well.

[quote=CrusaderNY]Deacon, So I guess then that you know more than Pope Pius XI. With all due respect, and I note that your peanut gallery consisted of an Orthodox and ultra liberal catholic who would love for the church to sell out. The orthodox I mention continues to post “questions” that are loaded and have an agenda to them that are meant to weaken the church and sell out to the Orthodox.No, I don’t claim to know better than anyone. I claim to be a Son of the Church. I do know that Pope John XXIII said it was time to take a new approach since the “big stick” approach was not working. As for my support – they are children of God and, therefore, welcome to support me.
[/quote]

The ecumenical movement as it exists today owes its origin to a conference of Protestant missionaries at Edinburgh in 1910. Its original purpose was among Protestant missionaries of different denominations to promote a spirit of collaboration in order to “evangelize” the pagan world. Doctrinal differences were to be played down… unity of action and what was held in common by all was to be exalted.

Yes, that is the Protestant approach, but it is not the Catholic approach. We don’t downplay anything, but we do start from a common starting point in order to build a working vocabulary so that we can actually communicate instead of talking past each other.

It was during this time that Charles Brent, an American Episcopal Bishop of the Philippines conceived the idea of assembling a great conference of delegates from all Christian confessions. A second conference was formed shortly after by Brent called the “Conference on Faith and Order.” In 1919, the Holy See being invited to send delegates, politely declined. Pope Benedict XV explained that although his earnest desire was one fold and one shepherd, it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to join with others in search of unity.And I’m sure the pope was right given the situation and times in which this took place. That was nearly 100 years ago; the Know-Nothings are pretty much gone, and the Church has determined that the disciplines then in force should be changed. Of course, our dialog with other faith communites has struggled because we do not set aside our differences, but attempt to work through them and to understand what it is that sets us apart.

As for the Church of Christ, it is already one and could not give the appearance of searching for itself or for its own unity. It is reported that the Holy Father did not disapprove of the movement as something outside the Catholic Church, but by his own words it is obvious he knew it was not only futile, but dangerous and even scandalous to the Catholic Faithful to participate in seeking unity in such a manner.

And, yet, history tells us the Church thrives in times of persecution, in times when the faithful have to learn the teachings of the Church. And the unity of the Church is wounded because there are those who are outside the Church and yet claim to follow Christ. As Mohandas K. Ghandi once observed, the only thing keeping him from being Christian was Christians.

This movement was criticized by Pope after Pope until the modernists stole the Council. So please expand on, and you did not answer the question as to what the church is gaining by this distortion that all paths lead to heaven, what you stated is just a portion of the church position on ecumenism, and yes you can find some truth possibly any religion, but again, what you are saying is actually hersey as the church is indefectible and contains the WHOLE truth, not part, and if you dont believe that then maybe the seminaries are not teaching what they should be (and I know they are not as I know from first hand experience as most are now filled with liberal formation directors, nuns who want to be ordained, and a gay contingent that makes any God fearing, orthodox seminarian feel out of place because he is not dating another man).

Well, apparently you feel that the protection offered ecumenical councils by the Holy Spirit is a lie. That, somehow, the Holy Spirit could not protect the Church, that Jesus was on vacation. I cannot buy into that sort of thinking. Our constant teaching has been that ecumenical councils cannot teach error. Apparently you disagree. If so, how do you know that what the other ecumenical councils taught were free from error? At some point your argument self-destructs. Let’s hope you don’t.

Deacon Ed

The great danger of ecumenism is falling into either of two errors in speaking and acting in the name of ecumenism. 1. Misunderstanding and mistating what ecumenism means. It is NOT regarding all religions as equally valid and true, it is NOT denial that the Catholic Church is the means given to us by Jesus Christ to mediate his saving act on earth and the means by which all who are saved reach his grace. It is not regarding all Christian bodies as equally valid representations of the gospel message.

Ecumenism is the evangelizing and catechizing activity of the Church directed first toward other Christian bodies who are separated from the Catholic Church and are therefore impaired in fully proclaiming the gospel because they do not participate in the unity Christ commanded. Its goal is to achieve unity by proclaiming the full truth to those Christians who are not in union with the Church, and removing or ameliorating barriers to unity that are the products of politics, ethnicity, misuse of language, superstition and misinformation. It does not include changing or watering down doctrine.

Next ecumenism encompasses evangelization to non-Christian religions and their adherents. It recognizes the unique and still existing role of the Jews as the chosen people of God who first received and preserved his divine revelation, and hopes to lead them to fulfillment of the covenant to which they remain faithful. It acknowledges the status of Islam as an outgrowth, heretical as it may be, of Judaism and Christianity and works to build on its acceptance of belief in the One Godhead to full acceptance of divine revelation and rejection of the spurious claims of its founder Mohammed.

Ecumenism also encompasses a vision of missionary activity to pagans, Hindus, Bbuddhists and other non-Christians that bases itself on the acknowledgement that all humans possess the natural reason and ability to know God, and that it is the role of the Catholic Church on earth to build on that natural knowledge to proclaim fully God’s own revelation of himself.

"Vatican ll was not a doctrinal Council… it did not make any solemn definitions binding our conscience on Faith "

How many more times is this mouldy old chestnut going to be trotted out by those who are in defiance of Vatican 2? The document on Ecumenicism(Unitatis redintrgratio) has all the full infallible charism.
Ecumenical progress has been a cornerstone of John Paul 2nd’s policy, and he has promoted it vigorously. Is he wrong? I think not.

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Once again, you’ve called me a liberal, when all I’m trying to be is a faithful Catholic,
[/quote]

Welcome aboard my dear friend!! :thumbsup:

Our Crusader friend seems to have trouble with the Ecumencial Directory. I rejoice in it. I would that on some of the last point, he errs.

it does not discourages Catholics from attempting to convert non-Catholics and allows might be a better term than recommends for the construction of a single church to be owned and used by both Catholics and non-Catholics.

Also, nothing in it say the reason that in these joint churches, the Blessed Sacrament be placed in a separate chapel or room is to not to offend non-believers.

My source is Pope Pius XI and every Pope before him. Vatican II once again redefined church dogma, which is a no-no for a council to do and hence the reason why people dont feel obliged to, well lets say obey it as it is vague and teaches false doctrine that is leading people away from salvation and not towards it.

What do you care where I quote from or obtain info? I know exactly why because if it was written by a Priest who may have said something negative about whomever, you can right away go SEE He/she is a Sedevacantist or a Schismatic! Thats your only defense. Let me repeat, a Pope is allowed to introduce new dogma or clarify existing, as long as it does NOT contradict prior dogma (refer to your Vatican I documents). What ecumenism and most of Vatican II has done is just that, defined new teachings with total disregard for prior dogma.

[font=Book Antiqua]Non-existent “Progress”[/font]
The so called dialogue that is ongoing is not really progressing at all. This is because today’s ecumenism is not actually a union of religions, but a pan-religious union of the liberals and lefties within the various denominations. “Ecumenical Catholics” know full well that they will get nowhere with those members of denominations who believe their religion to possess the truth. Rather, they engage with the progressivist members of the various sects whose first concern is that we all get along.

This is why the Vatican could not sign a Lutheran- Catholic Accord with conservative Missouri Synod Lutherans, who rightly denounced the document as a sham. No, it signed the Lutheran-Catholic Accord with the pro-abortion Lutherans who “ordain” women bishops. Yet all the while we are told of Vatican II’s great strides in achieving ecumenical unity.

Witness, for example, the fact that the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church will not allow Pope John Paul II to enter Russia, and denounced the Pope’s closed-circuit television broadcast into his country as an “invasion of Russia”. Witness the public protest by the Greek Orthodox on May 4, 2001 against the Pope’s visit to Athens. It was here that schismatic priests denounced the papacy through megaphones; priests and monks rang church bells as a symbol of mourning and carried black balloons to the Athens square; and hoisted banners denouncing the Pope as Antichrist as the cry rang out, “Pope Go Home!”

It is wrong for Catholics to engage in a smiling dialogue that leaves members of the Orthodox religion entrapped in their religion’s errors. It was Pope Saint Pius X who pointed out that, in the objective order, members of the Orthodox religion are not only schismatics, but also *heretics, *because they refuse to accept, 1) The processions of Persons in the Trinity; 2) the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady; 3) Papal Infallibility as defined at Vatican Council I; 4), the Petrine Primacy. Members of the Orthodox religion must abandon these errors and convert to the truths of the Catholic Faith for salvation. This squares with the Message of Fatima, for the conversion of the Russian Orthodox will take place miraculously – and on a grand scale – when Russia is finally consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Yes, but whom are you quoting from those sources and in what context? Was this a cut and paste of one of their statements? It’s only fair to allow us to examine the documents that you cite. And peace to you as well.
[/quote]

[quote=katherine2]Welcome aboard my dear friend!! :thumbsup:

Our Crusader friend seems to have trouble with the Ecumencial Directory. I rejoice in it. I would that on some of the last point, he errs.

it does not discourages Catholics from attempting to convert non-Catholics and allows might be a better term than recommends for the construction of a single church to be owned and used by both Catholics and non-Catholics.

Also, nothing in it say the reason that in these joint churches, the Blessed Sacrament be placed in a separate chapel or room is to not to offend non-believers.
[/quote]

Most kind, Katherine. I see you are devoted to Saint Katharine Drexel. She was an important saint in the Diocese of Gallup, New Mexico, where I lived for 11 years. She founded schools there for the Navajo people and visited at least once. She is greatly reverenced there.

I wouldn’t say that “See, he (I assume you didn’t mean she, as a “she” can’t be a priest) is a Sedevacantist or a schismatic,” just because he said something negative. Lots of perfectly orthodox priests don’t buy into the “happy, happy” psychology of today. I would like to know where this information comes from because different sites/sources/organizations have different agendas. For example, in two other threads, there is a discussion about Saint Pio, as I’m sure you know. It is asserted by “rad trads” (since others can paint the word “liberal” with such a broad brush, I’m sure no one would mind me using the term “rad trad”) that Saint Pio would have nothing to do with Vatican II or the Mass of Paul VI. It is also asserted that he referred to Jews as “dogs.” In these threads (one of which was deleted by the moderator, I assume due to the rabid anti-semitism exhibited), doubt is cast (I’m happy to say) on the “rad trads” assertions about Saint Pio, his words, and his opinions. They quoted specific sources when they made the assertions about Saint Pio, sources which may have an agenda that isn’t in line with Church teaching. Hence my question as to your source. But never mind, you don’t have to share it if you don’t want to do so.

Please, All of you, CONTENUE!

We will all learn something if all of you contenue posting. Please don’t be so afraid to state your state of mind, but color it with a few facts. (sarcasm)

From other threads I think Deacon Ed and some others have shown themselves to be enlightened Catholics. But I get the uncomfortable feeling from this thread they are drumbeaters for a "Smiley-Faced Church " that will accept partial Doctrine when it is conveniant.

Although my ancestors wore the Gray in the 1860s and were treated miserably by the Carpetbaggers, I will sit in CrusaderNY’s
corner on this topic.

Just one more thought. If ecumenism is so good, why didn’t the Early Fathers practice it? Think, what did they do when faced with a “New” Doctrine from another sect?

I respect Deacon Ed’s vast knowledge of the Church, but here he just tinkered with technicalities. CrusaderNY, I believe, thinks like I do. We would prefer the Church to be the Roman Catholic Church, and that means to observe all that has been promulgated.
The last sentance is not well written, but it will suffice. :yup:

Please, All of you, CONTENUE!

We will all learn something if all of you contenue posting. Please don’t be so afraid to state your state of mind, but color it with a few facts. (sarcasm)

From other threads I think Deacon Ed and some others have shown themselves to be enlightened Catholics. But I get the uncomfortable feeling from this thread they are drumbeaters for a "Smiley-Faced Church " that will accept partial Doctrine when it is conveniant.

Although my ancestors wore the Gray in the 1860s and were treated miserably by the Carpetbaggers, I will sit in CrusaderNY’s
corner on this topic.

Just one more thought. If ecumenism is so good, why didn’t the Early Fathers practice it? Think, what did they do when faced with a “New” Doctrine from another sect?

I respect Deacon Ed’s vast knowledge of the Church, but here he just tinkered with technicalities. CrusaderNY, I believe, thinks like I do. We would prefer the Church to be the Roman Catholic Church, and that means to observe all that has been promulgated.
The last sentance is not well written, but it will suffice. :yup:

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.