Friday, March 29, AD 2024 9:43am

Res et Explicatio for A.D. 7-23-2009

Salvete AC readers!

Buckle Up! Because here are today’s Top Picks in the Catholic world:

1. I want to welcome Blackadder to American Catholic.  Yes, it’s belated, but needed nonetheless.  He has been an excellent addition to our fledgling website.  He’s written many exceptional posts over at Vox Nova and we are glad to have him here with us.  He also writes at the fine political group blog, Southern Appeal.

2. Meaningless word of the day, Ecumenism.

A close second, Interreligious Dialogue.

…which dovetails very well into my third pick…

3Caritas in veritate, as some critics suggest, may have been a poorly written encyclical.  The argument goes that unlike the previous two encyclicals, Deus caritas est and Spe salvi, Caritas in veritate was a group effort.  Which may explain the many delays in issuing the encyclical.  And also why it has so far received a mixed response from all across the theological and political spectrum.

Not to worry, in my humble opinion, Ut Unum Sint is by far the most poorly written encyclical within the past 100 years.  How can one read this without defining ecumenism and its various neologisms.  What utter confusion!

4. I’m sure this point will be overlooked now that I may have started a tempest over Ut Unum Sint, but nonetheless here we go…

Many of us here at American Catholic refer to our website at A.C. or sometimes T.A.C., for The American Catholic.  While trying to fall asleep I was thinking of a cool name to refer to A.C. and presto, maybe we should add ‘Online‘ at the end of our name!  So it would be The American Catholic Online, or T.A.C.O.!

5.  A neat conversion story written by Louisiana’s Governor Bobby Jindal here.

6. And the Catholic World Report has apparently updated the image of their website.  I’m not sure how recently they have done this, but it’s compact and easy on the eyes.

7. For the last Res et Explicatio click here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
85 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Henry Karlson
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 6:59am

“Ecumenism” is a meaningless word? Tell that to the Vatican.

“The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.”

“Today, in many parts of the world, under the inspiring grace of the Holy Spirit, many efforts are being made in prayer, word and action to attain that fullness of unity which Jesus Christ desires. The Sacred Council exhorts all the Catholic faithful to recognize the signs of the times and to take an active and intelligent part in the work of ecumenism.”

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

“In the same way, “The Catechism of the Catholic Church” recently published (1992), includes the ecumenical dimension as part of the basic teaching for all the faithful of the Church.”

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html

This post is another fine representation of cafeteria Catholicism.

Henry Karlson
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 7:06am

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE FOUNDATION
FOR INTERRELIGIOUS AND INTERCULTURAL
RESEARCH AND DIALOGUE

Thursday, 1 February 2007

Dear Friends,

It is a joy for me, having been one of the founding members of the Foundation for Interreligious and Intercultural Research and Dialogue, to meet you again and to welcome you today at the Vatican. I greet in particular His Royal Highness Prince Hassan of Jordan whom I have the pleasure to meet on this occasion.

I thank H.E. Metropolitan Damaskinos of Andrianoupolis, your President, who has presented to me the first result of your work: a joint edition of the three Sacred Books of the three monotheistic religions in their original language and in chronological order. Indeed, this was the very first project we conceived of in creating the Foundation together, so as to “make a specific and positive contribution to the dialogue between cultures and religions”.

As I have said on several occasions, in continuation with the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate and with my beloved Predecessor, Pope John Paul II, we, Jews, Christians and Muslims are called to develop the bonds that unite us.

Indeed, it was this idea that led us to create this Foundation which aims to seek “the most essential and authentic message that the three monotheistic religions, namely, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, can address to the world of the 21st century”, to give a new impetus to interreligious and intercultural dialogue by means of our common research and by highlighting and disseminating everything in our respective spiritual heritages that helps to strengthen fraternal ties between our communities of believers.

Consequently, the Foundation had to work out an instrument of reference that would help us overcome misunderstandings and prejudices and offer a common platform for future work. Thus, you have produced this beautiful edition of the three books which are the source of our religious beliefs, creators of culture, that have made a deep mark on peoples and to which we are indebted today.

The reinterpretation, and for some people, the discovery of the texts that so many people across the world venerate as sacred, demands mutual respect in trusting dialogue. Our contemporaries expect of us a message of harmony and peace and the practical expression of our common willingness to help them achieve their legitimate aspiration to live in justice and peace.

They are entitled to expect of us a strong sign of renewed understanding and reinforced cooperation in accordance with the actual objective of the Foundation, which proposes to offer “to the world in this way a sign of hope and the promise of divine Blessings that always accompanies charitable action”.

The Foundation’s work will contribute to a growing awareness of everything in the different cultures of our time which is in conformity with divine wisdom and serves human dignity, the better to discern and reject everything that usurps God’s name and deforms man’s humanity.

Thus, we are invited to engage in a common task of reflection. This is a labour of reason for which I wholeheartedly appeal, with you, to be able to examine God’s mystery in the light of our respective religious traditions and wisdom so as to discern the values likely to illumine the men and women of all the peoples on earth, whatever their culture and religion.

For this reason it is henceforth invaluable to have at our disposal a common reference point, thanks to the work you have done. Thus, we will be able to make headway in interreligious and intercultural dialogue which today is more necessary than ever: a true dialogue, respectful of differences, courageous, patient and persevering, which finds its strength in prayer and is nourished by the hope that dwells in all who believe in God and put their trust in him.

Our respective religious traditions all insist on the sacred character of the life and dignity of the human person. We believe that God will bless our initiatives if they converge for the good of all his children and enable them to respect each other in brotherhood world-wide.

Together with all people of good will, we aspire to peace. That is why I insist once again: interreligious and intercultural research and dialogue are not an option but a vital need for our time.

May the Almighty bless your work and grant an abundance of his Blessings to you and to your loved ones!

Michael Denton
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 9:05am

Ecumenism is meaningless? Caritas in Veritate is poorly written?

What the heck?

Alan Phipps
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 9:19am

“What the heck?”

ditto, and I rather liked Ut Unum Sint.

Matt McDonald
Matt McDonald
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 10:26am

Ecumenism is meaningless in the sense that the neo-modernists and the left have misappropriated the term to mean the Catholic Church abandoning the principles upon which she was founded, in favor of a more generic and FALSE Christianity in order to appease the separated brethren sufficiently to establish some sort of loose affiliation which they would consider “unity”. That is FALSE ecumenism, with true ecumenism being the goal of restoring those separated brethren to the One True Church by abandoning their erroneous doctrines and invalid hierarchies.

Tito did not say the latest encyclical is “poorly written” he acknowledged that some critics have said so. It clearly is more of a committee document than Benedict’s prior encyclicals.

Ut Unam Sint? Good heavens, that is by far the worst encyclical since the 2nd Vatican Council, or perhaps EVER. There’s a reason that our current Holy Father as head of the Holy Office, issued a major clarification to restore proper understanding of the mission of the Church and the true meaning of Ecumenism.

Henry Karlson
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 10:36am

If a text leads to a clarification later, that doesn’t mean the text itself is written badly (otherwise, we must all consider the Bible one of the worst books ever written). Theology is always engaged with this kind of work; compare St Cyril of Alexandria vs Pope St Leo; I wouldn’t call Cyril a bad writer because he doesn’t use the advanced terminology of Leo, because, well, he didn’t have use of it in his time!

Mark DeFrancisis
Mark DeFrancisis
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 10:41am

“Neo-modernists”? Who are these people in the Church who have with their practice so destroyed the meaning of ecumenism? Are they Church officials? Bishops’ conferences? Renegade theologians? General ill-willers?

Tito Edwards
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 10:48am

Henry & Alan,

Could you find for me in Ut Unum Sint what the definition of “ecumenism” is?

I doubt you can find it.

Henry Karlson
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 10:51am

Tito

Can you find in the Bible a definition of the Trinity? Does it make the Trinity not in the Bible? Documents are after written with the presupposition that the basic terms within it don’t need to be defined.

e.
e.
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 10:55am

Henry Karlson,

Even the text of infallible proclamations/documents does not necessarily make them impeccable.

Your point concerning thus seems to make the case that such documents are indeed so.

If that is the case, your contention is as remarkably risible as Tito’s TACO is as derisive.

Tito Edwards
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 10:58am

Henry K.,

I didn’t say Bible, I said Ut Unum Sint.

Again, you can’t find it because Pope John Paul II never defined “ecumenism”.

Ecumenism is a protestant invented word. Nowhere is it defined.

It is so ambiguous it could mean anything, ipso facto, it can be meaningless.

Michael Denton
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 11:05am

Ecumenism is a protestant invented word.

I think if we wanted to start digging into the origins of much of the vocabulary commonly utilized in Catholic theology, the origins will not be majority Catholic.

Henry Karlson
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 11:05am

“Ecumenism is a protestant invented word. Nowhere is it defined.”

A couple things, you are arguing a Latin document to define words in English? Again this is rather weird. Second, the source of the word is Greek, and nowhere I see is the word “invented by Protestantism.” You will find ecumenism engaged long before Protestants.

While the word itself is not defined in the document, the activity which the Church supports is given throughout. More importantly, just because a document doesn’t define the meaning for you, doesn’t make it meaningless, just as the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, but not meaningless. Again, this is basic — the arguments you make remind me of Protestants as they argue definitions “via the Bible.” They don’t understand definitions are presupposed if a word is used, and the Bible doesn’t define words, just as a Papal Encyclical doesn’t have to define every word it uses to make the word meaningful.

As for a fine example of dissident Catholicism, just remember who it is pointing at the Church and telling it that its declarations are in error! You are telling the Church it is calling us to something meaningless, not I. This is the example of your clear Cafeteria style Catholicism. It is quite apparent you don’t listen to the Church, you only take things out of context for your non-Catholic political ideology, and if the Church says different, you begin to mock the Church.

Matt McDonald
Matt McDonald
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 11:05am

HK,

issued a major clarification to restore proper understanding of the mission of the Church

First let me correct the record, the clarification was issued after the ascension of Benedict XVI to the papacy, and so was under the prefect Cdl. Levada technically (though clearly it was written by and/or closely supervised by Benedict XVI).

Secondly, this clarification after only 12 years is in no way related to re-examinations of the early fathers work 100’s of years later. They’re just not the same thing. The document in question is not simply an analysis, it is corrective. The corrective was necessary because the neo-modernists and leftists began taking advantage of the difficulties in Ut Unum Sint to further their destructive efforts, completely ignoring 2000 years of doctrine. The same occurred after the documents of the 2nd Vatican Council.

Henry Karlson
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 11:08am

Michael

It is true that the origin of the word is not important (most words can probably be traced back to pagans), but in this case, he is also in error. The word is derived from Greek – and is cognate with “economy.” Ecumenism isn’t a modern phenomena – again, as I have said, all one has to do is look back in time, and one will find Florence, which was 15th century ecumenism.

Henry Karlson
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 11:10am

Matt

You really should look into the time between Ephesus and Chalcedon, and also, the reaction of those who opposed Chalcedon. You will find that clarification was indeed needed, soon after Ephesus, but that does not dismiss the value of Ephesus itself. This is the same thing. The Church is always engaging, going deeper, bringing up something new.

Alan Phipps
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 11:10am

Tito,

Ut Unum Sint is built on top of the Second Vatican Council’s decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, which notes the following:

“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.”

I would recommend a careful reading of Unitatis Redintegratio to frame Ut Unum Sint. Having read some responses to Ut Unum Sint, primarily on the part of some Orthodox, it’s impact is important. To pass it off as some sort of Protestant invention is, in my opinion, silly.

Tito Edwards
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 11:12am

HK,

So because you can’t find the definition you begin your ad hominem attacks on me.

Typical Vox Nova poster.

Henry Karlson
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 11:17am

Alan

Exactly my point.

Henry Karlson
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 11:17am

Tito

No, I didn’t make any ad hominems — heck, there is a post on VN you need to read, now that you make that claim.

Matt McDonald
Matt McDonald
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 11:17am

Alan Phipps,

you should also review Unam Sanctum, Redemptoris Missio to properly understand the Church’s teaching on how unity is to be restored and maintained. Where Peter is there is the Church, he is the earthly sign of unity.

JohnH
JohnH
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 11:19am

Tito, I think you’re being willfully obtuse on this.

Alan Phipps
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 11:21am

Matt,

I’m only helping to frame Ut Unum Sint. I don’t dispute that “ecumenism” has been hijacked by some groups to mean something it does not. I don’t think your beef is really with me.

Tito Edwards
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 12:29pm

Henry K.,

“the ecumenical movement really began within the Churches and Ecclesial Communities of the Reform”.
–Ut Unum Sint, Pope John Paul II

Ut Unum Sint is not ex cathedra.

Pope Pius XI condemned any attempts at ecumenism in Mortalium Animos.

Pope Pius XII made a prediction concerning the problems of ecumenism, being of Protestant orgigen:

“I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to little Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul… I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.”

e.
e.
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 12:43pm

Ecumenism is but a vile virus that has become an apparent plague on Rome, which will ultimately lead to its very undoing.

You need only take notice of purported Catholics who are nothing but Gnostics in disguise, succumbing to various heresies and cultish folk practices given to the provocation of the spirits.

JohnH
JohnH
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 12:51pm

Tito, it’s interesting that you dismiss one encyclical by citing another, and bolster it with a purported quote from Pope Pius XII that only appears as a “so-and-so said he heard that the Pope said” kind of quote on far-right Traditionalist websites. It would appear that cherry-picking isn’t only a left-wing activity.

Tito Edwards
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 12:51pm

e.,

Well I wouldn’t go that far.

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”
– – Holy Gospel of St. Matthew 16:18

Ecumenism may have harmed the Church but it won’t be it’s ruin.

Tito Edwards
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 12:53pm

JohnH,

I am not dismissing Ut Unum Sint, I am just pointing out that it isn’t ex cathedra and there still needs to be a better clarification on the subject of ecumenism.

40 years of “ecumenism” has produced zero, “0”, results.

Outside of cut-off chicken heads at Fatima and heathens desecrating the churches of Assissi, it has been fruitless.

Tito Edwards
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 12:54pm

JohnH,

And no, I didn’t pick the quote from “traditionalist” websites, I got it from the Vatican website. Unless of course you are accusing the Vatican of being traditionalist.

Take a chill pill dude.

Matt McDonald
Matt McDonald
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 12:55pm

Alan Phipps,

I’m only helping to frame Ut Unum Sint. I don’t dispute that “ecumenism” has been hijacked by some groups to mean something it does not. I don’t think your beef is really with me.

there’s no beef really, I just want to point out that one can’t properly understand Ut Unam Sint by reading it and Unitatis Redentigratio (UR). One must also read older documents, and the correctives from Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and the doctrinal note which followed from UR.

Speaking of which, after further research, Dominus Iesus was in fact issued under Cdl. Ratzinger as a corrective for UUS and only 5 years after it’s issue, subsequently another corrective was issued under Cdl. Levada.

e.,

Ecumenism is but a vile virus that has become an apparent plague on Rome, which will ultimately lead to its very undoing.

I don’t think it’s possible for Rome to be “ultimately” undone, pretty sure Christ assured us of that. Clearly the false understanding of ecumenism has been a vile virus which harms the Body of Christ but can not destroy it.

Art Deco
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 12:55pm

“Neo-modernists”? Who are these people in the Church who have with their practice so destroyed the meaning of ecumenism? Are they Church officials? Bishops’ conferences? Renegade theologians? General ill-willers?

Christopher Ferrara in his critique of ecumenism places the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the most recently deceased pontiff. The Latin Mass has an occasional feature on the problems which ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue have presented and Ferrara and Woods write at length on the subject in The Great Facade.

Henry Karlson
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 12:58pm

Tito, you need to know how to read things in context; Pope John Paul II, in saying, “the ecumenical movement really began within the Churches and Ecclesial Communities of the Reform,” is of course talking about the modern ecumenical movement in the 20th century. However it is not the foundation of ecumenism, which is something else.

JohnH
JohnH
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 1:00pm

And no, I didn’t pick the quote from “traditionalist” websites, I got it from the Vatican website. Unless of course you are accusing the Vatican of being traditionalist.

OK, please show me where that quote shows up on the Vatican website. The one that begins with “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to little Lucy of Fatima.” I can only find it though sedevacantist / SSPX websites.

Tito Edwards
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 1:00pm

Henry K.,

I agree with you on that point.

Like you, I want all Christians united.

I just wished that Pope John Paul II would have used more concise language than the ambiguities that are infested in Ut Unum Sint.

I doubt Ut Unum Sint will ever be as relevant as when it was first issued. Like Vatican II, it will be our children who will see what is effective and what is not effective.

You and I are on the same side, we want to evangelize the world.

Henry Karlson
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 1:00pm

“Dominus Iesu” was actually not written as a corrective to UUS, but to deal with some Catholic theologians engaging a broad form of pluralism which rendered Jesus insignificant. It was an internal theological document, not a document which was at all written in response to ecumenism.

Alan Phipps
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 1:01pm

“Outside of cut-off chicken heads at Fatima and heathens desecrating the churches of Assissi, it has been fruitless.”

I think that such a conclusion is short sighted. There has been great strides in our ecumenical efforts with the Eastern Orthodox, and hopefully with the TAC. Did you read Unitatis Redintegratio? Just because it doesn’t move according to your schedule or expectations doesn’t make it fruitless. Nor is it rendered irrelevant when other groups reduce enumenism to indifferentism, which the church has also condemned.

Tito Edwards
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 1:02pm

JohnH.,

I was referring to Mortalium Animos.

Please, where is the evidence of any ecumenical success?

Henry Karlson
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 1:02pm

““I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to little Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul… I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.””

Speaks nothing of ecumenism. As the Church makes clear, even in UUS, ecumenism is not about the alteration of Church teaching; it is not a syncretism.

Zak
Zak
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 1:09pm

Matt,
Cardinal Levada’s document was in response to misinterpretations of and questions about Dominus Iesus, which was issued by the CDF under Joseph Ratzinger.

Zak
Zak
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 1:13pm

Sorry, Matt, I missed where you noted the correct timeline. Shouldn’t have skimmed through the subsequent responses.

e.
e.
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 1:15pm

Matt McDonald:

Agreed; however, it has most assuredly not only harmed the Body of Christ, but it has done so to such remarkable extent so as to disfigure it almost rendering it to where you can hardly see the Catholicism of today as actually being “Catholic”.

Foxfier
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 1:18pm
Foxfier
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 1:19pm
Matt McDonald
Matt McDonald
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 1:20pm

Henry Karlson,

“Dominus Iesu” was actually not written as a corrective to UUS, but to deal with some Catholic theologians engaging a broad form of pluralism which rendered Jesus insignificant. It was an internal theological document, not a document which was at all written in response to ecumenism.

Unless you’re actually familiar with the “ecumenism movement” in which case you would know it has been drifting towards pluralism since the 70’s and recognize that this illicit movement had used UUS to further it’s cause, thus justifying it’s inclusion in the discussion.

Alan,

I think that such a conclusion is short sighted. There has been great strides in our ecumenical efforts with the Eastern Orthodox, and hopefully with the TAC. Did you read Unitatis Redintegratio? Just because it doesn’t move according to your schedule or expectations doesn’t make it fruitless. Nor is it rendered irrelevant when other groups reduce enumenism to indifferentism, which the church has also condemned.

Tito forgot to mention the illicit inter-communion which the Canadian Bishops have all but publicly embraced… I don’t think Tito is objecting to the TRUE ecumenism which is going on with the Orthodox and TAC, he is rejecting false ecumenism (on that he ought to be more precise) as does the Church.

Tito Edwards
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 1:22pm

Foxfier,

That was funny!

JohnH
JohnH
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 1:25pm

e., sounds like you’d agree with this fellow:

Ecumenism — is one of the mechanisms by which this mixing is achieved in practice. It is a relatively recent satanic invention, which already proved to be a huge success. Under the guise of “super-Christian love” it attempts to blur and, eventually, destroy the boundaries of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, depriving the faithful of the Holy Mysteries and corrupting their souls.

Except that he’s not Roman Catholic.

http://ecumenizm.tripod.com/ECUMENIZM/index.html

And Tito–if you want to find out what the fruits of ecumenism have been, why not ask some of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Rite priests who have been doing mission work in Russia? I’m sure if you look around, you could get a good perspective on it. The efforts have not been fruitless, especially in building trust within countries that traditionally have been fiercely anti-Rome.

Tito Edwards
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 1:28pm

So “ecumenism” means being “nice” to others?

I thought charity fell under that category, but I guess ecumenism is the new “charity”.

So ecumenism means being nice to others, but not necessary being one Church.

See the confusion?

Henry Karlson
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 1:30pm

“Unless you’re actually familiar with the “ecumenism movement” in which case you would know it has been drifting towards pluralism since the 70’s and recognize that this illicit movement had used UUS to further it’s cause, thus justifying it’s inclusion in the discussion.”

Not true at all; it is quite apparent you are the one who has not studied the movement, but rather, strawmen about the movement itself; indeed, as I pointed out, UUS has criticized this idea of ecumenism, so it can’t be seen as supporting this notion at all. More importantly, if you look at the bi-lateral dialogues between Catholicism and others, you will note doctrine is significant, and the Orthodox, who have always been with the WWC, have always put forward as the difference of doctrine is a fundamental issue and cannot be dismissed for some “super-church” which ignores the distinctions. Sergius Bulgakov consistently insisted the ecumenical movement address Mary, btw.

Matt McDonald
Matt McDonald
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 1:31pm

e. ,

Agreed; however, it has most assuredly not only harmed the Body of Christ, but it has done so to such remarkable extent so as to disfigure it almost rendering it to where you can hardly see the Catholicism of today as actually being “Catholic”.

not everywhere, but certainly in many places.

e.
e.
Thursday, July 23, AD 2009 1:33pm

JohnH:

Stuff it and quite putting words in my mouth; regardless of the fact that even previous popes themselves opposed ecumenism and for good reason, too!

Truly, the Smoke of Satan has already infiltrated the Church, as had even been prophesied by a well-respected pope; one need only see the many modern-day ‘Catholic’ churches, which are more like pagan sacrificial worship sites or your local protestant gathering place, as well as attend any number of ‘services’ to see its dispicable fruits which, thus, evince an overwhelming evidence for the center of such villainy.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top