Theories On Unity

[mulls]

oh and good answer...the leading of the Holy Spirit is big.

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote]it was ALL the virgen of guadlupe and juan diego and this idol and the other...NEVER CHRIST...ever.[/quote]

Never Christ huh are sure?

Whats wrong with talking about Mary, she leads us to Jesus?

"IDOL" huh are you sure you got all this information correct, I see alot of things WRONG!

But whatever haha

Pax

[the lumberjack]

don't believe me if you don't want to dust...I'm just telling you what was my experience in the times I went to mass.

that is all.

and unless you were with me, you can not unvalidate what I heard.

-----
[color=red][Edited by Ice Princess: sarcasm, personal attacks. Play Nice!][/color]

Edited May 19, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS

[Dave]

You can't go to Mass and not hear about Jesus. Could it be that perhaps you went in there with the wrong mindset? You didn't expect to hear about Jesus, most likely. And so you missed everything related to him during the Mass.

[mulls]

focus people focus, we have a good topic at hand.

[jasJis]

[quote name='mulls' date='May 18 2004, 02:38 PM'] Jas,


what makes you think that one day all Christians will recognize the Catholic Church and the Pope?


from what Scripture says, things are going to get a lot more ugly before they get better....and they won't get better till Jesus returns. [/quote]
I have confidence in the unifying power of the Holy Spirit and Christ's desire that we may be of One Body.

I do believe in the Catholic Church as the repository of the Fullness of Grace being made available by the Holy Spirit. Not just as a cradle Catholic, but as a result for my search for a relationship with God through Jesus. Not that I think that it is the only denomination that serves God's will as a source of Grace. It is the one that is most abundant, the original source of Grace for all Christianity. You and I may disagree about it's Fullness, but I would not say that the Baptist, or Lutheran, or Pentecostal denominations are without any Grace. I do believe Jesus established One Church, One Faith, and that He sends the Holy Spirit to work in me and others to serve His Church and that some are burdened by Grace to serve as leaders in His One Church. That leader and Church is the Pope and what we call the Catholic Church which used to be called The Way.

God grace is abundant. Why be satisfied with a life giving trickle when He wants us to jump in His river of grace and be carried away?

[dUSt]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 18 2004, 02:45 PM'] don't believe me if you don't want to dust...I'm just telling you what was my experience in the times I went to mass. [/quote]
It's not a matter of believing you or not.

It's a simple fact. If it was a Catholic mass, it was centered on Christ. It's impossible for a mass not to be centered on Christ.

If you attended a mass that was not centered on Christ, then by definition, it was not a mass at all, and the Church you attended was not Catholic. Sadly, I'm sure that there is Churches who call themselves Catholic but are not--just like there are people who call themselves Christian, who are not.

This doesn't at all detract from the unity within the Church, for if the church you attended was Catholic in name only, but not truly Catholic--then they are outside of the Church--and are no more Catholic than Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Jews, Protestants or Muslims.

[mulls]

Jas,


ok, but what gives you that confidence? certainly anything is possible with the power of the Holy Spirit. but based on the Scriptures, it doesn't seem like this will happen.

Christ did indeed desire that we be of one body...he prayed for it. but i'm sure he also desired that nobody would reject his message and spend eternity separated from him, yet we know that happens.

i really wish that all believers would be united one day....and we will, but unfortunately, from all that the bible indicates, it won't happen until we all pass from this earth and Jesus returns. then we will all reign together, forever.

[Ashley]

[quote name='mulls' date='May 18 2004, 11:34 AM'] the Catholic church has the best shot of doing this, with its power, wealth, and influence. unfortunately, unless its doctrines change, those who remain outside of the Church now will most likely always continue to do so.

the movement would have to become more of a straight-up attempt to convert all Christians to Catholicism instead of falling under the guise of making Christians one big happy family.

in any situation, people would have to change their beliefs. it ain't gonna happen, for better or for worse.



oh and what's the point of being unified if we're all unitedly in error (obviously arguing from the basic non-catholic perspective)? [/quote]
You read my thoughts mulls.

[jasJis]

[quote name='mulls' date='May 18 2004, 03:43 PM'] ok, but what gives you that confidence? [/quote]
The Christian example witnessed to me over the years by Christians of many different denominations. Faith that Truth will prevail over darkness. It's simply inevitable.

(Plus, I'm much more simple in my Faith than seems by how I discuss it on-line. I can't explain everything, but I can certainly recognize reasonable when it slaps the back of my head!)

[mulls]

[quote name='jasJis' date='May 18 2004, 04:58 PM'] The Christian example witnessed to me over the years by Christians of many different denominations. Faith that Truth will prevail over darkness. It's simply inevitable.
[/quote]
ok, i can feel that. i've seen plenty of that myself, especially on campus, where i've spearheaded an effort to unite all the Christians together, and God is certainly making it happen.



but i still don't think that ALL believers will ever be united on this earth, as one actual church. i would argue that we are united, we just don't know it, because of all our differences. but in any case, the bible says that in the end (and i believe that we're closer to the end than farther) that people will even fall away from the faith, and the world's gonna be a mess, until Jesus does His thing.



basically it comes down to me not having faith in something that the Scripture doesn't support. i could be totally wrong on this though, maybe it will happen, and you certainly have a positive perspective which i am not trying to take away. God is capable of anything.....we'll see how it plays out.

[amarkich]

Mulls, thank you for the questions. Here are the statements for which you are looking.

There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved. (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council)

We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam)

The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, the Bull Cantate Domino)

There are the declarations by the Popes. The Church has already proclaimed the necessity of being Catholic to go to Heaven, but, with you, I agree completely that it would be a good idea for the Pope to reiterate this, especially in our times of pluralism and relativism. I agree that the Pope does take many steps toward "unity" that are very clearly not intended to bring all to the unity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which is necessary for salvation. The issue, however, is that he believes that the current methods are the best way to convert others to the Truth. I truly hope that he is successful in this endeavor, but we have seen this method fail in the recent years in which it has been attempted. I believe that we must recognize the error of supporting a kind of false unity and should strive to gain as many souls as possible to Ark of Salvation, the Church.


Interestingly enough, my Pastor gave a great sermon on this very issue on Sunday. The very reason that this "New Evangelization" which is often, in practice, false ecumenism, is being used is that the statements made by Pope John XXIII, opening the Second Vatican Council, made the claim that this is the "new way" that the Church would evangelize. It is, however, necessary to understand his reasoning for this (which, as my Pastor explained, even if it did apply in 1962, no longer applies in our times). The opening address of Vatican II states:

"The Catholic Church, raising the torch of religious truth by means of this Ecumenical Council, desires to show herself to be the loving mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness toward the brethren who are separated from her. To mankind, oppressed by so many difficulties, the Church says, as Peter said to the poor who begged alms from him: 'I have neither gold nor silver, but what I have I give you; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise and walk' (c.f., Acts iii.6). In other words, the Church does not offer to the men of today riches that pass, nor does she promise them merely earthly happiness. But she distributes to them the goods of divine grace which, raising men to the dignity of sons of God, are the most efficacious safeguards and aids toward a more human life. She opens the fountain of her life-giving doctrine which allows men, enlightened by the light of Christ, to understand well what they really are, what their lofty dignity and their purpose are, and, finally, through her children, she spreads everywhere the fullness of Christian charity, than which nothing is more effective in eradicating the seeds of discord, nothing more efficacious in promoting concord, just peace, and the brotherly unity of all."

Pope John XXIII states his reasoning for this "New Evangelization" in the paragraph preceding, saying:

"At the outset of the Second Vatican Council, it is evident, as always, that the truth of the Lord will remain forever. We see, in fact, as one age succeeds another, that the opinions of men follow one another and exclude each other. And often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before the sun The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of
severity. She consider that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations. Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against and dissipated. But[b] these are so obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them[/b], particularly those ways of life which despise God and His law or place excessive confidence in technical progress and a well-being based exclusively on the comforts of life. They are ever more deeply convinced of the paramount dignity of the human person and of his perfection as well as of the duties which that implies."

As you can see, the Pope has given some reasoning behind his plan for the "New Evangelization." This reasoning can be seen in the bold phrases above. Among his other observations, we recognize that Pope John XXIII, along with the other "Vatican II Popes", has accepted the notion that the erroneous notions of Modernism are "so obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them." If Pope John is correct in his assessment, that modern man really does condemn the errors of modern day with the Church's condemnation, then we can accept his claim and follow the New Evangelization. We must recognize, however, that if the Pope's reasoning is not applicable in our times, then we must follow the traditional form of Evangelization, namely, condemning error and outwardly teaching the necessity of the Church for salvation. There is no need to speculate as to whether or not modern man can condemn the errors of Modernism by his own intuition because our current Pontiff, Pope John Paul II, has already answered this question in his Encyclical [i]Evangelium Vitae[/i] in 1995 which is surely indicative of the state of modern man. The Pope states:

69. In any case, [b]in the democratic culture of our time it is commonly held that the legal system of any society should limit itself to taking account of and accepting the convictions of the majority[/b]. It should therefore be based solely upon what the majority itself considers moral and actually practices. Furthermore, if it is believed that an objective truth shared by all is de facto unattainable, then respect for the freedom of the citizens-who in a democratic system are considered the true rulers-would require that on the legislative level the autonomy of individual consciences be acknowledged. Consequently, when establishing those norms which are absolutely necessary for social coexistence, the only determining factor should be the will of the majority, whatever this may be. Hence every politician, in his or her activity, should clearly separate the realm of private conscience from that of public conduct.

As a result we have what appear to be two diametrically opposed tendencies. On the one hand, individuals claim for themselves in the moral sphere the most complete freedom of choice and demand that the State should not adopt or impose any ethical position but limit itself to guaranteeing maximum space for the freedom of each individual, with the sole limitation of not infringing on the freedom and rights of any other citizen. On the other hand, it is held that, in the exercise of public and professional duties, respect for other people's freedom of choice requires that each one should set aside his or her own convictions in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is recognized and guaranteed by law; in carrying out one's duties the only moral criterion should be what is laid down by the law itself. Individual responsibility is thus turned over to the civil law, with a renouncing of personal conscience, at least in the public sphere.

70. At the basis of all these tendencies lies the ethical relativism which characterizes much of present-day culture. There are those who consider such relativism an essential condition of democracy, inasmuch as it alone is held to guarantee tolerance, mutual respect between people and acceptance of the decisions of the majority, whereas moral norms considered to be objective and binding are held to lead to authoritarianism and intolerance.

But it is precisely the issue of respect for life which shows what misunderstandings and contradictions, accompanied by terrible practical consequences, are concealed in this position.


We see in the Pope's words an assessment of modern man. Modern man, as the Pope says, does not recognize and condemn the errors of Modernism by his own accord. Rather, the Pope says, it is commonly held--not by a few, but by the majority--that the errors of Modernism not only are not condemned and not anathamized but also that these errors be accepted as the norm and correct way of life in government and society. With that being said, it is necessary for us to recognize the exhortation of our Pope which further illustrates the error of modern man and the fact that he is unable to condemn the errors of Modernism himself. Because this is true, it is necessary for the Church to uphold her previous convictions and assertions in condemning error and anathamizing all who hold these erroneous opinions, as my Pastor so brilliantly stated. My comments are simply a rendition of his great sermon. I did not discuss the previous assertions made by Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical [i]Libertas[/i] which condemns Modernism in the strictest language. I hope this post has been insightful and helpful. God bless.

[traichuoi]

[quote name='mulls' date='May 18 2004, 10:34 AM'] it ain't gonna happen, for better or for worse.
[/quote]
since when did the theological virtues become just faith and love?

[mulls]

amarkich-- thanks, that was great. but whateve the Pope needs to do, it is my opinion that he should do it more LOUDLY. the common man isn't going to read his position papers and documents and such. the common man, catholic or not, needs a wake up call.....especially if he is to realize that he needs the Church for his salvation.



traichuoi-- huh?

[traichuoi]

mulls,

sorry, something my brother says to me whenever i say "it will never happen." so he reminds me that i should have hope...that is all i meant...