jump to navigation

You’ve heard the term ‘dialogue’…… April 23, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals.
trackback

…..perhaps even in a Church setting.  You may have read a news report that the Vatican is in “dialogue” with certain protestant or other sects, pursuing (fruitless, pointless) “ecumenical dialogue.”  What means this “dialogue?”  In practical terms, and I mean this specifically regarding the many “ecumenical” efforts which are presently underway, it generally means “I’m ok you’re ok let’s have a meeting at a 5 star resort and revel in how OK we are!”  It is, in reality, the antithesis of what the Church has traditionally believed and practiced regarding its relations with separated Christians or any other religious sect.  It is this novel notion of dialogue with respect to other religions, proclaimed in name and deed by Vatican II,  which is at the heart of the Vatican-SSPX situation. 

Romano Amerio discusses dialogue in his Iota Unum.  This from Chapter XVI Dialogue (I add emphasis and comments):

The word dialogue represents the biggest change in the mentality of the Church after the council, only comparable in its importance with the change wrought by the word liberty in the 19th century.  The word was completely unknown and unused in the Church’s teaching before the council.  It does not occur once in any previous council, or in papal encyclicals, or in sermons or in pastoral practice.  In the Vatican II dcouments it occurs 28 times, twelve of them in the decree on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio.  Nonetheless, through its lightening spread and an enormous broadening in meaning, this word, which is very new in the Catholic Church, became the master-word determining post-conciliar thinking[Indeed, this word, and the huge swath of thinking it represents as a sort of keystone, is THE determinant of radical change after Vatican II.  Think of the problem with women religious.  There has been decades of “dialogue.”  The LCWR, of course, want the dialogue to go on forever, so they may continue doing as they please.  Similarly, all these pointless ecumenical conferences and get-togethers and hootenanies are similarly driven by dialogue, meaning, an exchange of views in such a way that one knows a priori that nothing will change after the exchange.  It is, in fact, a profoundly conservative term, which indicates that nothing will change from the humdrum, indifferentist status quo.  But it extends way beyond ecumenism, or LCWR, or any specific issue – dialogue occurs in all areas of the Church now.  We hear liberals call for “dialogue” on women’s religious, or gay marriage, or abortion, or contraception – all of which means, we will keep talking at you until you succumb to our will.  Then, once you do, dialogue ceases and  you must obey]

……………It is true that Peter and Paul did dispute in the synagogues, but it is not a question of dialoguing in the modern sense of a dialogue in search of something, setting out from a position of ostensible ignorance, but rather a dialogue in refutation of errors. The possibility of dialogue disappears…..the moment the disputant is no longer open to persuasion whether through his obstinacy or his incapacity[And, thus, so much of the pointless nature of the ongoing, endless ecumenical dialogue is revealed.  The proper nature of ecumenism for the Church is for others to be convinced of the Truth Christ has revealed through the Church, to reject their own errors and to “come home” to union with Rome.  But much of the official ecumenical movement is engaged in with individuals who have no desire to change their views, and so there is no real evangelization going on, but just tiresome and expensive diplomacy] Just as Christ spoke with authority, so the Apostles preached the Gospel in an authoritative manner, not looking to validate it by dialogue.  In the same place Christ’s positive way of teaching is contrasted with the dialogues of the scribes and pharisees.  The heart of the matter is that the Church’s message is not a human product, always open to argument, but a revealed message designed to be accepted rather than argued about.  [The desire for endless “dialogue” reveals a crisis of faith, a fundamental lack of belief in the idea that what the Church proclaims is true, is in actuality that Truth Christ has proclaimed.  Thus “dialogue” captures in essence the indifferentism that permeates modernist beliefs to their core.  This doesn’t mean we should thunder from on-high and act without some compassion and understanding, but it does mean that the sort of quivering equality – or even inferiority – which permeates the behavior of some in the Church when it comes to encountering those of another belief, or even heretics and apostates in their midst, must cease]

[Speaking of the ignorance and error of many of those who engage in dialogue….]……..Contemporary dialogue presupposes, however, that any man is capable of dialoguing with anyone else on any subject, simply in virtue of being a rational creature……The paradox is that this right to argue is being extended to everyone [even bloggers, apparently – what a catastrophe!] at the very moment when the knowledge that gives an authentic title to join the argument is getting scarcer and feebler even among the Church’s teachers.  [This explains why some of the great “successes” of the ecumenical movement are so bizaare and twisted – because the parties in dispute are trying to twist their disparate views into some cohesive, inoffensive whole, which really satisfies neither side and which is often problematic under doctrinal review.  That the general level of catechesis has collapsed, even at the highest levels, only furthers this problem, and makes the ecumenical compromises reached all the more doubtful]

The next blunder relates to the onus of proof.  It is assumed that dialogue can and should satisfy all the objections of an opponent.  Now for one man to offer himself to another with the aim of giving him complete intellectual satisfaction on any point of religion is a sign of moral failing.  [It’s also a recipe for the closest approximation of eternity we will get on earth – the length of many of these intra- and extra-Church dialogues]

A final note – Cardinal Koenig’s comments on dialogue from 1971: “Dialogue puts the partners on an equal footing.  The Catholic is not considered as possessing all the truth, but as someone who has faith and is looking for that truth with others, both believers and non-believers.” 

This statement would be scornfully repudiated by a whole line of popes from prior to 1960.  It represents a fundamental shift in Catholic Dogma – a repudiation of much of what the Church believes.  It sounds reasonable, but is not, if you believe what the Church believes, which is that it is the unique institution founded by Christ for the salvation of men’s souls and the to be His Body on earth.  If you know the errors of other sects, if you know the differences from what Catholics believe, and, say, what a muslim believes, or a modern secular pagan, this statement is incredible.

It sums up dialogue very well. 

Comments

1. More on pointless dialogue « A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics - April 24, 2012

[…] did a long winded post  yesterday on the novel term of “dialogue” that has catapulted to fame in the Church over the past […]


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: