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.
We must assume that someone holding heterodox views could not rise to such a high position in the church and remain there.Why? It wouldnt be the first time.
Therefore, his views must be viewed as inside the sphere of acceptables Catholic teaching on ecumenism.I dont think you can state that automatically. The Pope didnt vet each and every statement he made or will make before appointing him, and the Pope hasnt held in some fashion that his teachings are acceptable. This is a prudential decision, and as such it is subject to the errors or prudence that a Pope is still capable of.
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 dont harken back, I harken to that which is eternal. Vatican II and the Catechism, as cited above, match. They say the same things. Thus, you can read either, you can harken back or you can read the present Church teachings, which regardless of what the Cardinal states, have not changed. The Cardinal is not the Magisterium, regardless of what he states, he is entirely and completely incapable of changing Church teaching.
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.Perhaps while you are accusing me of using loaded terms and accusing you of schism, you should reread my words:
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.How exactly, do you get to my accusing you of being schismatic. I distinctly stated I do not know where you are at and that I make no judgments about you. I am very clear above, the words were words that many schematics utter. Thus, I criticized the wording, not the person.
I dont even accuse most SSPX adherents of being schismatic, Im not going to try to judge you based on one sentence. It is quite simply not my place.