Analogy: "It's great wine, what a vintage...oh, it's corked." Throw it out! Lutheranism is an example of a man made false religion, founded by a sinful man, Martin Luther, that is satanic in its inception. Luther was a formal heretic. Lutheranism's adherents today are material heretics. ...In other words, in error, and under the subjugation of Satan who inspired Luther to break from the One True Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church.
While it is true that some of the content of various older world religions stem from the Old Testament natural religions-man's authentic quest to seek the face of God, naturally, outside of revelation, through no fault of his own plus confused fragments of revelation ie. Great Flood, Noah- that developed outside of God's Divine Revelation to the Jews, ie. the twelve tribes of Israel, we do not focus on the truths of natural human religion but on their errors as natural religion quickly became satanic without the grace of God ie. Carthage, Moloch, Baal, child sacrifice, Aztec human sacrifice, etc.
It's not what's right with false 'man made' religions that the Catholic Church has traditionally focused on, but the errors in these false religions that separates that false religion, and their adherents, from the Mystical Body of Christ. Pope Pius XII in 1943 states, "the Mystical Body of Christ... is the Catholic Church." But in 1964 the Catholic bishops gathered at the Second Vatican Council, while acknowledging that "full incorporation" in the Church required union with the Sovereign Pontiff, described various degrees of being. That led to JPII's and Francis' full-blow heretical hallucination: World Religions Pan-Syncretism: ie. one supra-kaleidoscope religion, each containing part of the 'truth' but not 'all'; doesn't matter which one you belong to; all bring 'salvation'; no one goes to hell anyway.
Catholicism is not "by degrees" per the teaching of the Church.
Catholicism equals "in or out of the Catholic Church; either you belong to the Body or the Soul of the Church, or you don't" NOT "fullness of catholicity; partial belonging " belonging as per Vatican II.
A slight hint of ecumanism, but not blatent as what the post conciliar popes believed.
I was taught in seminary that Vatican II recognized in other religions a searching for the God who is unknown by their adherents. But since He gives life to all things, He wants all people to be saved. Thus, other religions may contain “a ray of truth” (cf. Nostra Aetate #2). Therefore Church considers all goodness found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel” [praeparatio evangelica] and given by God. This accentuation of the positive led to dialogue over commonalities rather than discussion of the uniqueness of Christian faith. This is Francis' touchstone. But even Benedict XVI recognized how this approach undermines the missionary impulse to preach the Gospel to all people.
One can argue that the missionary impulse is very strong today. In every century the Church evangelizes in the context of the times: The 1st century was different than the 4th, 8th, or the 15th, etc. simply because each age has different challenges. In ages past, entire nations adopted Christianity at the behest of kings who converted to Christianity; during the discovery and conquest of the New World, missionaries came to the Americas to teach Christianity to indigenous groups subjugated by the the political empires of the time. Today we live in the age of instant communication, and there are countless apostolates teaching and communicating the faith to the world. In fact, the Second Vatican Council document Inter Mirífica was and still is an urgent call for the laity to use technology to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. As Pope JPII said, the Church must propose the gospel, not impose it. God doesn’t impose Himself. The Church proposes, it is the Holy Spirit who converts souls.
Well any "missionary efforts" seem to be directed at re-educating Catholics about what the Church has traditionally taught. Plus most of these are run by laymen. Sadly some are big business. For example I get a free copy of Catholic Answers and was surprised by how much fund raising & self promotion was in the last issue. But back to topic: almost all members of the hierarchy & lower clergy appear to be more inclined to dialogue with others than preach a solid Catholic message. [Even when I was in formation for the priesthood we were explicitly told that since Vatican II we have homilies now, NOT sermons. That it is 'inappropriate' to discuss doctrine but one needs to 'meet people where they're at']
The Church has an amazing catechism, and encourages the faithful to study it, to read the Bible, to receive the sacraments, to pray the Rosary, and to live the faith, etc. At some point it is up to the laity to live up to the faith and to study their catechism. Those who seek find, and those who don’t, do not find. The faith has to be formed in the family, It is not the responsibility of the priest to raise the children. The priest administers the Sacraments. The role of the laity is to evangelize. Here is a really good video that shows Archbishop Sheen telling the faithful that the meeting point between the Christian and the non-Christian is the laity, not the clergy. Watch it at minute 51:55 sec. Link: youtube.com/watch?si=77rjhhM4AqkaWXym&v=uKUdy0xRjxI&feature=yo
What you say is true... but what if the clergy ARE ACTIVELY discouraging the faith? We're not Protestants who can start our own church & pray by ourselves - we look to priests & bishops to be our spiritual guides. 'Go read the Bible & catechism' is fine advice, but when one tries to live by the Church's teachings, you often get pushback from the supposed 'pastors' You're called a fundamentalist, Taliban catholic, mean-spirited, rigid, etc. And sacraments, one needs to search to find them administered reverently in a manner that shows the minister actually believes what he's doing. I doubt that this is conducive to the building up of faith let alone evangelizing the world. Heck even the "pope" discourages proselytism. So no, I can't see ANY new springtime in the Church - only decline. Perhaps this was meant to be, to separate the sheep from the goats. Or to undergo a passion like our Lord. But either way, it isn't a 'strong missionary impulse'
@Orthocat False man made religions, like Anglo-Catholicism, might be as much as 98% true but, as Hilaire Beloc, says we (ie. Catholic Church) do not focus, for example, on the truths of High Anglicanism, we focus on the 2% that is false, absence of truth (ie. papal primacy, papal infallibility) that vitiates the entire. The devil does not take us for fools. There is always the bait of truth on the fishing lure to disguise the hook of falsehoods, camouflaged and unseen, until it is too late. False religions always have a semblance of truth...or no one would follow them. It is the truth that is absent from those false religions that is the problem. "It's a lovely pie, it's a shapely, aromatic pie...oh wait, it's poisoned with arsenic..." Throw it out!
@Orthocat I liked you comment! Don't you think they can see the way things are now? I believe we will all see "the way things are now" on our own particular judgement day! God bless you!
I once read a biography of +Sheen and brilliant as he was, he too was optimistic about "the Council" (Vatican II). Like many churchman at the time, he was too conditioned to believe that one could trust the leaders of the Church (John XII, Paul VI) implicitly. If only they could see things now...
He became a modernist hook, line and sinker in the seventies after the Council and went with the New Mass out of 'obedience.' Even the great fell through false obedience-ism. Have mercy on us, O Lord. Comment for you up top...His beautiful book on the Holy Mass with Karsch inspired me to become a priest.
Love +Sheen. I wish he wasn't so into Freudian studies, but it was what they had back then. Sadly psychology has now become the excuse people use for sin in modern times.