Monday, November 10, 2014

Interesting debate between Jimmy Akin and Louie Verrecchio on "whether Mortalium Animos is still the faith of the Catholic Church"

Posted as: The Ecumenical Question, beginning with an opening statement by Jimmy Akin on November1st.

Comments are closed, but there is an independent Forum where readers can comment elsewhere.

The debate was publicized by Verrecchio on November 4th HERE, and was provoked initially by a challenge he posed to men like Karl Keating, Michael Voris, Jimmy Akin, Marcellino D’Ambrosio and others HERE. Only my friend Jimmy Akin has responded so far, and the dialogue has been courteous and constructive, as far as I have read it.


As Francis A. Schaeffer used to insist: "Serious answers for serious questions."


7 comments:








BenYachov

said...

Mortalium Animos was written by Pius XI to condemn the Pan Protestant Movement of his day. He said God's One True Church on Earth was never meant to be a federation of different Churches each holding contrary doctrines.

Being suspicious of the movement Pius XI forbade Catholics from participating it & limited dialog with them on the level of persuading them to return to the fold.

I don't see how UUS un-teaches any of this or of the necessity of the Church?

This sounds like quasi-Feeneyite nonsense?





BenYachov

said...

Well I read some of of the Forum Posts. What can I say? Yikes!!!!

One poster Barbara Jensen ironically makes a lot of coherent arguments as to why Mortalium Animos and Ut Unum Sint are not in contradiction with one another.
None of her critics even comes close to an intelligent response but instead throw out a bunch of Red Herrings(there is no contradiction but JP2 still held the Assisi event so somehow there must
be a contradiction).

She ruthlessly defends the Papacies of St John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI calling them true
Popes while saying Pope Francis is not.

It’s just weird reading the Refuse & Resist Francis crowd butting heads with the old guard
refuse and resisters that have be active since the reign of St JP2.

BTW am I the only one who notices the irony here? We have salvation rigorists here suggesting
that Protestants and schematic dissident oriental Churches(to use the old Pre V2 terms for the Eastern Orthodox) are not going to be saved and are in no way part of the Catholic Church (upholding their interpretation of Pius XI encyclical) who at the same time argue the SSPX are not schismatic and really still part of the Catholic Church? Even thought they where founded in Schism?

It’s just weird. Well being Catholic has never been boring.





Pertinacious Papist

said...

Ironies cut in more ways that one, don't you think? On the one hand, there are Catholics who have no trouble believing they can learn something profitable from noble pagans like Aristotle, as did St. Thomas, but wouldn't think of ever picking up an excellent work written by a Protestant. On the other hand, you have Catholics (like the Pope, even), who would bend over backwards in inter-religious charity towards Muslims and Jews, and embrace charismatic Protestant Pentecostals as brothers in Christ, and chum it up with known ecclesiastical and doctrinal revisionists, but wouldn't think of giving the time of day to anyone holding views close to the last pre-Vatican II pope (Pius XII), particularly if they were even distally associated with the SSPX.





BenYachov

said...

(BTW side note I am glad your eye is better. God is good!).

But let us get too it shall we doc.

>On the one hand, there are Catholics who have no trouble believing they can learn something profitable from noble pagans like Aristotle, as did St. Thomas, but wouldn't think of ever picking up an excellent work written by a Protestant.

I'm with ya here 100% Doc. What's that about?


> On the other hand, you have Catholics (like the Pope, even), who would bend over backwards in inter-religious charity towards Muslims and Jews, and embrace charismatic Protestant Pentecostals as brothers in Christ, and chum it up with known ecclesiastical and doctrinal revisionists, but wouldn't think of giving the time of day to anyone holding views close to the last pre-Vatican II pope (Pius XII), particularly if they were even distally associated with the SSPX.

I confess I don't understand that last bit. What views did Pius XII hold that would prevent him from extending intra-religious charity toward persons of other religions or the religions themselves?

OTOH I once heard the charge from some Traditionalists I've debated over the years that the Church needs to be more ecumenical with the SSPX and their fellow travelers well.......in theory that would be nice. I of course would be the last person to object to it but...well...you can't have Ecumenism with those who reject Ecumenism.

Take the example of Muslims and Jews. Nobody from ISIS is going to show up at the Vatican with anything other than a bomb. It's the moderates that might show up.

A less extreme example, there is a Halakah Rabbinic ruling that forbids orthodox Jews from having inter-religious dialog with other religions especially Christians. All our dialog with Jews to date has been with the Reformed and Conservative variety.

Many Evangelicals are positive toward Catholics but hardcore Jack Chick reading fundamentalist believe all the Popes are the Anti-Christ or potential ones.

The SSPX has been dragging it's feet for 25 years plus. The moral burden is on them to return to the church outside of which there is no salvation.

How can they plead invincible ignorance? As Pete Vere once said "If they don't come back within a generation they will be a separate religion & the schism will be consummated like the Old Catholics, the Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox.

I wouldn't be surprised cut from the barc of Peter they will be the ones giving communion to the divorced and remarried while ordaining lesbian Priests.

I mean what is to stop that from happening?

The Holy Spirit protects the visible Church not them.

Cheers Doc.





Pertinacious Papist

said...

"... that last bit"

Sorry. I wasn't clear, and I'm not sure I have the time to be this evening.

Basically, the idea is that there seems to be an underlying hatred among some mainline conservative Catholics of those among their fellow Catholics who adhere to the pre-Vatican II outlook of Catholics with beliefs like those of Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII. It's as if they believe Vatican II introduced some sort of profound doctrinal shift, even though Vatican II claims to have been a "pastoral" council and not to have introduced any new doctrinal definitions.

"ecumenism with those who reject ecumenism": I can't remember the prominent Vatican prelate who was asked whether Rome's negotiations with the SSPX should be considered "ecumenical." He replied no, since, he said, it would be improper to view the SSPX as a body outside the Catholic Church. That's another debate.

"... to return to the church" - that's another debate too, to which one might add the question whether many in formally regular membership in the Catholic Church are not "sacramentalized pagans" who should be invited to return to the Church as well. Again, another debate for some other day.

Cheers to you too.





Mighty Joe Young

said...

The New Theologians (the renamed Modernists) have been revolutionary agents of change and they have contributed to a complete reversal of the Papal praxis that preceded the entireity of Papal praxis prior to the V2 rocket but those novel practices are defended by those whose ignorance of Tradition can be seen from the Space Station

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFECUM.HTM

We now have Our Pope and Our Cross who is completely in rupture with the past; He routinely engages with protestants and praises their work and has, repeatedly, refused the Tradition of the necessity of conversion and he has written a book with his Pro-sodomite, pro-abortion, buddy, Rabbi Skorka and he makes sure that kosher meals are served at Saint Martha's during the rabbis freq visits there but, like the Popes who preceded him, he would not be caught dead visiting Synagogues and the homes of Jews and preaching Christ and conversion as did Our first Pope and the Apostles (See Acts)

And we call all of these massive changes and ruptures with Tradition, continuity.

O, and of COURSE the hordes of heathens, the heretical schismatics of the East, are not part of the Church nor are Protestants, Jews, or Jehovah Witnesses for that matter.

MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

Wow, those old Popes were so churlish





BenYachov

said...

@Doc B.

>Sorry. I wasn't clear, and I'm not sure I have the time to be this evening.

No worries Doc you need to take care of your health first. Take your time answering or forget about it.
I’m easy.

>Basically, the idea is that there seems to be an underlying hatred among some mainline conservative Catholics of those among their fellow Catholics who adhere to the pre-Vatican II outlook of Catholics with beliefs like those of Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII. It's as if they believe Vatican II introduced some sort of profound doctrinal shift, even though Vatican II claims to have been a "pastoral" council and not to have introduced any new doctrinal definitions.

Forgive me Doc I am not trying to be difficult but I still don’t get it? What Pre- Vatican 2 beliefs of St Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII are not shared by mainline conservative Catholics? Other than a firmer belief in Limbo I can’t think of any?

I dispute the idea Vatican II was purely pastoral and made no doctrinal assertions & I am with Dr. Art Sippo on this one but that is a discussion for another day.


>"ecumenism with those who reject ecumenism": I can't remember the prominent Vatican prelate who was asked whether Rome's negotiations with the SSPX should be considered "ecumenical." He replied no, since, he said, it would be improper to view the SSPX as a body outside the Catholic Church. That's another debate.

Well I was being a bit tongue and cheek. Pete Vere said if the SSPX doesn’t return within a generation the schism will be consummated and they will be another Church another religion like the Old Catholics.

>"... to return to the church" - that's another debate too, to which one might add the question whether many in formally regular membership in the Catholic Church are not "sacramentalized pagans" who should be invited to return to the Church as well. Again, another debate for some other day.

Nominal Catholics, C&E Catholics, AmChurch or as you call them"sacramentalized pagans” need conversion to Christ so they can realize the beauty of the Faith. They also need to learn the faith and be taught the faith beyond confirmation.

I was one of these people till about age 20 when I had my spiritual awakening & I discovered Catholic Apologetics. Still the SSPX can they really plead “invincible ignorance” like the unwashed Amchurch types? If they can well then they are no better in teaching the faith to their flock as your average AmChurch parish. OTOH if they can at least teach them up till Vatican One I don’t see how they can justify not submitting to the Pope?

I don’t judge their souls now that is for God alone. But it doesn’t fill me with confidence.

Cheers feel better.