Catholic Church must be more conciliar...

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Sep 30 2005, 08:02 PM']fuhgedaboutit!!!!!!
[right][snapback]742589[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Quoted for truth.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Jiggle Billy' date='Sep 30 2005, 04:30 PM']So, what's your plan?  "Hey idiots!  You need to forget about your 500 years of culture because you are wrong, wrong, wrong!  : "  But seriously, Protestants probably won't be interested in joining the dialog if the only possible outcome is their total assimilation.
[right][snapback]742343[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
what does culture have to do with it? Theology is the problem. If elements of Protestant culture are in conflict with the Church then they will have to go or be reinterpreted.
What other outcome is there? Either the Protestants are assimilated or the Catholics dissolve into relativist goo.

[Sinner]

Crappity carp carp carp......Crappity carp carp carp......Crappity carp carp carp......Crappity carp carp carp......Crappity carp carp carp......Crappity carp carp carp......Crappity carp carp carp......Crappity carp carp carp......Crappity carp carp carp......Crappity carp carp carp......

[son_of_angels]

I will admit, it is my opinion that converted Protestants should not have to be completely assilimated into a Roman notion of ritual, etc. Instead the Anglican Use liturgy should become the norm for ALL converting Protestants, and also be given a hierarchy so that, sui juris, all converts from Protestantism fall under its Rite (or at least make that an option).

Personally, as a convert myself from Protestantism, I would choose to be Roman before anything else, but there you go....

By the way, I don't think most Protestants who are inclined to convert have much of a problem with the Pope being pretty much in charge of things, at least everyone that I've met doesn't.

[Thumper]

Um . . . anybody notice that the folks in the article were responding to an invitation from JPII?

"The ecumenical scholars were responding to the 1995 invitation of the late Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical on Christian unity, asking church leaders and theologians to "engage in a patient and fraternal dialogue" about new ways papal primacy could be exercised that would make the pope's ministry more effective in advancing Christian unity."

It's not like they were just going off all gung-ho and offering unsolicited advice about the papacy.

Now, you might not agree with their conclusions, or that this is the final form such conclusions should take. However, they are at least taking JPII up on his offer, and I think he would have liked us join in the dialogue patiently and fraternally as well.

[popestpiusx]

Butt Stew!

[scardella]

The article seems to have the conception that the structure of the Church is flawed.

It also seems to be pushing forward an incorrect view of ecumenism, one which seems to be rampant in Protestant circles. This is the fundamentalist view that waters down doctrine in favor of "unity." It is really just thinly disguised relativism. It's just "Christian relativism," if you will.

Obviously, any unity that has potentially massive doctrinal differences with no ruling body is going to be problematic and short. These well-intentioned "ecumenists" are encouraging the destruction of the very thing that keeps the Church a true unity with the fullness of Truth.