It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:07 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
 DEFENDING MORTALIUM ANIMOS 
Author Message

Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:21 pm
Posts: 3
New post DEFENDING MORTALIUM ANIMOS
In defending "Mortalium Animos" against just one of the 16 Vatican II documents, specifically the modern and liberal "Unitatis Redintegratio", I find myself woefully unprepared to refute the writings submitted below intelligently. I humbly solicit help from the members of the Bellarmine Forums. The apologetic help requested is in debunking this claim that U.R. ("Unitatis Redintegratio") is compatible with M.A. ("Mortalium Animos"). In opposition, I maintain that U.R. is a dramatic departure from the teachings of this and other papal encyclicals on the matter of False Ecumenism! To me, it is a heretical document, as well as all the other 15 VII documents are.

The person's identity must remain anonymous since they were sent to me via confidential and personal emails.

This VII person and his group support all of the 16 documents of Vatican II, and is a public spokesperson/director for a "bible study group" ( I use the term loosely ) of men in a large Novus Ordo controlled diocese in the United States. He has a PhD and is very articulate in word and speech. The "bible study group" uses any bible, and currently use the KJV for the group is comprised of apostate Catholics and non-Catholics and they do not want to "offend" anyone. They focus on integrating other creeds/beliefs into the Novus Ordo of Rome. They do not understand the basic 4 Marks, specifically ONE, and APOSTOLIC marks of the True Church, Our Ageless Catholic Church.

The help can be in any form for I am alone on this and VII spokesperson has much N.O. support. So Bellarmine posts, containing recommendations, cited reference materials, seeking traditional theologians/writers, or the direction I should take, are all welcomed. I am not new to the existence of this forum and have been reading it for years in guest status. I think now is the time to go public and it causes me much apprehension. I have experienced much opposition in my home town in vociferous and vitriolic condemnation of my attempts to expose these errors of Faith, and fear physical retaliation of some sort whether to my person, or material possessions. Maybe I am a marked man and how is that for a bit of paranoia? Much anger is encountered and the emotion most frequently experienced when trying to admonish VII members.

Here is the writing that I would like to refute adequately:

I have some comments on Mortalium Animos which I will refer to as MA and the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio which I will refer to as UR. I know that you are struggling with the compatibility of these two documents and I hope to clear this up for you.

To compare these two magisterial documents,
we first need to recall the distinction between a reversal of official Church policy, discipline or pastoral strategy, and a contradiction of doctrine. The former type of change has often taken place in the course of Church history, in response to changing circumstances. And in this practical, disciplinary respect, a comparison between MA and UR reveals an undeniable and very marked change of direction — indeed, practically a U-turn. Pius XI flatly forbade any Catholic participation in interchurch or inter-religious meetings and activities motivated by the desire for restoring Christian unity. Vatican II, on the other hand, authorizes and positively encourages Catholic participation in such activities (within certain limits). The modern Church has thus made a prudential judgment that the risks and dangers of indifferentism and confusion about the faith occasioned by such activities — perils strongly emphasized by Pius XI — are outweighed by the great good to be hoped for as the long-term result of ecumenism: gradual, better mutual understanding, leading to that unity which Christ willed for all who profess to be his disciples.

I’ve cautioned you in the past about taking scripture out of its historic-social context and through some private interpretation applying it to some 21st question that the original scripture authors were not addressing. I have repeatedly asked you to stop sinning with your wholesale calumny of the Catholic Prelates and Princes of Rome in calling them heretics. They are NOT HERETICS and are protected by the Holy Spirit till the end of time. You have not corrected your errors after receiving my admonitions, for you consistently display a contumacious and pertinacious mindset in your heretical stances.

In the past, I have also suggested to you that papal encyclicals were also written for a particular time and audience, and do not apply to the future for all time. As an example of your incorrect application of scripture:

Luke 18:8
I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?

You and your ilk like to use this verse to explain the “Great Apostasy” that has occurred in your mind since Vatican II convened. Or, various other quotes, like the verses from Revelations 2:9 and 3:9 with an interpretation that it applies to God’s chosen people, the Zionist Jews of Israel.

Also, remember that not all encyclicals are infallible; in fact only two could have been classified as infallible in the past century, namely, Munificentissimus Deus, an Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII issued November 1, 1950 defining the Blessed Virgin Mother’s Assumption, and Ineffabilis Deus, an Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854 defining the Immaculate Conception.

You’re absolutely correct that the doctrinal elements put forth in encyclicals are immutable and it is perfectly clear that all Catholics are bound seriously in conscience to accept the teaching contained in these documents with a true internal religious assent. With his MA encyclical, Pope Pius XI had set out the Catholic Church’s position regarding the fledgling movement for religious unity which had been gathering steam in liberal Protestant circles since the late 19th and early 20th centuries. At the time liberal Protestant theology dominated ecumenical initiatives and this theology embodied — explicitly or at least implicitly — several specific theses censured by Pius XI.

So with the historic-social context set, I’ll attempt to compare the two docs, MA and UR to prove that there are no doctrinal conflicts.

From my research on MA, I see 4 ecumenical errors detailed by Pope Pius XI as follows:

Error 1: The liberal Protestant theology usually took a “lowest common denominator” approach: They envisaged a worldwide religious “unity” in which all would agree on a few basic beliefs while “agreeing to differ” on others. The pope observes that these religious liberals apparently “hope that all nations, while differing indeed in religious matters, may yet without great difficulty be brought to fraternal agreement on certain points of doctrine which will form a common basis of the spiritual life” (MA 2). This hypothetical “unity” in one “world religion” would of course include non-Christians of all types.

Error 2: Pius XI insisted that the above error 1 involved another at a deeper level: the denial of the very principle of revealed truth, which requires assent to God’s Word on his own authority. Regards the contemporary pan-religious efforts operating in error 1, the pope says, that those who presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, inasmuch as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of his rule are not only in error but distort the true idea of religion, and thus reject it, falling gradually into naturalism and atheism. To favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings, is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God. (MA 2)
This idea that all religions are just varying (and fallible) human expressions of a natural religious impulse or instinct was one of the fundamental errors of that modernism which had been so recently condemned by Pope St. Pius X.

Error 3: Turning from the inner nature of faith to outward forms of visible organization, Pius XI found another related error. In those initiatives limiting the quest for unity to those who already professed faith in Christ — what the Church today calls “ecumenism” as distinct from “inter-religious dialogue” — the pope discerned a false ecclesiology (theological understanding of the Church). For the visibly united “Christian church” that these liberal Protestant ecumenists dreamed of would be “nothing more than a federation of the various Christian communities, even though these may hold different and mutually exclusive doctrines” (MA 6).

Error 4: The pope pointed out that such an ecclesiology in turn involves the related idea that the unity which Christ prayed for — ut unum sint (“to be one”) — “merely expressed a desire or a prayer which as yet has not been granted. For they [the contemporary ecumenists] hold that the unity of faith and government which is a note of the one true Church of Christ has up to the present time hardly ever existed and does not exist today . . . [I]t must be regarded as a mere ideal” (MA 7).

Before looking at UR in the light of the 4 condemned errors just mentioned, let me consider another common complaint. Traditionalist critics often claim that UR leaves the key concept of ecumenism dangerously undefined. I suspect this concern arises from a faulty translation in the common Flannery edition of the documents, which has the Council merely “indicating” what “the ecumenical movement” involves. A more faithful translation of the opening of UR 4’s second paragraph, bringing out its character as a definition, would be this: “The term ‘ecumenical movement’ is understood to mean (Per ‘motum oecumenicum’ intelleguntur’) those activities and initiatives which are encouraged and organized, according to the various needs of the Church and when suitable occasions arise, in order to promote the unity of Christians.” The Council then makes this definition more precise by setting out the kinds of “activities and initiatives” it has in mind:

(a) avoiding all misrepresentations of separated Christians’ beliefs and practices;
(b) dialogue between scholars of different denominations for the purpose of better mutual understanding;
(c) a more extensive collaboration in carrying out duties toward the common good recognized by “every Christian conscience”;
(d) meeting for common prayer, where this is permitted; and
(e) renewing and reforming the Church herself in faithfulness to Christ’s will.
It seems clear enough that while (b), (c), and (d) do indeed relax the disciplinary prohibitions of MA, none of these five points contradicts any doctrinal truth laid down by Pius XI in his encyclical.
Now we can go on to consider UR in the light of the four above-mentioned doctrinal errors condemned by Pope Pius:

Error 1: Does Vatican II adopt a “lowest common denominator” approach to “balance” unity and truth?
Not at all. UR paragraph 3 affirms that while the separated brethren have many elements of truth, God’s will is that they all come to that abundance of grace and truth which can be found only in Catholicism:
For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone . . . that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic College alone, of which Peter is the head . . . that we believe the Lord entrusted all the benefits of the New Covenant in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ, into which all those who already in some way belong to the people of God ought to be fully incorporated. (UR, 3)

The Decree also recalls that while there is a “hierarchy” of Catholic truths, insofar as these vary in “their relationship to the foundation of the Christian faith,” this does not mean that the less “fundamental” Catholic beliefs — those not shared by Protestant or Orthodox Christians — are “negotiable” or can be swept under the rug. (The revealed truths about our Lady, for instance, derive from the Incarnation, not vice versa.) On the contrary, “It is of course essential that [Catholic] doctrine be presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism which harms the purity of Catholic doctrine and obscures its genuine and certain meaning” (UR 11).

Error 2: Does UR imply a gradual descent into naturalism at the expense of divine revelation, leading to an abandonment of all revealed truth?

No, because it never accepts the premise that Pius XI says leads to that “dead end,” namely, the modernist idea that the different religions all just “give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God.” The conciliar teaching, in contrast to this naturalistic account of religion, stresses the supernatural realities of revelation and faith. UR asserts that “the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace” (UR 4; cf. UR 3). Furthermore, “Christ entrusted to the College of the Twelve the task of teaching, ruling and sanctifying . . . And after Peter’s confession of faith, he determined that upon him he would build his Church . . . [and] entrusted all his sheep to him to be confirmed in faith” (UR 2). The Fathers who promulgated UR were of course also those who, just one year later, promulgated the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, which serves as an interpretative key to other conciliar documents touching on that subject.


Error 3: Does UR envisage a united “Church” of the future as being a “federation” of different Christian denominations agreeing to differ in at least some doctrinal matters?


Nowhere is there any such suggestion. Vatican II presents the unity willed by God as one in which everyone is — surprise, surprise! — Catholic. Having made it clear that by “the Church” they mean the body led by “the bishops with Peter’s successor at their head” — i.e., the Roman Catholic Church — the Fathers continue:
The Church, then, God’s only flock, like a standard lifted high for the nations to see it, ministers the gospel of peace to all mankind, as it makes its pilgrim way in hope towards its goal, the fatherland above. This is the sacred mystery of the unity of the Church, in Christ and through Christ, with the Holy Spirit energizing its various functions. (UR 2)

Error 4: From what has been said already, it should be clear that the Decree on Ecumenism does not teach the fourth heresy censured by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, namely, the idea that Church unity is a mere future ideal which separated Christians must work to construct, insofar as it does not yet exist.

Of course, we need to distinguish carefully here between the unity of the Church as such and unity among Christians. Obviously, if we understand the word “Christian” to cover everyone who professes faith in Christ, the latter unity does not exist yet — and never has existed since the first schisms arose in New Testament times! But such divisions do not imply that the Church herself is — or ever could be — disunited, in the sense of being divided into different denominations holding different doctrines. Our creedal article of belief in “One, holy, Catholic, apostolic Church” rules this out. And so does UR, when it expresses the hope that, as a result of ecumenism,
…little by little as the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion are overcome, all Christians will be gathered, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, into the unity of the one and only Church, which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, exists completely, in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and which we hope will continue to increase until the end of time. (UR, 4)

My rigorous attempt here was to show you that Vatican II did not fall into the doctrinal aberrations condemned by Pius XI in 1928. You do have cause to question whether the ecumenism, as UR expounds it, has always been faithfully implemented. I admit that there has been a lot of “false ecumenism” out there since Vatican II and you may question the prudence of UR’s “window-opening” disciplinary changes. I agree with you that permitting a Pagan chant to the deity Olokun in the Basilica of St. Francis during Assisi III was sacrilegious to have that in a consecrated church, a church consecrated to the one true Triune God and in honor of St. Francis. I hold the organizers of the event responsible for this abomination and they should apologize for offending the Catholic sensibilities of members of our Holy Church. I wonder what St. Francis, who was as tough as nails when it came to the faith and nobody’s fool, would have said about that chant in a consecrated church. If I were Pope, some people would be putting their belongings in a box and moving to a new assignment. However, this was no overall conspiracy by the Pope to destroy the Church from within as you sedevacanists claim.

You don’t seem to think that Latin and Greek translations of any church proceeding, encyclical, papal bull, decree, or doctrinal documents could possibly be an issue in your learned opinion with our Greek Orthodox brothers. At the time of the Vatican II documents, the church did not present translations from Latin into the vernacular. Our current translation is a 2nd English translation (1975) published nine years after the first translation under the direction of Austin P. Flannery, OP. Unfortunately it contains no commentaries and how close it is to the meaning and intent of the original Latin is debatable. As I’ve said before, I don’t speak Latin or Greek and don’t believe you do either. This is why I rely on the Church Magisterium to disseminate their teaching as well as discussing the issues with my brothers in Christ including the clergy. You and your sedevacanist brothers have broken union with the One, True, Catholic, and Apostolic faith in denying Papal authority and a core belief that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church”.
Like Protestants, you sedevacanists have the hubris to claim more understanding of the truth and what it means to be Christian than what has been explained in 2000 years of Church tradition.
---FINIS---


ED NOTE: It is with great interest I take in reading the discussion on Titus 3:10 initiated by Joe Cupertino addressing 2 admonitions. So just how long should I spend time in enlightening VII spokesperson, or move on to other would be faithful that need an awakening from their slumber of faith, and who would be more receptive of Truth? Dare I say that 2 Thessalonians 2:10 can be applied for all time and not relegated to some specific age, and that there still exists souls that have not received the “OPERATION OF ERROR”?

So like Mother Teresa, who let a dying Buddhist go to perdition without baptizing him, U.R. lets Jews die and go to hell because their time has not come, or their plan was not finished...Jews die every day without the being baptized. Who can wait?

Ora pro nobis, SummaphileXLV


Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:36 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: DEFENDING MORTALIUM ANIMOS
SummaphileXLV wrote:
I have repeatedly asked you to stop sinning with your wholesale calumny of the Catholic Prelates and Princes of Rome in calling them heretics. They are NOT HERETICS and are protected by the Holy Spirit till the end of time. You have not corrected your errors after receiving my admonitions, for you consistently display a contumacious and pertinacious mindset in your heretical stances.


More later, I hope, and maybe others will offer some comments, but these statements must be challenged. There are two doctrinal points here. First, the suggestion that every member of the local Church of Rome (i.e. the diocese of Rome) is protected from external sins against the faith is itself a novelty, not to be found in the corpus of Christian doctrine. Asserting it as a dogma, as this fellow implicitly does by accusing you of heresy for denying it, is itself a species of heresy (positive heresy). Admonish him, and remind him of his further comment, "You have not corrected your errors after receiving my admonitions, for you consistently display a contumacious and pertinacious mindset in your heretical stances," just in case he is not merely an ignoramus but also a hypocrite. I would not discuss anything at all with him until he deals properly with this. Feel free to post his responses here.

The second doctrinal point which I detect to be implicit in his comments is whether it is possible to identify any heretic at all prior to the judgement of the Church. It's of great value when dealing with these committed N.O. types to ask them whether they accept that it is possible to know a heretic prior to the judgement of the Church, and if so, do they see any, anywhere in the Church today? My bet is that he sees none, anywhere, not Roger Mahoney, not the American nuns who regularly call for the ordination of priestesses, nada, zippo. If this is the case, it should be out on the table, where you can put the truth in opposition to his notion and at least then everybody will know that you and he don't share sufficient common ground to have a discussion about any specific heretic (e.g. Bergoglio).

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:49 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: DEFENDING MORTALIUM ANIMOS
Summa, see this post, which I have made for you: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1570&p=16028

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Dec 29, 2013 11:17 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:21 pm
Posts: 3
New post Re: DEFENDING MORTALIUM ANIMOS
Thank you, John, for your comments. I will peruse the post later, this evening on EDT here.


Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:41 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: DEFENDING MORTALIUM ANIMOS
SummaphileXLV wrote:
In the past, I have also suggested to you that papal encyclicals were also written for a particular time and audience, and do not apply to the future for all time.


As it stands, this is outright heterodoxy. Demand a quote from him to support it, just for the exercisre in futility. When he cannot produce the quote (pre-V2, we know he can quote Ratzinger saying it!), point out that he is imposing a standard upon you that he won't meet himself - that is, he isn't taught by the Church.

SummaphileXLV wrote:
As an example of your incorrect application of scripture:

Luke 18:8
I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?

You and your ilk like to use this verse to explain the “Great Apostasy” that has occurred in your mind since Vatican II convened.


Well, here's the Venerable Bede: "When the Almighty Creator shall appear in the form of the Son of man, so scarce will the elect be, that not so much the cries of the faithful as the torpor of the others will hasten the world’s fall."

The application of that text to the great apostasy that has occurred since Vatican II is a matter of free judgement by Christians, just as any unfulfilled prophecy is pondered in the here and now in every age of the Church, for the edification of the faithful.

If this fellow is denying that there has been a great apostasy, then he probably denies that there was a war in Viet Nam and that there is a city called Paris too. He's on another planet. Something like 50,000 priests abandoned their priesthood in the ten years from 1965. Yes, fifty thousand. The numbers of faithful lost to the Church in the post-Vatican II era is probably incalculable. Even Montini and Ratzinger recognised the reality - they merely ascribed it to causes other than Vatican II. Your correspondent appears to be entirely divorced from reality.

SummaphileXLV wrote:
Also, remember that not all encyclicals are infallible; in fact only two could have been classified as infallible in the past century, namely, Munificentissimus Deus, an Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII issued November 1, 1950 defining the Blessed Virgin Mother’s Assumption, and Ineffabilis Deus, an Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854 defining the Immaculate Conception.


Neither were encyclicals, actually. Does this chap have any interest in truth at all?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Dec 31, 2013 4:55 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:21 pm
Posts: 3
New post Re: DEFENDING MORTALIUM ANIMOS
Thank you so much, John, for all you do in defending true Catholicism. I believe I have found my source to refute intelligently the false notion that M.A. and U.R. are compatible. Your support was immeasurable in giving me the courage, and burning desire to clarify the False Ecumenism that attacks Our Beloved Catholic Church at the core.

The ideas that were inculcated in this Introduction, to Pope Pius XI's Encyclical, Mortalium Animos, by Cardinal Bourne were so powerful and brought the heresy to the light of day. His perspicuity of his words was very helpful.

And, it came from an Australian website, John!

http://www.pamphlets.org.au/england/ctspe1928a.html

On this 2014 New Year's Day, when true Catholics celebrate the Feast Day of The Circumcision of Our Lord, which was the Old Testament's baptism
welcoming a soul into the Unity of God's Family; I can present a True understanding of what is meant by ONE FAITH that is Holy, Catholic,
and Apostolic. As you well know the Novus Ordo renamed this feast day by Giovanni Baptista Monitini ( aka Paul VI ) in 1969. Since 1969, the General Roman Calendar incorrectly celebrated the 1st of January as the Solemnity of Mary, the Mother of God, referring to it also as the Octave of the Nativity. Antipope Paul VI designated that day as a World Day of Peace in 1974 where he continued to promulgate the heretical concept of unity amongst all religions created in the V2 heretical council. Antipope Paul VI sought dialogue with the world, with other Christians, other religions, and atheists, excluding nobody per the heretical V2 document: Unitatis Redintegratio. One of the 4 True Marks of the Catholic Church's, namely APOSTOLIC, was overlooked and lost as a visible sign of Our Catholic Faith presence in Rome. The false ecumenism held by the Novus Ordo of Rome directly attacks the TRUE UNITY of the Catholic Church which is the true meaning of ONE in CREED, another mark of the Catholic Church.

As Our Lady of La Salette, who appeared on September 19, 1846, warned us that, "ROME WOULD LOSE THE FAITH AND BECOME THE SEAT OF THE ANTICHRIST".

Have a happy and blessed New Year!

DEO GRATIAS!

Ora pro nobis, SummaphileXLV


Wed Jan 01, 2014 3:02 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.