Encylicals Related To Modernism

[mortify ii]

How long how you been sitting on this quote?

 

One decade

[Credo in Deum]

Then you probably could have posted it earlier saving Pergrinia some time.

[mortify ii]

Then you probably could have posted it earlier saving Pergrinia some time.

 

All things in due time. But in all seriousness I found it when I glanced over Fr Ripperger's article on Traditional vs Conservative Catholicism which I recently posted as another thread, but thank you for your concern. 

[Perigrina]

"In the document of Vatican II on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, there is not a single mention of the two previous documents that deal with the ecumenical movement and other religions: Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum and Pius XI'sMortalium Animos. The approach to ecumenism and other religions in these documents is fundamentally different from the approach of the Vatican II document or Ut Unum Sint by Pope John Paul II. While the current Magisterium can change a teaching that falls under non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching, nevertheless, when the Magisterium makes a judgment in these cases, it has an obligation due to the requirements of the moral virtue of prudence to show how the previous teaching was wrong or is now to be understood differently by discussing the two different teachings. However, this is not what has happened. The Magisterium since Vatican II often ignores previous documents which may appear to be in opposition to the current teaching, leaving the faithful to figure out how the two are compatible, such as in the cases of Mortalium Animos and Ut Unum Sint. This leads toconfusion and infighting within the Church as well as the appearance of contradicting previous Church teaching without explanation or reasoned justification."

 

Fr Chad Ripperger, FSSP. 

 

I see this as a legitimate criticism, but it does not take away from anything that I wrote about the lack of actual contradictions between Mortalium Animos and Unitatis Redintegratio. I stand by what I wrote. 

 

The quote does, however, seriously cast doubt on your repeated advice that people should "just read the encyclicals".  Here we have a respected priest saying that it is normal for the faithful to find it difficult to figure out how they are compatible and that this leads to confusion and infighting.  Why on earth are you advising everyone to do something that is likely to have such results?

[Perigrina]

Then you probably could have posted it earlier saving Pergrinia some time.

 

Actually the quote would not make any difference to what I wrote.  Fr. Ripperger points out that the documents can appear to contradict each other.  I had already acknowledged that they could be problematic to a person without sufficient background.  It was still useful to explain why there was not actually a contradiction.

[mortify ii]

Actually the quote would not make any difference to what I wrote.  Fr. Ripperger points out that the documents can appear to contradict each other.  I had already acknowledged that they could be problematic to a person without sufficient background.  It was still useful to explain why there was not actually a contradiction.

 

"The approach to ecumenism and other religions in these documents is fundamentally different from the approach of the Vatican II document or Ut Unum Sint by Pope John Paul II"

[Perigrina]

"The approach to ecumenism and other religions in these documents is fundamentally different from the approach of the Vatican II document or Ut Unum Sint by Pope John Paul II"

 

Yes, they were very different.  They were talking about completely different things.  Mortalium Animos was talking about the ecumenical movement of that time which was based on modernist principles and Unitatis Redintegratio was talking about ecumenism based on Catholic principles.  The former talked about the problems with an existing form of ecumenism.  The latter described what ecumenism should look like.

[mortify ii]

Yes, they were very different.  They were talking about completely different things.  Mortalium Animos was talking about the ecumenical movement of that time which was based on modernist principles and Unitatis Redintegratio was talking about ecumenism based on Catholic principles.  The former talked about the problems with an existing form of ecumenism.  The latter described what ecumenism should look like.

 

Do you really think that is what Fr Ripperger is getting at in that quote?

[Perigrina]

Do you really think that is what Fr Ripperger is getting at in that quote?

 

The point of the quote is that the recent documents should have foreseen the potential confusion and explicitly explained that they do not contradict the old ones, rather than leaving if for people to figure out on their own.  He did not claim that the documents were contradictory, only that they appeared to be so.