[patent]

The question is, do we support the Vatican now or harken back to past teachings of the church?

Ahhh, the words that nearly all schismatics utter sooner or later. But we must return to the true faith! I hope that you are not one of these who would leave the Church and the Pope to follow your private interpretation of the “past teachings of the Church.” I do not know you or where you are at, so please understand I make no judgments about you, but those words have such strong historical context to them.

As doctrine has developed through the last (nearly) 2000 years of Christianity various schismatics have reacted to various developments by demanding a return to the past teachings as they understood them. Just to cite a couple of the major examples that everyone is familiar with, the Orthodox and the filoque, and the Protestants nearly always claim they are a return to the ancient Church that was corrupted by the Catholic hierarchy. There are an infinite number of lesser examples, the Jansenists, etc. We could go on and on. History has clearly demonstrated that the only way to stay on the side of truth is to cling to the Holy See. Heresy after heresy after heresy arises, and no land has stayed safe from them, except those who remain aligned with the Pope.

I do not cling to Cardinal Kasper and what he states. I do cling to what the Pope teaches, and what the Church formally states. From the catechism:

816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it.... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him." 267

The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, 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 that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God." 268

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

[Bellarmine]

Whoa! That was quite a response. I think you misunderstood my question though. Perhaps I should elaborate. Here we have Cardinal Kasper who has been appointed the Vatican's top official for christian unity. Now I proposed that his teachings are in disagreement with prior church teachings on christian unity. But this presents a dilemma. We must assume that someone holding heterodox views could not rise to such a high position in the church and remain there. Therefore, his views must be viewed as inside the sphere of acceptables Catholic teaching on ecumenism. However, if we harken back to earlier church teachings (here I meant Vatican II), we find a different view of ecumenism. So again, I restate the question. Do we follow the current Vatican teaching on ecumenism represented by the top ranking official in charge of ecumenical affairs, Cardinal Kasper, or do we harken back to Vatican II's teaching and disregard the current church's views?

I don't know what the point of accusing me of schism was. Perhaps you should be a little more careful before you start throwing such loaded terms around. It is an act lacking very much in the virtue of charity.