Your views on ecumenism

[Vicomte13]

My question was about Catholics only.

55% of Christianity is Catholic

 

[W2L]

55% of Christianity is Catholic

Yes i knew that and i saw your last post as well. Thank you.

 

[Vicomte13]

Ultimately, ecumenism should mean that everybody of all religions, and no religion, can get along in peace, attend the picnic together, peacefully discuss their religious differences of opinion - if they choose to - and otherwise be left alone by each other to follow their own consciences.

To the extent that we can see the workings of God and the glimmers of truth in the religion of others, that's fine, but if we can't, we still need to recognize each other's basic humanity, be able to break bread together, and be able to coexist in peace.

The religion that will no coexist in peace will have to be suppressed and placed under pressure - including military pressure if necessary for self-defense - in order to change its ways, change its mind, or to have the potential for doing damage beaten out of it.

There's no place left in this world for gods that demand human sacrifice or slaughter. To the extent such gods still persist, we have to kill those gods and wipe their religions off the face of the earth, or force those gods to change their minds in order to be spared by us.

Other than that, the peaceful gods can be left alone to do whatever damage they do to those who follow them, and we humans need to be peaceful with each other, regardless of what our gods tell us.

That is the ecumenism that makes sense.

 

[ubicaritas]

We must pray that we learn to go forward in our mission, even when this small minority of Christians harangues us and calls us names. The form of fundamentalism in the US (who call themselves evangelicals) is a phenomenon of the last 150 years, with roots back to the Reformation. HOWEVER, and it is a very big however, they are a relatively small minority of Christians. The vast majority of the world's Christians are what is called "mainstream" in the US.

They may or may not be a "minority", but they have a great degree of cultural influence.

 

[ubicaritas]

I guess that I have misunderstood or mis-stated.

Don't you consider TEC and the progressive branches of UMC to have a similar mission to ELCA? Do you believe that the WLF has a different mission?

We are closer to being on the same page, though, as somebody who grew up in the UMC, there are significant differences. I don't think its a coincidence Methodists are having a fight over their identity. Methodism is much more like American folk religion. I didn't hear the Gospel preached as clearly in that church growing up in it. I did receive a big dose of perfectionism and moralism, however.

A presbyterian chaplain was really the first person who lead me to a deeper understanding of God and what Jesus meant.

As an aside, when I worshipped at an ELCA service last year, I checked some of their materials on belief. They made it quite clear that ELCA members had freedom with regard to what they believed with regard to homosexuality and homosexual pastors.

Yes, that is their official position, though most congregations are trying to grow beyond mere toleration. I think this is the right approach, though I am more than a bit impatient at times.
I've dedicated years of my life to the study of theology and Christian church history, and I've just been moving in a more progressive/liberal direction the whole time- at one time I came from a more fundamentalist approach and was much more dedicated to religious traditionalism, even joining a denomination for a while that was quite strict. So it's frustrating to have to live in a pluralistic denomination where some folks still have very rigid religious sensibilities. And its worse because American folk religion puts so much pressure on a tradition with a distinct identity, it becomes difficult to talk critically at the congregational leadership level about the direction the church should be going.

 

[ubicaritas]

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.

As friendly as I am to Catholics, I cannot agree that following Jesus gets one through the gate. At least, that's not how I would choose to put it. That's what I mean by the Joint Declaration being misleading and even giving people a false impression.

Jesus said, "Come to me all you who are weary and heaven laden, and I will give you rest". It seems to me, the Catholic approach is to not worry about the lightness of the yoke but instead worry about if the yoke looks respectable. I think that's misguided.

 

[ubicaritas]

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

They still understand baptism is not an absolute necessity because one can have a "baptism of desire". This is similar to the Lutheran understanding of the issue.

 

[Vicomte13]

As friendly as I am to Catholics, I cannot agree that following Jesus gets one through the gate. At least, that's not how I would choose to put it. That's what I mean by the Joint Declaration being misleading and even giving people a false impression.

Jesus said, "Come to me all you who are weary and heaven laden, and I will give you rest". It seems to me, the Catholic approach is to not worry about the lightness of the yoke but instead worry about if the yoke looks respectable. I think that's misguided.

Of course you think it's misguided. You're a Lutheran! If you agreed with it, you'd be a Catholic. I don't actually believe things the way you put them there, but the parameters of what I actually believe, or you, are really beside the point when it comes to ecumenism. The point is that we really, truly, sincerely, in our hearts and our minds, believe different things about God and about what God wants. We believe the things we believe, each of us, for very good reasons, and neither of us is ever going to be persuaded by the other.

The ecumenical question, then, is "Now what?" Our ancestors 500 years ago sought a solution in clubbing each others' brains out. They were barbarians, of course. Moreover, it obviously didn't work. The Lutherans didn't win. Neither did the Catholics. Everybody sure lost, though, and both churches will be partly disgraced forever by the barbarism with which they behaved in that day.

The differences of opinion remain, and we're not going to club each other's brains out. So, now what? Cold War? Seems like a lot of energy wasted on nothing in a world that's going to worms all around us for reasons that are not-Catholic and not-Lutheran. Seems to me that we have an awful lot in common, and that men of goodwill and different theology can work alongside each other to do the sort of good in the world that I think Jesus said is necessary and you think he said was good but not necessary.

Shall the good go undone because we don't agree on the degree of necessity of it? Seems like a waste.

The thread's about ecumenism. We're never going to agree about some of the fundamentals of theology. Ecumenism isn't going to make us. It can let us contain the differences so we can cooperate. That's its utility, in my estimation.

 

[amariselle]

They still understand baptism is not an absolute necessity because one can have a "baptism of desire". This is similar to the Lutheran understanding of the issue.

That only applies in extreme conditions. Which is confusing in and of itself.

 

[The Times]

To every action, there is a consequence, right?

In the Ancient world humanity built the physical tower of Babel to reach God.

Within the 21st Century, humanity wants to build a spiritual tower of Babel to reach God and His Christ.

The underlying thematic consequence is that God's authority is being challenged, that is, there is a focussed effort by the enemy within the Church amongst certain leadership, to De-throne God and His Christ from his seat of authority, within his own Spiritual Temple (Church).

This event is.....

The replacing of the Daily Sacrifice by the Abomination that makes Desolate.

In the 1st Saga, Man challenged God, by thinking that by unity, humanity can reach up to God, through their physical Tower of Babel.

In the final Saga, the Fallen who loved not the truth, but have had pleasure in unrighteousness, challenge Christ Jesus, by the final act of betrayal, thinking that they can dethrone Jesus and to build their own version of The Spiritual Temple, pointing to Their inspired Tower of Babel, where it should not be, because The Temple of God (Church Body) is for the dwelling of God The Holy Spirit.

This is therefore a form of unity, by the use of flatteries, by those putting on display a form of godliness, but denying the power of God and His Christ altogether. These traitors have sought to usurp the Dominion, Authority and Power of Christ from underneath him.

Zechariah 14:1-3 is in motion. The Lord will fight with these apostates and over throw them with the breath of his mouth (His remaining faithful) and to destroy by the brilliance of his coming (End of this Temporal World)..

Scripture informs us, that half of the Church Body will not make it and will go off into captivity to serve this Unitarian Lie and to be forever exiled from the Commonwealth of Christ Jesus's Israel.

The Unity under Apostate Babylonian Directorship will be well under way after a fiery event, which will violently turn these usurpers on the true loyal to Christ Jesus believers and to have them purged and executed, after God executes judgement, by burning their cities to the ground by the fiery event.

If peoples hearts are with Jesus, then they will receive mercy from Christ Jesus. If people have confidence in man and their fallen leadership, who espouse this insurrection, then God will judge them severely.

Either way, The EVEN HIM of the building of the Spiritual Tower of Babel, will execute the Black Dragon's Apostasy and have half of the Church who betrays Jesus, ear marked for destruction in the Lake of Fire with the EVEN HIM (Singular).

Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, (2 Thessalonians 2:9)

The power and signs and lying wonders of Satan, the Master tactician of Flatteries.

 

[ubicaritas]

Of course you think it's misguided. You're a Lutheran! If you agreed with it, you'd be a Catholic. I don't actually believe things the way you put them there, but the parameters of what I actually believe, or you, are really beside the point when it comes to ecumenism. The point is that we really, truly, sincerely, in our hearts and our minds, believe different things about God and about what God wants. We believe the things we believe, each of us, for very good reasons, and neither of us is ever going to be persuaded by the other.

The ecumenical question, then, is "Now what?" Our ancestors 500 years ago sought a solution in clubbing each others' brains out. They were barbarians, of course. Moreover, it obviously didn't work. The Lutherans didn't win. Neither did the Catholics. Everybody sure lost, though, and both churches will be partly disgraced forever by the barbarism with which they behaved in that day.

The differences of opinion remain, and we're not going to club each other's brains out. So, now what? Cold War? Seems like a lot of energy wasted on nothing in a world that's going to worms all around us for reasons that are not-Catholic and not-Lutheran. Seems to me that we have an awful lot in common, and that men of goodwill and different theology can work alongside each other to do the sort of good in the world that I think Jesus said is necessary and you think he said was good but not necessary.

Shall the good go undone because we don't agree on the degree of necessity of it? Seems like a waste.

The thread's about ecumenism. We're never going to agree about some of the fundamentals of theology. Ecumenism isn't going to make us. It can let us contain the differences so we can cooperate. That's its utility, in my estimation.

But we don't even necessarily agree on ethics anymore on some crucial points, so we are potentially working at cross-purposes with each other. For instance, the ELCA and Catholic Church filed amicus briefs in favor of distinct positions in the Masterpiece case in the US Supreme Court.

In truth, Lutherans have always had a distinctive approach to ethics ever since Martin Luther said divorced people were free to remarry, but since the post-WWII era it's only gotten more divergent from the Catholic approach.

 

[Vicomte13]

But we don't even necessarily agree on ethics anymore on some crucial points, so we are potentially working at cross-purposes with each other. For instance, the ELCA and Catholic Church filed amicus briefs in favor of distinct positions in the Masterpiece case in the US Supreme Court.

In truth, Lutherans have always had a distinctive approach to ethics ever since Martin Luther said divorced people were free to remarry, but since the post-WWII era it's only gotten more divergent from the Catholic approach.

Well, yes, certainly: Lutherans are not Catholics, and Catholics are not Lutherans. We don't agree on divorce and remarriage, for example. Obviously we don't agree on church hierarchy, on all of the sacraments, on the exact content of the Bible. Our churches disagree on the use of birth control as well, although the majority of Catholics don't actually agree with the position of their church, at least as far as personal conduct goes.

It might be useful to point out all of the ways in which our religions differ and our ethics differ. And observe that we're never going to agree on any of those things. Does anything remain on which we do agree? If not, then I suppose ecumenism is pointless.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

The apostles greatest concern was agreement based unity in the church.

huh

 

[2Timothy2:15]

The Pope is the living, visible, human leader of the Church, the final human authority on matters in the Church.

Just curious if you can point to any scripture that supports your statement?

 

[mark46]

Just curious if you can point to any scripture that supports your statement?

I believe that you understand that the Church is built upon the rock that is Peter (or Peter's faith), and that the keys to the kingdom were given to him. The early Church accepted the Bishop of Rome as primus, the head patriarch among the 5 patriarchs. Much has happened since the days of the Roman armies, and Rome adding to the Creed. Rome made many mistakes. You also must know that Luther never intended to leave the Church.

There is lots and lots of scripture supporting this. These can be found by simply googling.

 

[amariselle]

I believe that you understand that the Church is built upon the rock that is Peter (or Peter's faith), and that the keys to the kingdom were given to him. The early Church accepted the Bishop of Rome as primus, the head patriarch among the 5 patriarchs. Much has happened since the days of the Roman armies, and Rome adding to the Creed. Rome made many mistakes. You also must know that Luther never intended to leave the Church.

There is lots and lots of scripture supporting this. These can be found by simply googling.

Actually, there are no Scriptures that support the practice of having one man be the sole “representative” (or Vicar) of Christ on earth.

However, the Catholic Church is not “sola Scriptura”, they consider “Sacred Tradition” equally valid.

 

[Vicomte13]

Just curious if you can point to any scripture that supports your statement?

Probably. But you wouldn’t see it as such. This is another fundamental difference between religions. Ecumenism tried to find common ground for cooperation in spite of the differences in ecclesiology.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

I believe that you understand that the Church is built upon the rock that is Peter (or Peter's faith), and that the keys to the kingdom were given to him. The early Church accepted the Bishop of Rome as primus, the head patriarch among the 5 patriarchs. Much has happened since the days of the Roman armies, and Rome adding to the Creed. Rome made many mistakes. You also must know that Luther never intended to leave the Church.

There is lots and lots of scripture supporting this. These can be found by simply googling.

That is not scripture, please quote chapter and verse not church history.

 

[mark46]

Probably. But you wouldn’t see it as such. This is another fundamental difference between religions. Ecumenism tried to find common ground for cooperation in spite of the differences in ecclesiology.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/biblical-support-for-the-pope

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Probably. But you wouldn’t see it as such. This is another fundamental difference between religions. Ecumenism tried to find common ground for cooperation in spite of the differences in ecclesiology.

Either you can point to scripture or you can't. This is not a matter of what I would probably see or won't. It is either there or it is not.