The post Vatican II Church's emphasis on dialogue with other Christians, non Christians and the secular non believing world has for the most part brought conversion of former Catholics to Protestantism, non Christian religions and godless secularism. The pre Vatican Church would have been a bulwark against these losses.
I have heard others comment that part of the reason for the collapse of Irish Catholicism was due to its tendency towards Jansenism. Its harshness was exploited by the Magdalene laundry stories that were in the press and the theaters a few years back. The EU and the ease of travel that it enabled, made Catholic Ireland a whistle stop for progressives. It was a #1 mission for the liberals. Vatican II certainly aided in their cause, but I cant ignore a liberal migration that was on a mission to change a vote. For Vatican II , I often feel that my own parish often feels much more Lutheran than Catholic. My vote would be to return to a Traditional Latin Mass and honest Catholic culture, should I ever be given that opportunity.
Fr McD: "The pre Vatican Church would have been a bulwark against these losses."
Indeed, because She was a bulwark against the non-Catholic world and its folly, Her enemy. Recall that a big supposition underlying the need for change in the Church and therefore for a Council, was that the Church by the 20th century was thought to still be shaped as a reaction against the Protestant Reformation centuries earlier. Indeed, the Church was a great bulwark against Protestantism before the Council, having firm and well defined doctrine. But She was also a bulwark against Enlightenment thinking which permeated the modern world and still does. This thinking belittles mystery and looks for rational solutions everywhere. Away with Thomism and hello Theologie Nouvelle. Good-bye liturgy that speaks to the hearts of all men of faith, ancient and modern through the language from mystery, and hello active participation that was meant to speak primarily to the modern intellect. The Church joined the enemy through the Council.
I do not think the Council should be rescinded, since there are, as hard as it is to believe, some good things in it. But I definitely support those who are calling for a kind of Syllabus of Errors on how this Council ought or, rather, ought not be interpreted, such as Bishop Schneider:
"The post Vatican II Church's emphasis on dialogue with other Christians, non Christians and the secular non believing world has for the most part brought conversion of former Catholics to Protestantism, non Christian religions and godless secularism."
Allan, although you like to take silly pot-shots at ecumenism and ecumenical dialogue, such at that above, the Church takes a different view.
Dialogue is required for the work of ecumenism to progress. It is a function of the action of the Holy Spirit.
In Ut Unum Sint, Saint Pope John Paul II wrote, "Interconfessional dialogues at the theological level have produced positive and tangible results: this encourages us to move forward."
And
"With regard to other Christians, the principal documents of the Commission on Faith and Order and the statements of numerous bilateral dialogues have already provided Christian Communities with useful tools for discerning what is necessary to the ecumenical movement and to the conversion which it must inspire."
And
"Dialogue is an indispensable step along the path towards human self-realization, the self-realization both of each individual and of every human community."
And
"When undertaking dialogue, each side must presuppose in the other a desire for reconciliation, for unity in truth. For this to happen, any display of mutual opposition must disappear. Only thus will dialogue help to overcome division and lead us closer to unity."
among dozens of other positive references to this work.
Fr K: The Church has always strived for Christian unity as Christ asks, and we did not need a Council or encylical to tell us this. The problem is with ecumenism as understood by too many in the Church today. It is a mere dream if one expects all Christians to become Catholics. Dialogue is impossible if people do not agree on the truth of each others' premises. The pope is the Vicar of Christ. Will non-Catholics admit this as true? Case closed, that is to say, unless the Catholic Church renounces that position, as has been suggested by some (including a pope I think), which would be a clear case of apostasy in the Church.
Your understanding of JPII Ut Unum Sint contradicts Pius XI's Encyclical Mortalium Animos, by the way. Pius XI was very clear:
"However, even while you may hear many non-Catholics loudly preaching brotherly communion in Jesus Christ, yet not one will you find who thinks of submitting to the Vicar of Christ in what he teaches or of obeying what he commands. They assert that they prefer to deal with the Church of Rome on equal terms, as equals with an equal. In reality, however, if they propose some eventual accord, it is not with the intention of renouncing those same opinions that hold them, still today, in their errors and deviations, outside the one fold of Christ.
In these conditions, it is evident that the Apostolic See cannot under any pretext take part in these [inter-confessional] assemblies; nor do Catholics have any right to favor such enterprises by their support or action. If they did so, they would be attributing authority to a false religion, entirely alien to the one Church of Christ. How could we tolerate that the truth, above all the revealed truth, be made a subject for compromise? This would be the apex of iniquity..."
Victor - For centuries after the Reformation the Church and the other Christian denominations did little to foster unity. We spent a great deal of time and energy condemning the other to hell while doing little or nothing that might lead to healing the wounds we and they had caused in the Body of Christ.
We did need the intervention of the Holy Spirit to invigorate the work needed for unity, and that intervention came in the form of the Second Vatican Council.
No, partners do not have to agree on the truth of each other's premises to enter into dialogue. They have to respect that each comes to the table with 1) knowledge of his/her position, 2) with respect for the other's position (respect is no agreement), and 3) with a desire for unity. This is the kind of dialogue that led to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between ourselves and the World Lutheran Federation in 1999.
One of the things this dialogue revealed was that we and the Lutherans actually have had a very similar understanding of the doctrine of justification. But because we were unable to dialogue, because we chose to condemn each other, we could not recognize this.
I have not presented "my understanding" of Ut Unum Sint. Saint Pope John Paul's words are very clear in themselves. Dialogue has been fruitful, it has opened new doors to further dialogue, it is indispensable, and it helps keep us from falling back into the mutual condemnation days.
Mortalium Animos is not properly understood as the last word on ecumenical relations. Like other disciplinary documents, it is subject to change and development. For two decades prior to MA, dialogues were taking place between Catholics and Anglicans (the Malines Conversations.) Bishop Bonomelli of Cremona, Italy, had written to the World Missionary Conference (Edinburgh 1910) to wish them well and offer his prayers for the success of the gathering.
What we have come to realize, many times through dialogue, is that other Christian denominations are not "entirely alien to the one Church of Christ." That we can recognize and celebrate this fact is a fruit of the Spirit.
That being said, as Catholics involved and engaged in dialogue, we do not approach the table with the notion that we and our dialogue partners are equals. Hence, we do not fall under prohibition of Pius XI. It is the Catholic Church in which the fullness of the faith subsists. Vatican Two was very clear on this point and it has been reiterated fairly recently on Dominus Iesus.
Fr K: Following the Reformation and soon after the Council of Trent, perhaps the biggest form of Christian unity since the 11th century occurred with the Union of Brest. No, this was not the Protestants uniting back with Rome, because that is impossible based on their key supposition of Sola Scriptura. Good heavens, they do not even use the same Bible!
The only thing that dialogue can bring in this case is a friendly "agree to disagree", and possibly some kind of "visible" union under the vague labels of "Christianity" or "People of God", rather than having religious wars, God forbid. But such union would be a fake if not hypocritical.
But this brings back Fr McD's point of how this ecumenism since V2 has been detrimental to the Catholic Faith. Is this Holy Spirit that you refer to the one who is promoting tolerance for error and heresy placing the salvation of Catholic souls in great danger? You may conveniently dismiss all this as a matter of discipline, but for Pius XI it was strictly a matter of Faith and therefore Magisterial:
"These pan-Christians who strive for the union of the churches would appear to pursue the noblest of ideals in promoting charity among all Christians. But how can one imagine that this growth of charity be made to the detriment of the Faith? Everyone knows that St. John himself, the Apostle of charity ... absolutely forbade any relationship with those who did not profess the doctrine of Christ pure and entire: ‘If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say to him, God speed you’ (Jn 1:10). Therefore, since the foundation of charity is Faith pure and inviolate, unity of Faith should be, as a consequence, the principal bond that unites the disciples of Christ.
How, then, can one conceive of the possibility of a Christian pact, in which each member would have the right, even in questions of Faith, to retain his own way of seeing and thinking, even when it would be in contradiction with the opinions of the others?"
"Sola Scriptura" would not be the "key supposition" of many Protestants. Rather, their key supposition would be "Jesus Christ is Lord," and on that we are in 100% agreement.
The "Sola Scriptura" mention brings up one of the most fundamental - if not THE fundamental - issue that underlies all ecumenical dialogue. That is the question of authority. Who has the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture? Who has the authority to determine what does and does not belong to Traditional Christian belief? Who has the authority to call this or that person to be ordained? Who has the authority to determine precisely what "to be ordained" means.
Dialogue, as I have previously mentioned, has brought about far more understanding and agreement that simply "agreeing to disagree." And no one I know on the Catholic side of dialogue is seeking some kind of "vague" People of God unity.
Mortalium Animos is not the final word in ecumenism. Much as Quo Primum is not rightly understood as the "final word" on liturgy, MA is part of an on-going understanding of the practice and discipline of our Church as regards ecumenical dialogue. Catholics are not adopting a "pan-Christian" idea. Every dialogue does not, of itself, pose a danger to the Faith, either in terms of the Church's doctrine or an individual's fidelity to the Faith.
No one I know of on the Catholic side is proposing a "Christian pact, in with each member would have the right to retain his on way of seeing and thinking." That is not the goal the Church sets out as the purpose of ecumenical dialogue.
When your house is burning down, throw a garden party with your neighbors, rather than putting the fire out - that is "modern" ecumenism in a nutshell. Just more virtue signalling by the virtueless
One paragraph gives the flavor: "Finally, to return to the distinction between discipline and doctrine, a prohibition on Catholics attending certain meetings simply is not the type of statement that the Church recognizes as doctrinal. I made this point yesterday by noting that Pius uses the language of law and discipline rather than the language of teaching. You will recall that faulty theological opinions traditionally received "theological censures" to indicate how serious the error was: "heresy" was the most serious, "proximate to heresy" was the next most serious, "seductive of simple minds" was a lesser censure, and the mildest censure was "offensive to pious ears." Note that Pius does not use any of these theological censures in the encyclical. As a result, I believe that it is quite clear that the ban on Catholics attending inter-faith gatherings was disciplinary rather than doctrinal."
The author points out that Pius XI himself authorized the Malines Conversations I mention earlier. These dialogues did not have "conversion" or "unity" as their goal. "The focus was to study, to clarify, and to increase charity, not to convert or express the superiority of the Catholic Church. His (Pius XI's) support of these conversations demonstrates that he believed that Catholics could discuss doctrine with non-Catholics in charity and understanding and that not all conversations with non-Catholics needed to have the sole purpose of converting them to the Catholic faith."
In the quote given, EWTN seems to have forgotten about the First Commandment. The Church has always understood that participating in non-Catholic worship violates the First Commandment. If you need any evidence for that proposition, read the Roman Martyrology.
For you Novus Ordo priests reading, the Roman Martyrology is a selection read during the Office of Prime. Prime is one of the hours in the Breviary. The Breviary is the book of hourly prayers that it is required priests pray every day. Priests are men ordained to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is what the Novus Ordo service is aping.
Marc says, "The Church has always understood that participating in non-Catholic worship violates the First Commandment."
This is not the case, the Roman Martyrology notwithstanding, inasmuch as the first Catholics attended gatherings at a number of ancient synagogues.
Acts 9:20 "At once he (Paul) began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God."
Acts 17:2 "As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,..."
Acts 17:10 "As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue."
There may be as many as 85 examples in the Book of Acts, better known as Luke/Acts, in which we find the disciples in synagogues.
So, it does not seem to be the case that "The Church has always understood" what Marc suggests, since the Church has done otherwise - from the very beginning.
Did you notice what Paul was doing at the synagogues in those quotes? If you go to a synagogue and preach Christ to them like Paul did, you’ll have my full support.
While Paul preached Christ, he also participated in the worship in the synagogue: "Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them went into the temple, declaring the fulfillment of the days of purification, until the offering was offered for every one of them” (Acts 21:26)
Not only was Paul attending the non-Catholic worship, he was participating in it and encouraging other to do so.
So, was Paul violating the First Commandment too?
For 40 years the Jewish believers (Christians) went to the synagogue on the Sabbath as was their custom to hear the Law and the Prophets. With the changes introduced (ca 72-73) by Gamaliel II, this was no longer and option for them.
Our Church History (4 semesters plus electives) teachers, Sr. Ann Miriam Gallagher, RSM, PhD, and Fr. Michael Roach, were very good. I learned a great deal from them. Sr. Ann Miriam has died, but Fr. Roach is still teaching at The Mount, approaching about 35 years on the faculty, if not more!
The real question is where there any cassocks at all? I remember a pantsuited "nun" making her disaste of the cassock very apparent in a highly offensive manner so I told her she looked like a cleaning lady. That shut her up.
27 comments:
Another Vatican Disaster II “success” story. Fake catholic clergy say - more mission accomplished
it isn't all Vatican II, its also the EU
The post Vatican II Church's emphasis on dialogue with other Christians, non Christians and the secular non believing world has for the most part brought conversion of former Catholics to Protestantism, non Christian religions and godless secularism. The pre Vatican Church would have been a bulwark against these losses.
I have heard others comment that part of the reason for the collapse of Irish Catholicism was due to its tendency towards Jansenism. Its harshness was exploited by the Magdalene laundry stories that were in the press and the theaters a few years back. The EU and the ease of travel that it enabled, made Catholic Ireland a whistle stop for progressives. It was a #1 mission for the liberals. Vatican II certainly aided in their cause, but I cant ignore a liberal migration that was on a mission to change a vote. For Vatican II , I often feel that my own parish often feels much more Lutheran than Catholic. My vote would be to return to a Traditional Latin Mass and honest Catholic culture, should I ever be given that opportunity.
Fr McD:
"The pre Vatican Church would have been a bulwark against these losses."
Indeed, because She was a bulwark against the non-Catholic world and its folly, Her enemy. Recall that a big supposition underlying the need for change in the Church and therefore for a Council, was that the Church by the 20th century was thought to still be shaped as a reaction against the Protestant Reformation centuries earlier. Indeed, the Church was a great bulwark against Protestantism before the Council, having firm and well defined doctrine. But She was also a bulwark against Enlightenment thinking which permeated the modern world and still does. This thinking belittles mystery and looks for rational solutions everywhere. Away with Thomism and hello Theologie Nouvelle. Good-bye liturgy that speaks to the hearts of all men of faith, ancient and modern through the language from mystery, and hello active participation that was meant to speak primarily to the modern intellect. The Church joined the enemy through the Council.
I do not think the Council should be rescinded, since there are, as hard as it is to believe, some good things in it. But I definitely support those who are calling for a kind of Syllabus of Errors on how this Council ought or, rather, ought not be interpreted, such as Bishop Schneider:
https://onepeterfive.com/interview-bishop-schneider-addresses-a-new-syllabus-of-errors-for-the-modern-church/
"The post Vatican II Church's emphasis on dialogue with other Christians, non Christians and the secular non believing world has for the most part brought conversion of former Catholics to Protestantism, non Christian religions and godless secularism."
Allan, although you like to take silly pot-shots at ecumenism and ecumenical dialogue, such at that above, the Church takes a different view.
Dialogue is required for the work of ecumenism to progress. It is a function of the action of the Holy Spirit.
In Ut Unum Sint, Saint Pope John Paul II wrote, "Interconfessional dialogues at the theological level have produced positive and tangible results: this encourages us to move forward."
And
"With regard to other Christians, the principal documents of the Commission on Faith and Order and the statements of numerous bilateral dialogues have already provided Christian Communities with useful tools for discerning what is necessary to the ecumenical movement and to the conversion which it must inspire."
And
"Dialogue is an indispensable step along the path towards human self-realization, the self-realization both of each individual and of every human community."
And
"When undertaking dialogue, each side must presuppose in the other a desire for reconciliation, for unity in truth. For this to happen, any display of mutual opposition must disappear. Only thus will dialogue help to overcome division and lead us closer to unity."
among dozens of other positive references to this work.
Fr K:
The Church has always strived for Christian unity as Christ asks, and we did not need a Council or encylical to tell us this. The problem is with ecumenism as understood by too many in the Church today. It is a mere dream if one expects all Christians to become Catholics. Dialogue is impossible if people do not agree on the truth of each others' premises. The pope is the Vicar of Christ. Will non-Catholics admit this as true? Case closed, that is to say, unless the Catholic Church renounces that position, as has been suggested by some (including a pope I think), which would be a clear case of apostasy in the Church.
Your understanding of JPII Ut Unum Sint contradicts Pius XI's Encyclical Mortalium Animos, by the way. Pius XI was very clear:
"However, even while you may hear many non-Catholics loudly preaching brotherly communion in Jesus Christ, yet not one will you find who thinks of submitting to the Vicar of Christ in what he teaches or of obeying what he commands. They assert that they prefer to deal with the Church of Rome on equal terms, as equals with an equal. In reality, however, if they propose some eventual accord, it is not with the intention of renouncing those same opinions that hold them, still today, in their errors and deviations, outside the one fold of Christ.
In these conditions, it is evident that the Apostolic See cannot under any pretext take part in these [inter-confessional] assemblies; nor do Catholics have any right to favor such enterprises by their support or action. If they did so, they would be attributing authority to a false religion, entirely alien to the one Church of Christ. How could we tolerate that the truth, above all the revealed truth, be made a subject for compromise? This would be the apex of iniquity..."
Victor - For centuries after the Reformation the Church and the other Christian denominations did little to foster unity. We spent a great deal of time and energy condemning the other to hell while doing little or nothing that might lead to healing the wounds we and they had caused in the Body of Christ.
We did need the intervention of the Holy Spirit to invigorate the work needed for unity, and that intervention came in the form of the Second Vatican Council.
No, partners do not have to agree on the truth of each other's premises to enter into dialogue. They have to respect that each comes to the table with 1) knowledge of his/her position, 2) with respect for the other's position (respect is no agreement), and 3) with a desire for unity. This is the kind of dialogue that led to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between ourselves and the World Lutheran Federation in 1999.
One of the things this dialogue revealed was that we and the Lutherans actually have had a very similar understanding of the doctrine of justification. But because we were unable to dialogue, because we chose to condemn each other, we could not recognize this.
I have not presented "my understanding" of Ut Unum Sint. Saint Pope John Paul's words are very clear in themselves. Dialogue has been fruitful, it has opened new doors to further dialogue, it is indispensable, and it helps keep us from falling back into the mutual condemnation days.
Mortalium Animos is not properly understood as the last word on ecumenical relations. Like other disciplinary documents, it is subject to change and development. For two decades prior to MA, dialogues were taking place between Catholics and Anglicans (the Malines Conversations.) Bishop Bonomelli of Cremona, Italy, had written to the World Missionary Conference (Edinburgh 1910) to wish them well and offer his prayers for the success of the gathering.
What we have come to realize, many times through dialogue, is that other Christian denominations are not "entirely alien to the one Church of Christ." That we can recognize and celebrate this fact is a fruit of the Spirit.
That being said, as Catholics involved and engaged in dialogue, we do not approach the table with the notion that we and our dialogue partners are equals. Hence, we do not fall under prohibition of Pius XI. It is the Catholic Church in which the fullness of the faith subsists. Vatican Two was very clear on this point and it has been reiterated fairly recently on Dominus Iesus.
What's the point of having "dialogue" involving Catholics, including priests, who are woefully ignorant of the Catholic Faith?
Fr K:
Following the Reformation and soon after the Council of Trent, perhaps the biggest form of Christian unity since the 11th century occurred with the Union of Brest. No, this was not the Protestants uniting back with Rome, because that is impossible based on their key supposition of Sola Scriptura. Good heavens, they do not even use the same Bible!
The only thing that dialogue can bring in this case is a friendly "agree to disagree", and possibly some kind of "visible" union under the vague labels of "Christianity" or "People of God", rather than having religious wars, God forbid. But such union would be a fake if not hypocritical.
But this brings back Fr McD's point of how this ecumenism since V2 has been detrimental to the Catholic Faith. Is this Holy Spirit that you refer to the one who is promoting tolerance for error and heresy placing the salvation of Catholic souls in great danger? You may conveniently dismiss all this as a matter of discipline, but for Pius XI it was strictly a matter of Faith and therefore Magisterial:
"These pan-Christians who strive for the union of the churches would appear to pursue the noblest of ideals in promoting charity among all Christians. But how can one imagine that this growth of charity be made to the detriment of the Faith? Everyone knows that St. John himself, the Apostle of charity ... absolutely forbade any relationship with those who did not profess the doctrine of Christ pure and entire: ‘If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say to him, God speed you’ (Jn 1:10). Therefore, since the foundation of charity is Faith pure and inviolate, unity of Faith should be, as a consequence, the principal bond that unites the disciples of Christ.
How, then, can one conceive of the possibility of a Christian pact, in which each member would have the right, even in questions of Faith, to retain his own way of seeing and thinking, even when it would be in contradiction with the opinions of the others?"
"Sola Scriptura" would not be the "key supposition" of many Protestants. Rather, their key supposition would be "Jesus Christ is Lord," and on that we are in 100% agreement.
The "Sola Scriptura" mention brings up one of the most fundamental - if not THE fundamental - issue that underlies all ecumenical dialogue. That is the question of authority. Who has the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture? Who has the authority to determine what does and does not belong to Traditional Christian belief? Who has the authority to call this or that person to be ordained? Who has the authority to determine precisely what "to be ordained" means.
Dialogue, as I have previously mentioned, has brought about far more understanding and agreement that simply "agreeing to disagree." And no one I know on the Catholic side of dialogue is seeking some kind of "vague" People of God unity.
Mortalium Animos is not the final word in ecumenism. Much as Quo Primum is not rightly understood as the "final word" on liturgy, MA is part of an on-going understanding of the practice and discipline of our Church as regards ecumenical dialogue. Catholics are not adopting a "pan-Christian" idea. Every dialogue does not, of itself, pose a danger to the Faith, either in terms of the Church's doctrine or an individual's fidelity to the Faith.
No one I know of on the Catholic side is proposing a "Christian pact, in with each member would have the right to retain his on way of seeing and thinking." That is not the goal the Church sets out as the purpose of ecumenical dialogue.
When your house is burning down, throw a garden party with your neighbors, rather than putting the fire out - that is "modern" ecumenism in a nutshell. Just more virtue signalling by the virtueless
Victor - There are to sources worth considering, both touching on the nature of MA and on Pius XI's intention in issuing MA.
The first is from an EWTN Q&A:
http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=350151&language=en
One paragraph gives the flavor: "Finally, to return to the distinction between discipline and doctrine, a prohibition on Catholics attending certain meetings simply is not the type of statement that the Church recognizes as doctrinal. I made this point yesterday by noting that Pius uses the language of law and discipline rather than the language of teaching. You will recall that faulty theological opinions traditionally received "theological censures" to indicate how serious the error was: "heresy" was the most serious, "proximate to heresy" was the next most serious, "seductive of simple minds" was a lesser censure, and the mildest censure was "offensive to pious ears." Note that Pius does not use any of these theological censures in the encyclical. As a result, I believe that it is quite clear that the ban on Catholics attending inter-faith gatherings was disciplinary rather than doctrinal."
The second is from Catholic Answers:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/pope-pius-xi-and-ecumenism
The author points out that Pius XI himself authorized the Malines Conversations I mention earlier. These dialogues did not have "conversion" or "unity" as their goal. "The focus was to study, to clarify, and to increase charity, not to convert or express the superiority of the Catholic Church. His (Pius XI's) support of these conversations demonstrates that he believed that Catholics could discuss doctrine with non-Catholics in charity and understanding and that not all conversations with non-Catholics needed to have the sole purpose of converting them to the Catholic faith."
In the quote given, EWTN seems to have forgotten about the First Commandment. The Church has always understood that participating in non-Catholic worship violates the First Commandment. If you need any evidence for that proposition, read the Roman Martyrology.
For you Novus Ordo priests reading, the Roman Martyrology is a selection read during the Office of Prime. Prime is one of the hours in the Breviary. The Breviary is the book of hourly prayers that it is required priests pray every day. Priests are men ordained to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is what the Novus Ordo service is aping.
Marc says, "The Church has always understood that participating in non-Catholic worship violates the First Commandment."
This is not the case, the Roman Martyrology notwithstanding, inasmuch as the first Catholics attended gatherings at a number of ancient synagogues.
Acts 9:20 "At once he (Paul) began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God."
Acts 17:2 "As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,..."
Acts 17:10 "As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue."
There may be as many as 85 examples in the Book of Acts, better known as Luke/Acts, in which we find the disciples in synagogues.
So, it does not seem to be the case that "The Church has always understood" what Marc suggests, since the Church has done otherwise - from the very beginning.
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but what is in Acts strikes me as attempts at conversion
and nothing like ecumenism.
Did you notice what Paul was doing at the synagogues in those quotes? If you go to a synagogue and preach Christ to them like Paul did, you’ll have my full support.
While Paul preached Christ, he also participated in the worship in the synagogue: "Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them went into the temple, declaring the fulfillment of the days of purification, until the offering was offered for every one of them” (Acts 21:26)
Not only was Paul attending the non-Catholic worship, he was participating in it and encouraging other to do so.
So, was Paul violating the First Commandment too?
For 40 years the Jewish believers (Christians) went to the synagogue on the Sabbath as was their custom to hear the Law and the Prophets. With the changes introduced (ca 72-73) by Gamaliel II, this was no longer and option for them.
Were they violating the First Commandment too?
Were they too busy confiscating cassocks at your seminary that they failed to teach early church history?
No cassocks were confiscated at my seminary.
Our Church History (4 semesters plus electives) teachers, Sr. Ann Miriam Gallagher, RSM, PhD, and Fr. Michael Roach, were very good. I learned a great deal from them. Sr. Ann Miriam has died, but Fr. Roach is still teaching at The Mount, approaching about 35 years on the faculty, if not more!
Kavanaugh,
The real question is where there any cassocks at all? I remember a pantsuited "nun" making her disaste of the cassock very apparent in a highly offensive manner so I told her she looked like a cleaning lady. That shut her up.
TJM - I presume you read my post about the four "rules" we had at Mt. St. Mary's Seminary.
No cassocks allowed at Mike’s seminary. No priests resulted from the same. Hence, Mike.
Cassocks were allowed when one was serving on the altar.
You read the post in which I stated this but have chosen to misrepresent the facts.
That’s pretty rich for you, Mike, to call out someone for “misrepresenting the facts.”
Not rich, just accurate.
You read my post about cassock use at Mt St Mary's Seminary, commented on it, and then posted, "No cassocks allowed at Mike’s seminary."
No matter how much you want to shift the blame, that a misrepresentation of the facts.
You’re an incredible person, Mike. Amazing, really.
Post a Comment