"Its a historical fact that the Catholic Church has never contrad

[Budge]

[quote]Its a historical fact that the Catholic Church has never contradicted itself in teachings of faith and morals in its 2000 year history.[/quote]

Curtins wrote this, so Im going to respond here.

Lets compare..

All of this has to do with FAITH AND MORALS...

It is EASY to find tons of Popes contradicting each other..

Lets look at Vatican 2...compared to an earlier Pope.

Vatican 2 basically says here Traditions of pagans are needed in religious life...

[quote]Religious institutes, working to plant the Church, and thoroughly imbued with mystic treasures with which the Church's religious tradition is adorned, should strive to give expression to them and to hand them on, according to the nature and the genius of each nation. [u][size=5]Let them reflect attentively on how Christian religious life might be able to assimilate the ascetic and contemplative traditions, whose seeds were sometimes planted by God in ancient cultures already prior to the preaching of the Gospel.[/size][/u]
[/quote]
www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/v2miss.txt
[quote]
Pagan traditions are sterile and worthless. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum : 9)[/quote]
[quote]
9. "Christ teaching from the ship signifies that those who are outside the Church can never grasp the divine teaching; for the ship typifies the Church where the word of life is deposited and preached.[u][size=5] Those who are outside are like sterile and worthless sand:[/size][/u]

[/quote]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13SATIS.HTM"]LINK TO LEO'S ENCYCLICAL[/url]

Sure sounds like a CHANGE TO ME!

Edited August 22, 2006 by Budge

[Eutychus]

[quote]Thus the Hindus spent the morning worshiping their false gods, which are nothing more than demons. [u]Saint Francis Xavier, the apostle to India, said of Hinduism:[/u]

[color="#990000"][b] “All the invocations of the pagans are hateful to God because all their gods are devils.” [/b][/color][/quote]

[img]http://www.statveritas.com.ar/Los_Frutos_del_Concilio/fotos/Fatima-09.jpg[/img]

So, we go from calling their god DEVILS to putting their gods on the Roman Catholic altars, in Assisi and Fatima.

NO CHANGE THERE...NO SIR....ALWAYS THE SAME! [/sarcasm]

Edited August 22, 2006 by Eutychus

[Budge]

Heres another change:

Vatican II says,

_____________________________________________________________
Ecumenism promotes justice and truth. Vatican II UR:4
_____________________________________________________________

[quote]: The term "ecumenical movement" indicates the initiatives and activities planned and undertaken, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity.......

[snip]
.....When such actions are undertaken prudently and patiently by the Catholic faithful, with the attentive guidance of their bishops, [u][size=5]they promote justice and truth, concord and collaboration, as well as the spirit of brotherly love and unity.[/size][/u]
[/quote]

[url="http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v13.html"] www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v13.html[/url]

and in an OLDER ENCYCLICAL...A TOTAL CONTRADICTION to the ABOVE...

Here is what Pius XI says...

[size=5] Ecumenism abandons the religion revealed by God. Pope Pius XI MA:2
[/size]

[quote]They presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, inasmuch as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Those who hold such a view are not only in error, they distort the true idea of religion, and thus reject it, falling gradually into naturalism and atheism. [size=5]To favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God.”[/size][/quote]



[url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM"]LINK HERE TO PIUS XI's ENCYLICAL[/url]

MORE CHANGES!

[Eutychus]

Changes?

Nah, just backflipping Catholic style....and saying it never changes....when everyone with eyes knows they are just grandstanding for the pew puppies!

[img]http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/2005/0405/images/back-flip.jpg[/img]

[curtins]

The quote of a saint does not hold the weight of infalible teaching and if certain priests or people in India are doing something wrong- that does not mean the church is teaching that. It means one individual or a group are straying from the church.

Your logic doesn't work.

Thats like saying the Catholic church is a contradiction because it teaches using God's name in vain is a sin. Yet its members have, do, and will continue to use God's name in vain.

The church is made up of sinners who do happen to stray from what the church teaches. What matters is what it teaches not if its members stray from that.

[Budge]

Ok leave the saint out of it.

I quoted Popes and Councils....

they are contradicting each other on FAITH AND MORALS.

[Dave]

Ultra-Traditionalism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vatican II & Ecumenism: What did the Council Really Say?
by Pete Vere


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did the Second Vatican Council contradict Church Tradition in its teachings on ecumenism? Many traditionalist Catholics — among them, many members of the Society of St. Pius X — would say yes. If they are correct, then the Catholic Church has a serious problem: Vatican II could not be legitimate, since a legitimate ecumenical council may develop but may not contradict the earlier dogmatic teaching of the Church.

To address the issue, of course, we first have to understand how the Church defines ecumenism. Basically, ecumenism is the spiritual dialogue and activity in which the Church engages with other Christians. “Other Christians” in this context is understood to mean validly baptized non-Catholics.

This means, for example, that Catholic-Orthodox dialogue or Catholic-Anglican dialogue constitutes ecumenism, because both Anglicans and the Orthodox are validly baptized non-Catholic Christians. But ecumenism doesn’t cover Catholic-Islamic dialogue or Catholic-Hindu dialogue, because Muslims and Hindus don’t baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity. The Church describes this kind of spiritual activity with non-Christian religions as “interfaith dialogue.”

While we’re defining terms, we should note that when dealing with common worship among Catholics and other Christians, we must distinguish between communicatio in sacris (sharing in the sacraments), and the more general communicatio in spiritualibus (sharing in common prayer).

Generally, the Church encourages communicatio in spiritualibus between Catholics and Protestants, but strictly limits communicatio in sacris to a handful of sacraments, and even then only between Catholics and members of an Eastern non-Catholic Church (see Canon 844). By “Eastern non-Catholic Church” we mean an historical Eastern Church (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian Church of the East) whose sacraments and apostolic succession the Church recognizes as valid. This is different from Protestants (including Anglicans), whose claim to have valid sacraments and apostolic succession the Catholic Church does not recognize.

The Spirit of Ecumenical Dialogue
Admittedly, the Church has seen some abuses in the name of ecumenism since the closing of the Second Vatican Council. SSPX adherents are familiar with many of these abuses, and they often blame such abuses on the Council itself. They believe ecumenical dialogue waters down the Church’s doctrine and must necessarily lead to the heresy of religious indifferentism (the idea that differences in religion are essentially unimportant). A few even argue that ecumenism itself is heresy. They think ecumenism must necessarily entail a watering down of the Catholic Church’s traditional teaching that she alone is the Church founded by Christ — that she alone is the Ark of Salvation under the New Covenant.

In making such charges, these individuals fail to take into account the Church’s perennial Tradition. Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation on reconciliation and penance, both addresses and clarifies where the Church stands concerning ecumenical dialogue. In fact, the Holy Father goes beyond mere ecumenical dialogue to include all dialogue in which the Church presently engages with the purpose of bringing about true reconciliation among people.

With his typical clarity of thought, the Holy Father teaches:

It should be repeated that, on the part of the Church and her members, dialogue, whatever form it takes (and these forms can be and are very diverse, since the very concept of dialogue has an analogical value) can never begin from an attitude of indifference to the truth. On the contrary, it must begin from a presentation of the truth, offered in a calm way, with respect for the intelligence and consciences of others. The dialogue of reconciliation can never replace or attenuate the proclamation of the truth of the Gospel, the precise goal of which is conversion from sin and communion with Christ and the Church. It must be at the service of the transmission and realization of that truth through the means left by Christ to the Church for the pastoral activity of reconciliation, namely catechesis and penance.i

This teaching solidly places ecumenical dialogue within the Church’s theological and doctrinal Tradition.

First of all, Pope John Paul addresses the concern that ecumenical dialogue is being used to propagate religious indifferentism. He reiterates that dialogue “can never begin from an attitude of indifference to the truth.” He reminds Christians never to approach ecumenical dialogue with an indifference towards the truth.

In this way the Holy Father authoritatively closes the door to the possible false usage, or abuse, of ecumenical dialogue. He then reiterates the Second Vatican Council’s Catholic principles governing the Church’s involvement in ecumenical dialogue. He explains that all dialogue in which the Church is engaged, including that with our separated brethren, “must begin from a presentation of truth.”

Vatican II Asserts the Papacy’s Traditional Role
Yet what is truth as presented by the Church? What are the principles with which the Church approaches our separated Christian brethren? These are important questions because the adherent to Lefebvre’s schism will often argue that in order to facilitate ecumenical dialogue, the Second Vatican Council downplayed the Church’s unique claim to be founded by Christ upon the Rock of St. Peter.

The Council Fathers anticipate these objections in their declaration on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio. Within this conciliar document, the Council Fathers clearly teach:

In order to establish this holy Church of His everywhere in the world until the end of time, Christ entrusted to the College of the Twelve the task of teaching, ruling, and sanctifying (cf. Mt 28:18-20 in conjunction with Jn 20:21-23). Among their number He chose Peter.


After Peter’s profession of faith, He decreed that on him He would build His Church; to Peter He promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Mt 16:19, in conjunction with Mk 18:18). After Peter’s profession of love, Christ entrusted all His sheep to him to be confirmed in faith (cf. Lk 22:32) and shepherded in perfect unity (cf. Jn 21:15-17).ii

Based on Scriptural foundations, the Second Vatican Council’s ecumenical principles flow from the teachings of Christ and His Apostles. The Council teaches that Our Lord’s Church, and hence Christian unity, must be built upon the rock of St. Peter.

Furthermore, the Council asserts that the task of preserving and confirming this unity within our Lord’s Church rests with St. Peter and his lawful successors within the Roman papacy. The objection that the Second Vatican Council’s teachings on ecumenism water down the role of the papacy fails, for this text reiterates what the Church has always taught according to her Sacred Tradition. St. Peter is, and always has been, the foundation of unity among Christians.

Ecumenism Upholds the Real Presence
St. Peter and his successors are the foundation of unity in the Church. However, this foundation is laid down by Jesus Christ. Our Lord is the source of unity within the Church, especially as it concerns His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

We should keep this in mind when defending the Council’s teachings on ecumenism, since many Lefebvrites also allege that ecumenism undermines Catholic faith in our Lord’s Real Presence in order to appease non-Catholics. This allegation is false. Continue reading Vatican II’s decree on ecumenism, and you discover the following teaching: “In His Church [Christ] instituted the wonderful sacrament of the Eucharist by which the unity of the Church is both signified and brought about.”iii

In other words, the Second Vatican Council calls the Church to promote Christian unity through ecumenical dialogue. Yet the Council recognizes that unity can be neither fully realized nor fully symbolized except through the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. The Second Vatican Council not only upholds the traditional Catholic position concerning the Most Blessed Sacrament, but the Council clearly states this position in the very decree through which ecumenism is promoted. The Council Fathers, by promoting ecumenical dialogue, seek to bring our separated Christian brethren back to full communion with the Catholic Church by means of the Holy Eucharist. The Eucharist symbolizes our unity within the Church as Catholics, first with God and secondly with each other. Yet this symbolism may only be fully realized through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

In bringing to us the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as in perpetuating Christ’s holy sacrifice upon the cross, the Mass unites all of Christ’s disciples throughout time and space, gathering them into one Church. The intention of the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on ecumenism is to help reunite with the Church those Christian disciples who have become separated through historic schisms and heresies.

The Council of Florence
This ecumenical position represents a departure from Catholic Tradition,” allege many adherents to the SSPX schism. “We find no example of the Catholic Church engaging in similar ecumenical activity before Vatican II.” This allegation troubles many Catholic apologists, because they are unaware of other examples of the Catholic Church’s practice of ecumenism with those who have separated from her. Yet such precedents do exist within Catholic Tradition.

The most important example is probably the ecumenical Council of Florence. This entire council offers a clear precedent from Catholic Tradition for the Church’s present involvement in ecumenical dialogue. After all, the Council of Florence sought to reunite the Orthodox East and the Catholic West.

During this council’s fourth session, Pope Eugene the IV decreed:
Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. It befits us to render thanks to almighty God. … For behold, the western and eastern peoples, who have been separated for long, hasten to enter into a pact of harmony and unity; and those who were justly distressed at the long dissension that kept them apart, at last after many centuries, under the impulse of Him from whom every good gift comes, meet together in person in this place out of desire for holy union.

A couple of matters should draw our attention here.
First, the East and West were obviously separated from one another in schism, as recognized by Pope Eugene the IV in this decree. These Churches nevertheless came together after many centuries to try to reconcile their differences. This is an act of ecumenism, one that Pope Eugene the IV attributes to the Holy Spirit.

In fact, the pope not only attributes this ecumenical dialogue to the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, but he proceeds to uphold such dialogue at the Council of Florence as our Christian obligation, stating: “We are aware that it is our duty and the duty of the whole church to strain every nerve to ensure that these happy initiatives make progress and have issue through our common care, so that we may deserve to be and to be called co-operators with God.”

Tradition Sustains Ecumenical Prayer
Now some critics of the Second Vatican Council maintain that this teaching from the Council of Florence applies solely to ecumenical dialogue, not joint prayer between Catholics and non-Catholics. Yet if we re-read the above citation from the Council of Florence, we find that the pope insists: “It befits us to render thanks to almighty God.” This is a prayer of thanksgiving to God.

Although they had not yet healed their schism, the Roman Pontiff led the Council Fathers gathered from the Catholic West and the Orthodox East in the recitation of this prayer. This is a clear example from Catholic Tradition of a pope and Catholic bishops praying with those Christian brethren who have been separated from full communion.

Non-Catholic Spiritual Authority
Some adherents to post Vatican II schisms disdain the respect shown by the Church towards the ecclesiastical leadership of non-Catholic Churches and denominations. These folks maintain that the Church should continue denouncing non-Catholic spiritual leaders as heretics and schismatics. In departing from the Church’s spiritual unity, they claim, Protestant ministers and Orthodox clergy forfeit any spiritual authority they possess, and thus any right to be held in respect by the Catholic faithful. This is not the position, however, of Pope Eugene the IV, who said this at the Council of Florence:

Finally, our most dear son John Palacologus, emperor of the Romans, together with our venerable brother Joseph, patriarch of Constantinople, the apocrisiaries of the other patriarchal sees and a great multitude of archbishops, ecclesiastics and nobles arrived at their last port, Venice, on 8 February last.

This is recognition, from both Pope Eugene and the Council Fathers, of the religious title and dignity of the Orthodox Emperor John Palacologus and the Orthodox Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople. Despite his separation from Rome, Patriarch Joseph is welcomed to the Council of Florence by Pope Eugene the IV as a brother.

The Second Vatican Council’s approach to ecumenism, by which the Church treats non-Catholic spiritual authorities with both respect and dignity, thus maintains the same ecumenical principles as those upheld at the Council of Florence. No doubt the reality of heresy and schism still exists after the Second Vatican Council (see canon 751), just as it did before the Council of Florence. However, in dialogue with our separated brethren, the Church chooses not to wave the terms “heretic” and “schismatic” in their faces.

What About Protestants?
Nevertheless, in arguing a traditional Catholic position from the Council of Florence — in other words, a position truly based upon the Church’s Sacred Tradition — a Catholic apologist inevitably encounters the objection that these texts apply only to Catholic ecumenism with the Eastern Orthodox. What about Catholic-Protestant ecumenism since the Second Vatican Council? Is there a similar example from a previous ecumenical councils? These are important questions, since SSPX adherents often make a big deal over the invitation extended to six Protestant theologians to participate at the Second Vatican Council in an advisory capacity.

As a quick aside, we should note that there were many additional Orthodox and Protestant observers at the Council. The famous “six Protestants” constantly flouted by opponents of the Second Vatican Council were simply observers at the Consilium, which was involved with the liturgical reform mandated by the Council. The suggestion that these “six Protestants” virtually put together the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI is a great exaggeration!

If we accept the Council of Trent as an authentic expression of Catholic Tradition (as Catholics are obliged to do), then such objections fail to take into account Catholic Tradition. For in the documents of Trent’s thirteenth session, we read:

The sacred and holy, general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost … grants, as far as regards the holy Synod itself, to all and each one throughout the whole of Germany, whether ecclesiastics or seculars, of whatsoever degree, estate, condition, quality they be, who may wish to repair to this ecumenical and general Council, the public faith and full security, which they call a safe-conduct … so as that they may and shall have it in their power in all liberty to confer, make proposals, and treat on those things which are to be treated of in the said Synod; to come freely and safely to the said ecumenical Council, and there remain and abide, and propose therein, as well in writing as by word of mouth, as many articles as to them shall seem good, and to confer and dispute, without any abuse or contumely, with the Fathers, or with those who may have been selected by the said holy Synod; as also to withdraw whensoever they shall think fit.

We should make several important observations here.
First, the Council of Trent both invited and offered safe passage to Protestants who wished to come and participate at this ecumenical council.

Second, Trent invited Protestants of all social and ecclesiastical rank to share their theological views, propose topics for debate, and generally participate in the daily affairs of this ecumenical council.

Third, Trent allowed Protestants to withdraw at any time.
Finally, Trent invited Protestants to be more than simply observers.
Clearly, at Trent the Church issued an invitation to ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. And since Lutheranism enveloped most of the German nation around the time of the council, this invitation was much broader than the invitation extended to a handful of Protestant theologians at Vatican II. Trent even permitted the Protestants attending the Council a greater level of participation than was allowed to the Protestant theologians observing Vatican II. In all these ways, then, the Lefebvrite objections to Catholic-Protestant ecumenism, both at and after the Second Vatican Council, are little more than objections to a precedent set by the Council of Trent.

Vatican II and Religious Liberty
We can now turn our attention briefly to the matter of Vatican II and religious liberty. While technically speaking this is a distinct theological issue, it’s nevertheless often lumped in with ecumenism by those who challenge the orthodoxy of the Second Vatican Council. In fact, this is probably the most difficult theological hurdle former SSPX adherents must overcome before reconciling with the Church, mainly due to the mistaken popular belief that Archbishop Lefebvre refused to sign the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae.

Any scholar with access to the Vatican’s archives knows this rumor to be false. Archbishop Lefebvre did indeed sign the document in question. In fact, anyone seeking Lefebvre’s signature on this document need not look any further than the Acta Synodalia (the Acts of the Synod).iv

Once the adherent to the SSPX schism overcomes the initial shock of seeing Lefebvre’s signature on Dignitatis Humanae, he will often offer a theological objection to the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on religious freedom. In a nutshell, this objection is expressed as follows: Pope Pius IX condemned the following proposition in his Syllabus of Errors: “15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he, led by the light of reason, thinks to be the true religion.” This appears to contradict Dignitatis Humanae’s teaching on religious freedom, which states:

This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs.v

At first glance, these two magisterial teachings do appear irreconcilable. However, the Church can’t contradict herself, and she obviously can’t fail, either. So we must carefully distinguish between moral and political freedom.

Pope Pius IX’s condemnation of religious freedom addresses those who claim all religious expression to be more or less equal — those who say that man possesses a moral freedom to choose whatever religious expression fits his fancy. Around the time of the Second Vatican Council, approximately two thirds of the world lay under the oppressive political yoke of atheistic communism, so the Second Vatican Council addressed this situation through Dignitatis Humanae. In short, the Council taught that all believers have the political freedom to worship God, and the various communist states cannot coerce religious believers into atheism.

Once we understand this context, we can see that the teachings of Pope Pius IX and the Second Vatican Council are easily reconcilable, because they address two different situations. In recognizing religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae reaffirms man’s moral obligation to seek truth, stating: “All men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of the truth.”vi

Fresh Insights With a Solid Foundation
In concluding this apologetic for the Vatican II’s teachings on ecumenism, we can affirm that these teachings are fresh insights into our Catholic Tradition, formulated to address new crises arising in the modern world. They mark no departure from what the Church has always taught. Catholic ecumenism is solidly founded in Catholic Tradition, as handed down from previous ecumenical councils, and it simply resurfaced at the Second Vatican Council.

The teachings of Vatican II on ecumenism build upon the Church’s ecumenical precedents established at the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent. As Catholics, we can embrace the Second Vatican Council’s teachings on ecumenism, because these teachings are solidly rooted in Catholic Tradition.

Pete Vere
The Catholic Legate
July 20, 2004

i Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 26.
ii Unitatis Redintegratio, 2.
iii Unitatis Redintegratio, 2.
iv See page 29 for Archbishop Lefebvre’s signature on the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty.
v For an in-depth treatment of how Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom is both consistent with Catholic Tradition and represents a legitimate development of Catholic doctrine, I recommend the writings of Dom Basile, a theologian from the Benedictine monastery of Ste. Madeleine de Le Barroux, which has the privilege of using all the liturgical books in force in 1962.
vi Dignitatis Humanae, 2.
________________________

This Article orignally appeared in Envoy Magazine.

[Budge]

Ah yes the "THEY DIDNT REALLY SAY THAT DEFENSE"..
[quote]
communicatio in spiritualibus between Catholics and Protestants, [/quote]

Usually when Catholics start tossing in the Latin in the middle of English sentences...I know the Baffle them with VERBAL SPAGHETTI PLOY IS IN PLAY.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Budge' post='1048016' date='Aug 22 2006, 11:26 AM']
Ah yes the "THEY DIDNT REALLY SAY THAT DEFENSE"..
Usually when Catholics start tossing in the Latin in the middle of English sentences...I know the Baffle them with VERBAL SPAGHETTI PLOY IS IN PLAY.
[/quote]

Wow what a come-back!

I am soooo impressed.

[Mateo el Feo]

Your specific example relates to the relationship between the Church and various categories of non-believers. By categories, we can set the degrees of division between these groups and the fullness of Truth. For example, from nearest to farthest (off the top of my head), I could list the Orthodox, protestantism, non-Christian monotheism, polytheism/paganism, and finally agnosticism/atheism.

The apparent contradictions in our relationship as believers to these different groups reflects a tension in Christianity of what it means to love our neighbor. For example, during the Sermon on the Mount, Our Lord states ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm#v9"]Matthew 5:9[/url]):
[quote name='Matthew 5:9']Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.[/quote]Toward the end of the Gospel, Our Lord teaches us to show charity toward others in tangible ways ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew25.htm#v34"]Matthew 25:34-40[/url]):
[quote name='Matthew 25:34-40']Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'

Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'

And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'[/quote]Our Lord is commanding us to be at peace and show love toward our neighbor, who could be a stranger, an enemy, or an unbeliever.

On the other hand, the greatest good we could do for our neighbor is to share the Good News of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. But, just as this sometimes creates friction with those who don't have "ears to hear" in the 21st century, this clearly caused problems 2000 years ago, as well. For example, see [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew10.htm#v14"]Matt 10:14 (link)[/url].

Other places where this tension comes out in Holy Scriptures include whether one should eat meat sacrificed to idols. It seems that freedom and common courtesy make it acceptable ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians10.htm#v27"]1 Cor 10:27[/url]) and scandal makes it unacceptable ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians10.htm#v20"]1 Cor 10:20[/url]).

If one is criticizing the Church for being inconsistent, the same reasoning could be used to attack an apparent inconsistency in Holy Scriptures. We are called to love our neighbor, without regard to their beliefs. At the same time, the greatest love that we can show them is to share with them the Truth of Jesus Christ.

We can point out the errors of false religions; but we can (following the example of St. Paul and so many others) find common ground in our beliefs and invite them to be at peace with us and share with them the fullness of Truth, who is Jesus Christ.

[Eutychus]

Who CARES what St. Francis said....that pope was NOT speaking for the entire church, that council was a regional one...yada yada...

They never, EVER change, Budge, this one is over a hundred years ago, note the date, note the content:

[quote][u]The following important observations were made in 1851:[/u]

[i] * “We cannot allow that every private Priest or member of the Church of Rome should give his own opinions merely as the standard of doctrine. We will have recourse to the oracular response of the Church, and insist that they be represented by themselves; not, however, by private individuals, but by their legal representatives[/i]


But, then, there is nothing which they dread so much as the testimony of their own Church. ...
IT IS A PRINCIPAL AIM OF ALL [ROMAN CATHOLIC] CONTROVERTISTS TO EMPLOY EVERY MODE OF EVASION IN ORDER TO DISCONCERT THEIR OPPOSERS.
There is even a marked difference between the tone of these Romish Divines
who speak dogmatically for the instruction of their own members
and that of those who attempt to answer the objections of their antagonists.
With the former, all is matter of downright certainty;
with the latter, all is doubt, difficulty, subterfuge, and evasion.
[color="#3333FF"][b]
When the faithful are to be instructed, every Priest becomes the sure depositary
of the infallible decisions of an infallible Church;[/b]
[/color]
[color="#660000"][b][u]but when Protestants are to be confuted,
the declarations of their most illustrious men are of no authority.
Councils are discovered to have been but partly approved
Popes did not speak ex cathedra;
Cardinals and Bishops are but private Doctors;
And who cares for the opinion of an obscure Priest or Friar[/u]?[/b][/color]

Thus nothing is so difficult as to know what the belief of Roman Catholics really is; and
WHEN A PROTESTANT ADDUCES THEIR OWN WRITERS AS WITNESSES,
HE IS FREQUENTLY TOLD THAT HE {The Catholic Writer} IS A MISREPRESENTER OF THEIR CHURCH”

(Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, London: John Mason, 1851, p. 23).[/quote]

[Aloysius]

St. Francis Xavier was absolutely correct: the hindu "gods" are demonic distortions of truth.

You have 21 Oecumenical Councils to choose from; sorry we don't go far enough and bind ourselves to local councils as well.

There is what is known as "false ecumenism" which is absolutely evil and false. You'll notice that we invented the word "ecumenical" referring to our "ecumenical councils". The Church defines her view of ecumenism as converting other Christian sects into the Catholic Church, completely in line with the mission she has always professed.

Pagan traditions are sterile and rooted in a fallen human nature. But the traditional view of the Church, attested to from missionaries like St. Patrick and Friar John de Plano Carpini, is that we must root out all of the gunk which clogs their culture, the distortions of truth and the relations with the fallen angels which bind them to sin, but restore, preserve, and crown with Christ everything about their culture which does not distract way from Our Lord, which does not include the worship of demons. Any values that they share with us should be preserved, and their culture and commerce needn't be disrupted unless it includes something sinful. This is fully in line with your quotes of Leo, Pius, and Vatican II.

But we've been over this before, Eutychus. We have clear-cut limits to what is infallible, irreformable, and binding on the whole Church and what is not. These criteria are clearly detectable in any teaching you find from Church history.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Budge' post='1047911' date='Aug 22 2006, 10:51 AM']
Heres another change:

Vatican II says,

_____________________________________________________________
Ecumenism promotes justice and truth. Vatican II UR:4
_____________________________________________________________



[url="http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v13.html"] www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v13.html[/url]

and in an OLDER ENCYCLICAL...A TOTAL CONTRADICTION to the ABOVE...

Here is what Pius XI says...

[size=5] Ecumenism abandons the religion revealed by God. Pope Pius XI MA:2
[/size]
[url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM"]LINK HERE TO PIUS XI's ENCYLICAL[/url]

MORE CHANGES!
[/quote]

Only one who clearly does not understand Catholic ecumenism, which is dialogue between Christians would so blunder as to see Vatican II and the words of Pius XI as being contradictory. Pius XI was talking about dialogues that include those outside of Christianity. Saying it was all okay.

[Budge]

[quote]Wow what a come-back!

I am soooo impressed.[/quote]

Thanks

:


[quote]St. Francis Xavier was absolutely correct: the hindu "gods" are demonic distortions of truth.[/quote]

I wonder what Mr. Xavier would be thinking of all the HINDU MASS defenders on this board.

[quote]
Only one who clearly does not understand Catholic ecumenism, which is dialogue between Christians would so blunder as to see Vatican II and the words of Pius XI as being contradictory. Pius XI was talking about dialogues that include those outside of Christianity. Saying it was all okay.[/quote]

The Ecumenical umbrella has been expanded to other religions and you know it.

[Lahecil]

Oh...because Protestantism is totally devoid of all pagan heritage as well...Did you celebrate Christmas? The birth of the Son of God? Okay, what about the REbirth of the Sun God. Easter? The Resurrection? Exactly, Spring and the life of the Earth is brought back. Don't call the Catholics pagans before looking at yourself.