 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 01:14 pm |
|
I just read an article of a document (re)affirming that their is only one church. It acknolwedged Orthodox Churches were churches though with a bit of a missing piece. This was nothing new but for some reason reiterating old teaching, but do we believe they are part of the one church or that we are a church and they are a church in a separate way and the rest eccleisal communities? probably that we are parts of the same one church but with an imperfect relationship? So is there one or two churches? I think one.
Also, why make this statement now. I am not against it, but if we already believed it, is there a reason why we are reiterating it? I worry about the tension it causes, but I am very proud of the Vatican for being willing to be clear that in ecumenical dialogue we must be very honest about our true identity or beliefs and maybe some have lost sight of them even in the church? Why do you think this statement was made? But it makes me happy because I do think sometimes we work so hard toward unity that we forget to tell the truth that we are Christ's church and that others may have great people and gifts, but are not. I also hope that this helps reaffirm that we also believe Christianity is the only true religion no matter how many good and true things may be found in the other religions. I think we need to both tell the truth, while working to bridge gaps and make friends with those we disagree with. 'Speaking the truth in love' as it were.
Brian
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 01:56 pm |
|
I thought about iditing my posty but I wanted to raise one more issue with it that would be read in case anyone was already replying and did not later notice I re-edited it.
Namely, some see this statement along with the liberalizing Latin mass, as two setbacks from Vatican II. I worry about rigts and things this could cause. I see both decusions rather as clarifiyng and helping us work toward conclusions that are important for us to understand. But I think the media tries at times to seek the negative spin to put on things, and I hope that the only people offended by the news of this recent time are those who maybe are more liberal theologically and indeed ought to be challenged that they might not deceive others. Still, I judge nothing until I better understanbd their views. My question to tack on to my post is, what do these events and others seem to say about our general direction? Are we trying to clarify errors that came about after Vatican II? Are we trying to affirm whgat it was supposed to be about while speaking out against false conclusions it led to, or are we distancing ourselves from those times? What direction are we going in and what will this imply aabout the second Vatican council. And I do not want this to be as much a debate as the last discussion was, so much as me wanting to know from Rome's perspective as to how to summarize the past in regards to where we are now and where we want to go. I have read many times on this forum that we are trying to buckle down on some things and misconceptions and modernisms that and liturgical abuses crept in the past decades. I am so happy about this, and I only hope the backlash I read about is from people who need the challenge. I am glad that we are trying to return to more reverence where we can, and I hope we can do so without offending more Catholics who like the way things are now. But I hope that Catholics everywhere will realize that these are not our decisions to make. We are the sheep. Sure we can ask questions or criticize or want input, but I do not like when I read statements from Catholics and even Catholic leaders telling us they disapprove or find error or think we are headed in the wrong direction. I think we can have opinions but as Catholics we ned to be led moreso than call the shots before proclaming our favor or disfavor.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 02:23 pm |
|
Brian’s reference is to this document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Why do you think this statement was made? Also, why make this statement now?
The pope has just issued a motu proprio concerning the older liturgy. Its repercussions reach far beyond the realm of liturgy, because one of his aims is to encourage the return of traditionalist groups such as the SSPX to full union. This document on the unity of the Church is the starting point for further dialogue leading to the fulfillment of this goal.
Notice that the document is directed primarily to theologians. Its immediate purpose is to point out the Catholic Church’s understanding of why institutional unity under the successor of Peter is as important as doctrinal and sacramental unity, and why all three together constitute full union. This move puts all the cards on the table and says to the schismatics, “It’s your bid.”
I think you have properly interpreted the other questions you raise.
David
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 263 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 03:18 pm |
|
Dear Brian,
what do these events and others seem to say about our general direction? Are we trying to clarify errors that came about after Vatican II? Are we trying to affirm whgat it was supposed to be about while speaking out against false conclusions it led to, or are we distancing ourselves from those times? What direction are we going in and what will this imply aabout the second Vatican council.
Like me, you must be hearing this question a lot and its hard to tell if its rhetorical or if people aren't "gettin" it. Certainly when the popular media discusses it, it feels like baiting for a fight.
I think you already know the answer Brian. The Pope wants to curb the abuses and inventive liturgies that have invaded the Church since Vatican II. He is not denying that the reform originally intended by the Council was needed. He is saying something about the chaos that ensued and wants to re-align us to a true reform.
"Distancing ourselves from those times" could be stated more specifically as "We are to distance ourselves from the bad times and return to the good times." I'd venture to say that the Pope wants to put the errors and abuse behind us while at the same time re-iterating the good things. When the Council said to keep the Latin and Gregorian chant, this was ignored. When the Council said to get approval for questionable music before using anything in the Liturgy, the approval process was never put into place by bishops. The Council never promoted bad translations or creative liturgies. Yea, I'm sure we need to distance ourselves from THAT.
As I mentioned in another post, in the 1950s it was widely recognized that the Church desperately needed a reform. The growing apathy and modernism, that today would not look like much to us, was scary to those who paid attention. And the priests who have become questionable bishops today were priests of the 50s. So let's get back to the business that was at hand in the 50s.
At the same time the Pope is reminding us that what was once thought of as holy, can and should be still considered as holy. So if the old Mass, the old Ritual [book], and the old Breviary were held in esteem, used with love, and were perfectly good, then these can't be forbidden to be used.
Right now the Pope's Motu Propio is focused only on what is stated therein. What other things will be addressed we'll just guess at right now.
The direction is a "reform of the reform". Fix what was supposed to be a reform promoted by the Council of Vatican II. Build upon the good stuff. And restore practice of the sacred and reverence.
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 05:16 pm |
|
| Thank you both for your helpful replies.
|
|
|
JasPax
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 208 |
| First Name: | James | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14th, 2007 02:23 pm |
|
Hello:
I hope this is an O.K. thread for this.
Someone in my Rosary group and Men's Bible study sent this around. I think it is a gooid illustration. Give it time to do its thing:
http://www.conglomination.com
Regards
____________________
James
"Abide in me, and I in you..." John 15:4
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:56
RSV-2CE
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14th, 2007 03:28 pm |
|
JasPax wrote: Hello:
I hope this is an O.K. thread for this.
Someone in my Rosary group and Men's Bible study sent this around. I think it is a gooid illustration. Give it time to do its thing:
http://www.conglomination.com
Regards
We've discussed that site before. It's excellent, and most appropriate to this thread.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 877 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14th, 2007 10:08 pm |
|
I read the list of sects on this site, and guess what, they didn't include The Church of Bible Understanding, 1971, or The Way Ministry, not sure which date. Or The Jesus People, USA. If I really think about it, I bet I could come up with at least 10 more sects that they didn't list. But I'm too tired to think about it right now. 
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 877 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14th, 2007 10:11 pm |
|
Just as I sent the last post, I remembered another sect. Jim Jones group, The People's Temple. Oh yeah, and Heaven's Gate, the folks that commit group suicide when the comet passed over, somewhere back in the 90's.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14th, 2007 11:18 pm |
|
Sure, Darlene, not to mention the Puritans, the Shakers and the Branch Davidians. There are probably thousands of informal Evangelical “house churches” that didn’t make the list, either.
Do they still exist? How many members? Are they religiously or sociologically significant? One has to draw the line somewhere.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 15th, 2007 01:43 am |
|
Darlene wrote: I read the list of sects on this site, and guess what, they didn't include The Church of Bible Understanding, 1971, or The Way Ministry, not sure which date. Or The Jesus People, USA. If I really think about it, I bet I could come up with at least 10 more sects that they didn't list. But I'm too tired to think about it right now.
There are some 38,000 Protestant faiths/sects/churches/cults/whatever. There's no way they could have included them all. And if you add in the "non-denominationals" and the various flavors, there are probably as many as there are pastors.
Still, it makes the point quite well.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 877 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 15th, 2007 09:04 am |
|
David W. Emery wrote: Sure, Darlene, not to mention the Puritans, the Shakers and the Branch Davidians. There are probably thousands of informal Evangelical “house churches” that didn’t make the list, either.
Do they still exist? How many members? Are they religiously or sociologically significant? One has to draw the line somewhere.
David
Ah, but David, me thinks the Branch Davidians were mentioned. Yes, I remember the Shakers quite well. They settled in an area of greater Cleveland called Shaker Heights. Oddly enough, that neighborhood became largely Jewish in the 20th Century.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
Current time is 10:44 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
