Kids are more in tune to natural instincts
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (68)
sorted by:
I doubt you have red it then because it's pretty straightforward:
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
It's over for trad caths. Rome is officially out of the game. It's not just Nostra Aetate too: there's Lumin Gentium, Gadium et spes, Fiducia Supplicans and countless other papal encyclicals, pronunciations and documents that reafirm those positions.
Sorry, that was unkind of me, earlier. I should read more, but I soundly reject Vatican 2. From what I understand, SSPX/Tridatine may be the only route forward, as they tend to as well.
I understand where you come from and I'm sure you're truly seeking the true Church. While Vatican II is obviously bad, Vatican I was problematic too because it declared papal supremacy and infallibility (which is obviously bunk considering recent Popes). But even historically, this was not how the early Church was structured and operated (for example, the Fifth Ecumenical Council threatened to excommunicate Pope Vigilius over heretical teachings - if the Pope was truly the supreme authority over the Church this wouldn't be possible because his teaching would be normative).
If you're considering SSPX you may find this helpful (Jay was a former trad cath himself): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWqzCSAeUtU
He's a satanist.
u/SmithW1984, Joe is referring to me because he doesn't understand my evangelism strategy.
Right. That's what it is. Sure. Mkay.
When you're right, you're right. Can't argue with this.
Thanks Winston! I used to be very anti-ecumenical. I'm still leery of it but I see more of what God is doing by letting it happen. Your reading of the text is still not mine.
Ok, what's your reading? I've heard popesplainers have a go on it and their mental gymnastics are hilarious. I don't think you can top them although you're pretty well versed in sophism and filibustering too.
To adore and contemplate is, for casuists like the pope, not to worship. He's trying to be kissy with them and find commonalities and still not press Christian tradition beyond its guardrails. Obviously the person who "adores God" but doesn't acknowledge Jesus as God is incomplete in theology and practice. But if we want to evangelize them we do better to accept the right things in their approach, and build from them, rather than to lead by rejecting minor wrong things that their cultures currently approve out of felicitous inconsistency.
If Orthodoxy appears to have nothing to offer but 3-year secluded catechesis, it's less likely to build bridges. Missionaries who spend 3 years learning another person's culture have much more fruit. Does that make enough sense?
No, adore is a synonym for worship according to Denzinger. It doesn't matter if it's incomplete, because the position of NA is premised on natural theology. Rome teaches jews and muslims, being "monotheistic Abrahamic religions" worship God the Father of the OT. This is the communality NA is referring to.
I don't know anyone who had 3 years of catechesis. Orthodox aren't expected to be theologians, but to know the basics of the faith and dogma. To know what they actually believe in when they enter the Church which is completely reasonable and necessary. You go build bridges with hindus, buddhists, muslims, JW, LDS, ecumenists - have a blast.
What is the fruit exactly? Arriving to some ecumenist perenialist compromise that has nothing to do with the true Church and the faith of Christ? We're not freemasons. Don't give me that bs. Everyone participating in ecumenist efforts and dialogues (like the Rockefeller ran WCC) should be excommunicated. Jesus nukes bridges between His people and the heterodox, Satan is the one who brings people in false unity in his one world religion and beast system.