Your views on ecumenism

[Kevin Snow]

The NAR is totally involved in ecumenicalism, maybe you are not paying close attention.

I guess I should say that my expectation of ecumenism is that it is true. Therefore only the efforts to unite the churches through their doctrine is the only ecumenism. All other forms is just man's labeling. Throw a label on it! There, now we are all one. (face palm)

So the NAR isn't doing that with apostolic authority, therefore they are not actually apostles. The apostles greatest concern was agreement based unity in the church.

 

[Halbhh]

The Catholic Church has not changed in its official doctrines and traditions. Sacramental salvation is works based salvation.

Doctrine matters and cannot be put aside and dismissed for the sake of “unity.”

This summary contradicts the Catholic Catechism on Justification though (I'm not in the Catholic church by the way, but instead like you I'm in the catholic (universal) Church of all believers in Christ risen)--
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm

 

[mark46]

The Roman Catholic Church does NOT teach works based salvation.

You might read the joint declaration that has been agreed to by many church bodies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Declaration_on_the_Doctrine_of_Justification

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

The Catholic Church has not changed in its official doctrines and traditions. Sacramental salvation is works based salvation.

Doctrine matters and cannot be put aside and dismissed for the sake of “unity.”

 

[mark46]

I agree that Patriarch Kiril inhibits dialogue.

Mark, despite the ecumenical dialogues and agreements, I don't see the LWF or ELCA having close fellowship with Eastern Orthodoxy. We are too far apart on ecclessiology, praxis, and ethics. When Patriarch Kiril of Moscow denounces western Protestant churches as abandoning the faith, I think that pretty much shuts down doors on dialogue.

 

[ubicaritas]

The Roman Catholic Church does NOT teach works based salvation.

You might read the joint declaration that has been agreed to by many church bodies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Declaration_on_the_Doctrine_of_Justification

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

I think this is another case of where differences are minimized, to the confusion of the public.

Mark, it is unfortunate we are not all seen as one faith but as long as conservative Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox denounce my church as fundamentally defective, we do a disservice to the public to not acknowledge our differences. I for one refuse to minimize the importance of justification by faith alone and its ethical implications for the modern world, simply because reactionaries are entrenched in their traditionalism.

 

[mark46]

I think this is another case of where differences are minimized, to the confusion of the public.

fair enough

Before these statements, was the public less confused when they thought that those of other religious community was composed mostly of non-christians since they were not "saved"?

 

[amariselle]

The Roman Catholic Church does NOT teach works based salvation.

You might read the joint declaration that has been agreed to by many church bodies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Declaration_on_the_Doctrine_of_Justification

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

I am aware of the “joint declaration.” You may want to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Encyclopedia. (Along with other official Catholic documents).

The “joint declaration” is nothing more than clever phrasing and terminology.

 

[amariselle]

This summary contradicts the Catholic Catechism on Justification though (I'm not in the Catholic church by the way, but instead like you I'm in the catholic (universal) Church of all believers in Christ risen)--
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm

How so?

If one needs the Sacraments of the Catholic Church in order to be saved and stay saved, how is that not works based salvation?

Consider these: Confession, Penance, indulgences, Purgatory etc.

Salvation in the Catholic Church is very much dependent on its ordinances and rituals. And the Catholic Catechism is clear, outside the [Catholic] Church, there is no salvation. (The murky concept of “invincible ignorance” aside.)

 

[ubicaritas]

fair enough

Before these statements, was the public less confused when they thought that those of other religious community was composed mostly of non-christians since they were not "saved"?

That's pretty much how the majority of folks here think of my church, the ELCA. We are regularly told we are not real Christians simply because we recognize a diversity of opinions on many modern questions. Plastering this over won't change the reality that actual divisions exist between Christians in the world.

I think the attempt at hand-holding with people that are working at cross-purposes with our mission in the world is a poor witness to how we understand the Gospel, especially as we seek to share the Good News with marginalized groups in our society.

Most secularists buy the fundamentalists line that mainline Protestants are simply Erastian, and handing out endless olive branches to other religious groups arbitrarily does nothing to change that perception. Progressive Christians need to regain a sense of conviction in response, or else we are just a clanging gong that means nothing except a community of the self-satisfied.

I think folks like the Rev. Nadia Bolz Weber engage in the proper sort of response. She's not afraid of being bold, even a bit polemical, articulating the central themes of our faith for the world we live in. She grew up in a fundamentalist, controlling church as a child and knows exactly what makes these folks tick.

 

[ubicaritas]

How so?

If one needs the Sacraments of the Catholic Church in order to be saved and stay saved, how is that not works based salvation?

Consider these: Confession, Penance, indulgences, Purgatory etc.

Salvation in the Catholic Church is very much dependent on its ordinances and rituals. And the Catholic Catechism is clear, outside the [Catholic] Church, there is no salvation. (The murky concept of “invincible ignorance” aside.)

I have little difference with Catholics over their sacramentalism. We also do not understand sacraments as a human work. Nor do we see sacraments as absolutely necessary for salvation. However, they are the ordinary means of God's grace.

 

[HatGuy]

I think folks like the Rev. Nadia Bolz Weber engage in the proper sort of response. She's not afraid of being bold, even a bit polemical, articulating the central themes of our faith for the world we live in. She grew up in a fundamentalist, controlling church as a child and knows exactly what makes these folks tick.

I found Nadia interesting and relevant about five years ago, but since she's become pretty much a full blown liberal (with all its political trappings) I think she's no longer really relevant.

Which brings me to the OP. Ecumenical is alright (and really good) in the vein of someone like Thomas Oden. His great quest to discover a "consensus" in theology cannot be underestimated.

However, so much of ecumenism is just political posturing, generally liberal stuff that takes too much from culture rather than from the Bible or Christian teaching. Bolz-Webber is an example. I was excited about what she was saying like five years ago, but then after her divorce it's now all about how queer is beautiful and just falls into liberal political cultural trappings. That sort of thing just fades away with the shifting tides of culture

 

[Halbhh]

How so?

If one needs the Sacraments of the Catholic Church in order to be saved and stay saved, how is that not works based salvation?

Consider these: Confession, Penance, indulgences, Purgatory etc.

Salvation in the Catholic Church is very much dependent on its ordinances and rituals. And the Catholic Catechism is clear, outside the [Catholic] Church, there is no salvation. (The murky concept of “invincible ignorance” aside.)

While it's very easy to find a Catholic practice I disagree with and know is wrong (calling the lead bishop "Holy Father" is prominent), the only question I tried to address is solely what is the official Catholic position on Justification, and that link I offered is directly to those 2 sections, and you can read it in just a couple of minutes, and then you'd see that officially Catholics see us as (now I will attempt to condense and paraphrase) as saved only by Grace through faith. But read it yourself and see if I've read it correctly.

Of course, faith is not the end of being Christian, but the beginning.

 

[amariselle]

While it's very easy to find a Catholic practice I disagree with and know is wrong (calling the lead bishop "Holy Father" is prominent),

Indeed, "Holy Father" is a title reserved for God alone.

the only question I tried to address is solely what is the official Catholic position on Justification, and that link I offered is directly to those 2 sections, and you can read it in just a couple of minutes, and then you'd see that officially Catholics see us as (now I will attempt to condense and paraphrase) as saved only by Grace through faith. But read it yourself and see if I've read it correctly.

And here's the problem: according to official Catholic doctrine and tradition, the Catholic Church actually doesn't teach that at all. They are speaking out of both sides of their mouth and decieving many. Look up the Council of Trent (which was upheld by Vatican II) just one of their many "anathemas" will clarify what I am referring to.

Of course, faith is not the end of being Christian, but the beginning.

Our salvation, however, is not a process, it is an event, a re-birth, an act of God, not according to human "passion or plan."

 

[amariselle]

I have little difference with Catholics over their sacramentalism. We also do not understand sacraments as a human work. Nor do we see sacraments as absolutely necessary for salvation. However, they are the ordinary means of God's grace.

The Sacraments of the Catholic Church are indeed necessary for salvation. That is official Catholic doctrine and tradition. We do well to understand that.

 

[Vicomte13]

I for one refuse to minimize the importance of justification by faith alone and its ethical implications for the modern world, simply because reactionaries are entrenched in their traditionalism.

I understand this. And in precisely the same spirit I refuse to ignore Jesus when he asks sharply "What good does it do you to say that you follow me if you do not keep my commandments."

"Keeping Jesus' commandments", my mind, absolutely and without a doubt means physically doing, in the carnal world, what he said to do. What one believes in the mind does not cut it. It is what you DO that matters. So I read Jesus as saying explicitly that works are the central focal point of following him, and that following him is what gets a man through the gate. In other words, works are the very essence of salvation, and that what is in a man's head is meaningless. It's not what a man believes, or thinks, it's what he DOES that determines whether he passes or fails final judgment. That's what I read Jesus saying, it is very explicit and obvious to me, and I see all efforts to convert what Jesus said into "faith alone" as being the explicit rejection of Jesus Christ in favor of something else. I won't do it. At best I will smile and not politely, to not have a fight about it, but in the end I reject utterly any religion that teaches anything other than works-based salvation, because that's what Jesus commanded, and he's God.

The Catholic Church, my Church, in its desire for ecumenism, speaks in very diplomatic language and does not focus on this - and among certain more sophisticated minds than mine I guess even squares the circle, just as somehow the question of whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or just the Father, that has divided the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics for 1000 years, today is said by the intellectual elite to simply be a "misunderstanding". Well, I see Jesus BREATHING the Holy Spirit into the Apostles - and spirit - "pneuma" - is breath, so it's obvious to me that right there the Holy Spirit was literally physically proceeding out of the very mouth of Jesus into the Apostles. Which means that the Catholic version of the creed is just exactly literally right, obviously.

And I willing to follow the leaders and say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son. Sure. Why not. If that is how it needs to be put for Orthodox and Catholics to get alone, fine. But to say that the Holy Spirit does NOT proceed from the Son is obviously not true, just as to say that being acceptable to God does not primarily repose on the acts that one does during one's life is obviously not true.

How, then, could the Orthodox and I, or you and I, be "ecumenical"? We can eat together at picnics, do social work together, pray together, be kind and good to each other. That's ecumenism. For me to actually give up key aspects that are obviously true in order to get along with you is really quite impossible. And I'm sure that you would say no different.

So, that's what ecumenism is necessarily limited to, I think: the agreement to get along in amity despite the fact we believe really different things. More than that isn't possible unless God coverts one or both of us.

 

[Halbhh]

...

Our salvation, however, is not a process, it is an event, a re-birth, an act of God, not according to human "passion or plan."

We agree on a lot, but this bit (underlined) is concerning, even though I know that wording and language (Tower of Babel still in effect even today) can cause us to misunderstand anyone, including close family members, quite easily. See, instantly it made me think of Philippians chapter 3, which really is saying something very unlike this. That is, when we read all the chapter.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+3&version=ESV

Now, it may be you already agree, and we only have a normal inability to communicate perfectly.

 

[amariselle]

We agree on a lot, but this last part is concerning, even though I know that wording and language (Tower of Babel still in effect even today) can cause us to misunderstand anyone, including close family members, quite easily. See, instantly it made me think of Philippians chapter 3, which really is saying something very unlike this. That is, when we read all the chapter.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+3&version=ESV

Now, it may be you already agree, and we only have a normal inability to communicate perfectly.

I'm not sure exactly what you are concerned we disagree about...

 

[Halbhh]

I understand this. And in precisely the same spirit I refuse to ignore Jesus when he asks sharply "What good does it do you to say that you follow me if you do not keep my commandments."

"Keeping Jesus' commandments", my mind, absolutely and without a doubt means physically doing, in the carnal world, what he said to do. What one believes in the mind does not cut it. It is what you DO that matters. So I read Jesus as saying explicitly that works are the central focal point of following him, and that following him is what gets a man through the gate. In other words, works are the very essence of salvation, and that what is in a man's head is meaningless. It's not what a man believes, or thinks, it's what he DOES that determines whether he passes or fails final judgment. That's what I read Jesus saying, it is very explicit and obvious to me, and I see all efforts to convert what Jesus said into "faith alone" as being the explicit rejection of Jesus Christ in favor of something else. I won't do it. At best I will smile and not politely, to not have a fight about it, but in the end I reject utterly any religion that teaches anything other than works-based salvation, because that's what Jesus commanded, and he's God.

The Catholic Church, my Church, in its desire for ecumenism, speaks in very diplomatic language and does not focus on this - and among certain more sophisticated minds than mine I guess even squares the circle, just as somehow the question of whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or just the Father, that has divided the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics for 1000 years, today is said by the intellectual elite to simply be a "misunderstanding". Well, I see Jesus BREATHING the Holy Spirit into the Apostles - and spirit - "pneuma" - is breath, so it's obvious to me that right there the Holy Spirit was literally physically proceeding out of the very mouth of Jesus into the Apostles. Which means that the Catholic version of the creed is just exactly literally right, obviously.

And I willing to follow the leaders and say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son. Sure. Why not. If that is how it needs to be put for Orthodox and Catholics to get alone, fine. But to say that the Holy Spirit does NOT proceed from the Son is obviously not true, just as to say that being acceptable to God does not primarily repose on the acts that one does during one's life is obviously not true.

How, then, could the Orthodox and I, or you and I, be "ecumenical"? We can eat together at picnics, do social work together, pray together, be kind and good to each other. That's ecumenism. For me to actually give up key aspects that are obviously true in order to get along with you is really quite impossible. And I'm sure that you would say no different.

So, that's what ecumenism is necessarily limited to, I think: the agreement to get along in amity despite the fact we believe really different things. More than that isn't possible unless God coverts one or both of us.

Useful, but let me try to address a possible language trouble. I feel all humanity is still under the Tower of Babel effect (well, clearly it's common for people to misunderstand each other at minimum).

When you say "salvation" many people are very reasonably thinking something like 'justification' even if unconsciously.

We can highlight this with a concrete example possibly.

If a person converts to full belief in Christ on their deathbed, repenting and relying on Christ Jesus for their salvation, and dies moments later, they gain salvation, even lacking any works.

But, what you say if reworded clearly is simply the gospel given to us from Christ -- we must do as He said to do, generally, or we will not make it.

 

[Halbhh]

I'm not sure exactly what you are concerned we disagree about...

While I could highlight just verses 11 through 15, it's only best to read the full chapter, and be sure you do see verses 11 through 15 of course. See? Paul is saying, even then, he has not yet got irreversible attainment, but must continue to strive towards it.

 

[amariselle]

While I could highlight just verses 11 through 15, it's only best to read the full chapter, and be sure you do see verses 11 through 15 of course. See? Paul is saying, even then, he has not yet got irreversible attainment, but must continue to strive towards it.

Yet, he also refers to what he has already attained.

Pail wrote about all believers one day receiving their incorruptible and immortal bodies. That hasn’t happened yet, of course. Then there is the matter of heavenly rewards.

Salvation, however, is indeed an event. We pass from death to life when we are born again. After that we do continue on through life to grow in His grace and in Spiritual maturity.