Attending Non-catholic Services

[mulls]

funny

[cmotherofpirl]

"18. That Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church is hereby condemned as error."

Nobody here disagrees with this.

Attending a non catholic service is not the same as worshipping at a non-catholic service. I have attended many protestant services as a Girl Scout leader. In no sense was I worshipping.

[PedroX]

The Holy Father, in his encyclical for Easter 2003, strongly urged us to avoid any service where Protestant communion would be present. Our presence there gives the appearance of unity, where none is to be found.

This was followed recently in St. Peter's itself when the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew of Constantinople, visited the Holy Father. (aren't titles fun?) The celebrated a liturgy of the word together, and the the Patriarch left the platform while the Pope celebrated the Liturgy of the Eucharist. No appearance of unity where there is none.

peace...

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 5 2004, 08:31 AM'] "18. That Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church is hereby condemned as error."

Nobody here disagrees with this.

Attending a non catholic service is not the same as worshipping at a non-catholic service. I have attended many protestant services as a Girl Scout leader. In no sense was I worshipping. [/quote]
OK, regardless if you are worshippibng or not (which he said he was, and was what I was addressing with the quotes about non-Catholic worship), then consider this:

"It is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is only one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering their return to the one true Church of Christ for those who are separated from Her." Pope Pius XI, (the Encyclical) Mortalium Animos

Are we going to throw out what Pope Pius XI said? Are we now FOR THE FIRST TIME (as he said, the Apostolic See has NEVER allowed it) to say that going to a protestant service is OK? If the Pope is infallible as often as he is claimed to be (in just abotu everything he says), then we MUST follow what Pius XI here is telling us! There is only ONE way to unity--the Church.

[Brother Adam]

Something smells funny here.

First I have to disagree with the context previous letters are being used, second, a pope can make mistakes in teaching outside of his official capacity. Opinion is just that, opinion.

If this view were to prevail I can only see it further damaging the body of Christ.



But like I said....something here smells fishy.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Sep 6 2004, 11:42 AM'] Something smells funny here.

First I have to disagree with the context previous letters are being used, second, a pope can make mistakes in teaching outside of his official capacity. Opinion is just that, opinion.

If this view were to prevail I can only see it further damaging the body of Christ.



But like I said....something here smells fishy. [/quote]
Are you saying every Pope was teaching wrong or that John Paul II is wrong. Pius XI says all Popes condemned this (which they did--just read what they wrote!). It is only logical that the current Pope is teaching incorrectly.

And what is so fishy? I quoted that directly from the Vatican's encyclical online.

Edited September 6, 2004 by HartfordWhalers

[jasJis]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 6 2004, 12:28 PM'] Are you saying every Pope was teaching wrong or that John Paul II is wrong. Pius XI says all Popes condemned this (which they did--just read what they wrote!). It is only logical that the current Pope is teaching incorrectly.

And what is so fishy? I quoted that directly from the Vatican's encyclical online. [/quote]
It's fishy because you choose to take it out of context. Is the current Pope the only one to encourage ecumenism? Or are you answering the wrong question with Pious IX's statement? Is Vatican II the first ecumenical council? Hartford, don't abandon the Fullness of the Truth.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Sep 6 2004, 08:09 PM'] It's fishy because you choose to take it out of context. Is the current Pope the only one to encourage ecumenism? Or are you answering the wrong question with Pious IX's statement? Is Vatican II the first ecumenical council? Hartford, don't abandon the Fullness of the Truth. [/quote]
Ecumenism in the view that most Catholics have today is not what ecumenical means, such as an ecumenical council like Nicea. The idea that ecumenism includes attending a non-Catholic service was condemned by all Popes. I am not taking anything out of context! Read what the Fathers of the Church and the Popes before John Paul II have said about it. Then read where he says you can read at a non-Catholic service. I'd say it's a contradiction. I don't see how you could not assert the same...

[p0lar_bear]

So...the current Magisterium is encouraging people in committing mortal sin?


OK, the gates of hell have prevailed, it's over...

[bookofjohn]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 7 2004, 01:10 AM'] OK, regardless if you are worshippibng or not (which he said he was, and was what I was addressing with the quotes about non-Catholic worship), then consider this:

"It is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is only one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering their return to the one true Church of Christ for those who are separated from Her." Pope Pius XI, (the Encyclical) Mortalium Animos

Are we going to throw out what Pope Pius XI said? Are we now FOR THE FIRST TIME (as he said, the Apostolic See has NEVER allowed it) to say that going to a protestant service is OK? If the Pope is infallible as often as he is claimed to be (in just abotu everything he says), then we MUST follow what Pius XI here is telling us! There is only ONE way to unity--the Church. [/quote]
WoohOo! A CATHOLIC FUNDAMENTALIST!

sorry, i just find Hartford's post amusing. hehe.

Edited September 7, 2004 by bookofjohn

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='bookofjohn' date='Sep 7 2004, 10:08 AM'] WoohOo! A CATHOLIC FUNDAMENTALIST!

sorry, i just find Hartford's post amusing. hehe. [/quote]
You obviously don't know anything about what the Church teaches. If by fundamentalist you mean faithful to what the Church teaches, then yes, by all means I am! But that is not what the word means. In fact, fundamentalist means Bible alone. If you think that I am reading it "too literally" give me a break. Go read what the Church has said for all ages about non-Catholics. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, as I read on this board from someone else, says to avoid heretics and abhor them. Heed not their fair speaking or mock humility! The Church is all too clear: you cannot attend a non-Catholic service, as it is false worship.

"So...the current Magisterium is encouraging people in committing mortal sin?


OK, the gates of hell have prevailed, it's over... "

If you think that is what it means to have the gates of hell prevail, it happened a long time ago. Consider of John XXII taught that THERE IS NO PARTICULAR JUDGMENT FROM THE PULPIT. He said no one goes to Heaven or Hell until the General Judgment, which is HERESY, and was specifically condemned by the next Pope as such. (John XXII denounced the heresy on his deathbed). My point is, if you think that the current Pope, who was not even speaking on Faith, which John XXII was, and has erred in what he has said is the gates of hell prevailing, then certainly the gates of hell prevailed long ago with John XXII. In fact, we should go back to when St. Athanasius was excommunicated for not being an Arian! 80% + of the Bishops were Arians! I guess the gates of Hell prevailed way back in the fourth century since the Pope excommunicated St. Athanasius for not being an Arian!

[IanuaCaeli]

This is the kind of thing that bothers me about most faithful Catholics today. The average (bad) Catholic will just denounce the Church when he disagrees with what It says, but most 'faithful' Catholics will try to rationalize the problems in the Church. It is so sad to see Catholic "theologians" coming up with ways to justify direct contradictions between past Popes. Let's be serious, people. If one Pope says something and the next one says the exact opposite, how can they both be right? We know that the Church has not erred simply because of the practice, belief, or theological teachings of the hierarchy and even the Pope. The Church would only err if It taught something wrong in an Ecumenical Council or Papal Bull. This kind of activity drives away so many converts--trying to simply defend what one already practices, believes, etc, rather than seeking truth and admitting when there is a discrepancy. If I had pretended like the leaders of the Church had never contradicted each other in opinions over the past 2000 years, I would've had no hope to convert any of the people I have because they would simply get information from, like Hartford said, Arian Heresy and then say that the Church erred. They could do the same thing with John XXII or even Alexander VI for his personal actions. The fact is that, as faithful Catholics, we have to have some true faith in believing that the gates will not prevail rather than pretending that everytime a leader in the Church makes a mistake, the Church may have erred and we need to cover it up or justify it. The fact is that there is a contradiction between current teachings (fallibly) and previous statements of the Church and the Church's Tradition. We cannot attempt to rationalize this; we have to seek truth. Truth is necessary for salvation, and we must follow it. This is the only way for ourselves to be saved and the only way to convert others.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hartford, no offense intended, but I would have thought you would have come up with a better argument against papal infallibility than to use John XXII.

For those who might perhaps be uninformed, the following is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia that deals with the issue of John's teachings:

[quote]In the last years of John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope's view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.[/quote]

In the end, we see that he NEVER asserted that teaching as authoritative, but always intended for it to be considered as an option. At that point in his life, he consitered it a more viable option, but changed his mind at the end of his life. This in no way is an issue of infallibility, but of personal judgement on an issue of what was, at that time, speculative theology.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[jasJis]

[quote name='IanuaCaeli' date='Sep 8 2004, 11:47 AM'] This is the kind of thing that bothers me about most faithful Catholics today. The average (bad) Catholic will just denounce the Church when he disagrees with what It says, but most 'faithful' Catholics will try to rationalize the problems in the Church. It is so sad to see Catholic "theologians" coming up with ways to justify direct contradictions between past Popes. Let's be serious, people. If one Pope says something and the next one says the exact opposite, how can they both be right? We know that the Church has not erred simply because of the practice, belief, or theological teachings of the hierarchy and even the Pope. The Church would only err if It taught something wrong in an Ecumenical Council or Papal Bull. This kind of activity drives away so many converts--trying to simply defend what one already practices, believes, etc, rather than seeking truth and admitting when there is a discrepancy. If I had pretended like the leaders of the Church had never contradicted each other in opinions over the past 2000 years, I would've had no hope to convert any of the people I have because they would simply get information from, like Hartford said, Arian Heresy and then say that the Church erred. They could do the same thing with John XXII or even Alexander VI for his personal actions. The fact is that, as faithful Catholics, we have to have some true faith in believing that the gates will not prevail rather than pretending that everytime a leader in the Church makes a mistake, the Church may have erred and we need to cover it up or justify it. The fact is that there is a contradiction between current teachings (fallibly) and previous statements of the Church and the Church's Tradition. [b]We cannot attempt to rationalize this; we have to seek truth. Truth is necessary for salvation, and we must follow it. This is the only way for ourselves to be saved and the only way to convert others.[/b] [/quote]
IanuaCaeli,
A very thought provoking post. I boldened the last part because I thought that is important. Answering the question on how to seek Truth, is the stumbling block for Christians. The Church teaches Truth, but it also errs because fallible people work in the Church as teachers and leaders. The Traditionalists and the Liberals, both second guess the leaders of the Church in their quest to correct what they see as a fallible human error. How do you reconcile the quest for Truth when you know that error can also be found in the Church?

In my clumsy words, I would say that each of us should follow what the Church teaches a best as we can. We should allways be more willing to correct ourselves, way before we think we should correct the Church. We should first be answering the call for personal holiness in our lives. We should only disagree with the Church (something the Church itself says we can do) AFTER much prayerful contemplation. Intellectual AND spiritual contemplation are required. Especially spiritual contemplation. If one can believe in the Institution of the Church established by Jesus Son of God, then one must also believe the Church has a mission, purpose, and is continually guided by the Church. Not everything the Church teaches is Dogma. We all should be aware of Doctrine and Discipline and be able to disern the difference. Discipline is the human application of Dogma and Doctrine. The Church can (and has) err in Discipline.

But we cannot easily assume the Church is wrong and begin to ignore the Church, because we would easily forget that God is still involved in the Church and will constantly correct it. One simply has to look at the relationship of God with His chosen people. From the Jews, God gave the world, Himself in Flesh Incarnate, Jesus the Christ. The same Jews who worshipped golden calves, grumbled at Moses, was ruled by David the adulterer, had Herod as King and Ciaphus as High Priest. The same Jews who gave us Ruth, John the Baptist, Mary, Paul, Peter, Judas, and Thomas. Is not the Jews the precursor of the Body of Christ, the Church. From within the Church will God keep His covenant and give us the Graces of Salvation. Jesus did not come to each of us only as individuals. He is the shepherd of a "flock". The shepherd doesn't correct the direction of each individual sheep. He directs a few who bump into others, who bump into others, untill the entire flock is obeying the will of the shepherd. If Catholics first acknowledge they are part of the Flock, then we should not think the shepherd's commands are just for us personally, we should understand Jesus is direct the Flock. We must know our place in the Flock and go with the Flock. We must have faith in the Sheperhed that he will not lead us to danger. We must have faith in the Sheperd's promise that he won't let us stray off as individuals, but will bring us back to the Flock.

I obey the Church the best I can. Right, wrong, or indifferent though the Church may be on certain matters, God will Judge me perfectly, with mercy, love, kindness, and perfect justice. We MUST acknowledge God speaking in our hearts as well as through His Church. We must listen to God completely, and not let our individual pride in God speaking in our heats, harden our heads or muffle our ears to God speaking to us through His Church as well. Are we to disagree with the Church to make ourselves more 'comfortable' on earth? Or are we to agree with the Church even if it makes us lame or crippled in this world? [u]We should disagree with the Church [b]only if[/b] we firmly, without a doubt, believe we would be jepordizing our life in heaven.[/u] The same goes with obeying our Bishops, Pope, Cardinals, and Priests. They are responsible for the errors the purposely teach. God forgives all we do in ignorance per His Son's request to forgive us what we know not we do. Don't we all know plenty of stuff we can improve on in our own personal lives? And we think we should be correcting God's Church? Not if we haven't been placed by God in a position to correct the Church. Work on correcting yourself and leave the correcting of others to those God placed in charge within His Church. If we individuals discern a possible error from the Church, we need to address if first with prayer and utmost respect for the institution of the Church that God Himself established through His Son, Jesus Christ, and promised the eternal aid of The Holy Spirit. If you really belive in the Triune nature of God, you can't easily lose hope in the correction of every error we humans bring to the Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 4 2004, 10:25 PM'] Are we going to throw out what Pope Pius XI said? Are we now FOR THE FIRST TIME (as he said, the Apostolic See has NEVER allowed it) to say that going to a protestant service is OK? If the Pope is infallible as often as he is claimed to be (in just abotu everything he says), then we MUST follow what Pius XI here is telling us! There is only ONE way to unity--the Church. [/quote]
Don't confuse disciplinary norms and directives, which are issued by the Church's Authentic Magisterium, with infallible dogmas and doctrines. The supreme authority of the Church can change these canonical norms if it wishes, and has done so many times in history. In addition, it is important to remember the distinction to be made between worship in the proper sense of the term, i.e., "communicatio in sacris," with the reading of scripture and prayers associated with joint services with Protestants. A Catholic is forbidden to participate in worship (i.e., "communicatio in sacris") with Protestants, but is not forbidden to participate in a prayer service, or a scripture service. Moreover, one must not confuse these types of services with the sacrifice of the Mass, which is worship in the fullest sense of the word.