Posted on 06/15/2009 8:43:27 AM PDT by Salvation
You mean Cursillo? That was prior to V2.
One canot unify what does not want to be unified. I think, unification with the Orthodox is possible in a few generations and maybe even in our lifetimes. Institutional reunification is perhaps possible with some Anglican and Lutheran factions, but it seems to me that the bulk of these denominations is heading toward less unity with Rome, not more. I think realistically, we'll see more individual conversions from Protestantism, but while those are happening, the trajectory of all Protestant (in the broad sense) communities of faith will continue to be centrifugal.
I do not think substantial reunification of any kind can be accelerated by any councils. To be sure, once a desire for reunification is ignited among the Orthodox, an ecumenical council that involves them will be necessary in order to sort out the doctrinal differences that exist. However, reunification, just like an individual conversion, happens in the hearts of the faithful and not top-down.
There were aspects of V2 that prepared room for future reunifications by clarifying the role of the Catholic Church in the the Christendom. Some other factors, especially the watering down the Holy Mass, were extremely harmful to the Church Catholic, as well as the broader Christian community. It was, if you pardon the mundane analogy, like trying to reinforce unity of a family by canceling the Thanksgiving dinner. I was wondering what specifically do you hope to come out of V3, if there ever is such a thing?
I think the direction the Church is going in the current pontificate is just right, but I don't think it is fair to characterize Poe Benedict XVI as "foe of Vatican II ".
The link in my previous post says the Cursillo movement “was founded in Majorca, Spain by a group of laymen in 1944”.
“Right, thanks for the spelling correction but it wasn't prior to V2. It came out of a desire by Spanish priests for a more charismatic service.”
Cursillo certainly predates the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council by a bit. Here's a bit from wiki:
“Cursillos in Christianity (in Spanish: Cursillos de Cristiandad, short course of Christianity) is a ministry that began in the Roman Catholic Church and has since spread to other Christian denominations. It was founded in Majorca, Spain by a group of laymen in 1944, while they were refining a technique to train pilgrimage leaders. It has since been adapted by numerous other Christian denominations, some of which have retained the name ‘cursillo’ while others have given the program a different name.”
These folks peg it at 1949:
http://www.geocities.com/gacursillo/history.html
These folks either 1943 or 1944, saying that it was the numbered cursillos that started in 1949:
http://www.cocursillo.org/history.html
These folks also note that it began with the Catholic Church, in 1944, and note that it came to the Southwest US in the 1950s (just a little before the opening of the Council):
http://www.cursillo.com/History.html
I find no sources that date it after the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.
sitetest
Then Rome would have to agree to married clergy would it not?
Institutional reunification is perhaps possible with some Anglican and Lutheran factions, but it seems to me that the bulk of these denominations is heading toward less unity with Rome, not more. I think realistically, we'll see more individual conversions from Protestantism, but while those are happening, the trajectory of all Protestant (in the broad sense) communities of faith will continue to be centrifugal.
I believe traditional Anglicans and some Missouri Synod Lutherans were moving toward RCs, while I concur that the evangelical Lutherans (Dr. Tiller's church) and Episcopalians are probably moving away (especially after the homosexual acceptance issue in the ECUSA). It really is sad because I believe firmly that it is God's will to have a unified church of Christ on earth.
Most protestants regarded Pope John-Paul I, John XXIII and Paul VI as well as John-Paul II as real ecumenical leaders. I do not believe most feel that way about Ratzinger.
I often wonder about the current pope, as with John-Paul II there is documented evidence that he intervened on behalf of Jews in Poland during the Holocaust. I take Benedict at his word, as I do with other Germans of the period, that they really did not fully know what was going on during Hitler's regime. Still, there is that nagging suspicion of why didn't they when the Nuremberg Laws were so conspicuous?
Well, I didn’t know that history of Cursillo ... we were told that it was a product of V2. Perhaps it was transported to the Anglican/Episcopal community after V2?
Well, it appears that it came to the United States in 1957, to the Catholic Church in the US. For Catholics to share it with non-Catholics, in the US, it would have, coincidentally, had to have occurred either as the Council was going on, or afterward. We Catholics in the US couldn't have shared it with others before we, ourselves, were exposed to it.
But the timing was happenstance.
The difficulty is with taking stuff out of historical context, imagining that what happened at the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council was a rupture with what went before.
It was not. Liturgical reform, re-understanding of the role of the laity, ecumenicism, all these things came before the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. All of them were developing before the Council, and the Council, properly understood, was merely a milestone on the path of all this that was happening.
Regrettably, many took the Council as an opportunity to push their favorite heresy, and the supreme heresy that was pushed in the name of “Vatican II” was that it represented a rupture with what came before it in Catholic teaching and history.
And Pope Benedict understands that it is the hermeneutic of continuity that is the proper way to interpret the Council. As did Pope John Paul II. As did Pope John Paul I. And as did Pope Paul VI (and of course Blessed Pope John XXIII, but none of the stupid stuff had begun in earnest by the time of his death, so it is an anachronism to claim his mantle for any of it). Unfortunately, the voices of the heretics were often louder and easier to listen to than the voice of Pope Paul VI (and my own view is that he was at least partly to blame for this, as he often stepped on his own lines).
When the rubber hit the road, when many expected him to interpret the Council as a rupture with the past, he continued to teach Catholic Truth, most especially in the encyclical Humanae Vitae.
It's only folks who didn't actually pay attention to what he said, to what he taught, that thought what he was saying or doing represented the hermeneutic of rupture.
sitetest
Rome never disagreed with married clergy as practiced in the Eastern Catholic Churches (Greek Catholics, Melkites, Maronites, Ruthenians, etc), and in Eastern Orthodox Churches. Priestly celibacy is uniquely a discipline of the Latin Church, but not of the entire Catholic Church, and, I am sure, will remain in the Latin Church forever. It was never an objection raised by the Orthodox.
it is God's will to have a unified church of Christ on earth.
Most definitely it is God's will (John 17). But the union cannot be syncretist, purely formal union based on some vague commonality of belief in divinity of Jesus. Jesus's prayer was that we be one as He and His Father in Heaven are one. This means that unity should be of essence. With the Orthodox, some Anglicans and some continuing Lutherans I see such possibility. With the rest, the possibility is nil.
real ecumenical leaders
Most Protestants understand ecumenism as mutual recognition, intercommunion, prayer events, that is, external signs of union, while maintaining differences of doctrine. The Catholic understanding of ecumenism is conversion into doctrinal oneness. For example, we consider ourselves both Orthodox and Catholic, and we consider the Eastern Orthodox in essence Catholic. A similar essential unity exists with the Anglican Catohlics. Should the Eastern Orthodox also come to see themselves as both Orthodox and Catholic, we will have reunification. In that light, there are certain gestures made by some popes and not by others that look as if the Catholic Church might fall into indifferentism, and these gestures are seen as "true ecumenism". That is a wrong way to look at things. They are simply expressions of commonality of some ideals and some goals. They were not meant to lead to some syncretic super-Church.
About the role of the Church during the Second World War, I refer you to many solid books that explain it; since I haven't read a single one of them, I won't recommend any specific book. The topic could easily fill several FR threads as well.
Gulp! You will make my daughter unemployed! She has been conducting, accompanying, leading, singing, and teaching music in the church since she was 14!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.