Ecumenism- pros and cons

[Lifesaver]

As far as I can see, the Church nowadays adopts a very ecumenical approach towards protestants. Still, it must be our goal to bring everyone to unity and to full communion with the Church.

What do you guys think of ecumenism? Should we leave our differences aside in order to fight common enemies of Christ (Paganism, Satanism, abortion, etc) or should we go back to the traditional way, that is, seeking no agreement with any heretic or schismatic?

 

[Lady_Firehawk]

For as long as I've known what it was, I've always had a nagging distrust of ecumenism... I honestly don't see anything coming of it because people are just so stubborn! The Catholics will hold with their beliefs, the Orthodox probably won't budge either, and the Protestants... do I need to say anything there? Each party hopes the others will come to an agreement with them (depends on the denomination with Protestants) so... I don't think much is going to happen...

 

[Lifesaver]

Personally, I had always thought that protestants and Catholics have much more in common than differences, and that what little error they might have, this did not stop them from being in a somewhat imperfect communion with the Church.

However, I have recently started reading material from a more traditionalist site, very much opposed to Council Vatican II (though completely subordinate to the papacy), which claims, with very persuasive evidence, that it is impossible to have ANY kind of ecumenism with any protestant or schismatic church; and that there is no salvation in any of them, and that it is even wrong to call them Christians (for protestants; not sure about Orthodox).

I was at first shocked by this, but the authors are very knowledgeable in both biblical matters and Church history, and have made me rethink my views about protestantism (which, we must admit, IS a heresy, like arianism, jansenism and albingensianism were).

 

[Michelina]

We should work together when we can, LS.
We should fellowship when we can.
We should discuss differences when we can.

I've been involved in Ecumenism for a long time. Catholics seem much more open to it than evangelical Protestants, unfortunately. Those are the Protestants to whom I feel closest.

 

[Michelina]

Personally, I had always thought that protestants and Catholics have much more in common than differences, and that what little error they might have, this did not stop them from being in a somewhat imperfect communion with the Church.

However, I have recently started reading material from a more traditionalist site, very much opposed to Council Vatican II (though completely subordinate to the papacy), which claims, with very persuasive evidence, that it is impossible to have ANY kind of ecumenism with any protestant or schismatic church; and that there is no salvation in any of them, and that it is even wrong to call them Christians (for protestants; not sure about Orthodox).... I was at first shocked by this, but the authors are very knowledgeable in both biblical matters and Church history, and have made me rethink my views about protestantism (which, we must admit, IS a heresy, like arianism, jansenism and albingensianism were).

Forgive me for presuming to advise you, LS, but I would stay away from that site. Members of OBOB will give you tons of solid sites. Any site that is "very much opposed to Vat II" is not "completely subordinate to the Papacy".

Vat II calls for ecumenical efforts. So does Pope John Paul, who has been a great leader in Ecumenism.

 

[Lifesaver]

Yes, I do not take that site's words for the truth; but they do have good points.

One of them being Pious XI's encyclical Mortalium Animos, which is against ecumenism.

 

[Michelina]

Each party hopes the others will come to an agreement with them (depends on the denomination with Protestants) so... I don't think much is going to happen...

This is not the right approach, Firehawk. Ecumenism is not about "converting the other side". It's about showing mutual love and respect between Churches. It's about giving witness to our agreement on Fundamentals. And it's about pleasing Our Lord, Who wants us to be one in Him, to whatever extent that is possible.

 

[Michelina]

Yes, I do not take that site's words for the truth; but they do have good points.... One of them being Pius XI's encyclical Mortalium Animos, which is against ecumenism.

Yes, LS, I see your point. But "Mortalium Animos" has been superseded by "Unitatis Redintegratio", which Pope Paul VI signed. The shift in policy reflects a shift in culture and the level of education. A lot has changed in the past hundred years. Some things have changed for the better.

Sorry if my posts have offended anyone. They were not intended to.

 

[Lifesaver]

Okay, so how should our approach be towards protestantism?

 

[Michelina]

Okay, so how should our approach be towards protestantism?

Loving.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails.

I really am sorry if my former posts offended anyone.

 

[Lifesaver]

Yes, love must always be the driving force between religious dialogue.

But love for the person means correcting their mistakes as well. Sometimes it seems Catholics and protestants are pretending they have everything in common. When in fact we don't.
If they won't accept Christ's Church, or even Mary's virginity, and think of intercession of saints as idolatry, then we must not only defend the these doctrines, we must show why calvinist predestination, sola scriptura, personal interpretation, etc are false and unnacceptable.

This is not extreme, is it?

 

[Michelina]

Yes, love must always be the driving force between religious dialogue.

But love for the person means correcting their mistakes as well. Sometimes it seems Catholics and protestants are pretending they have everything in common. When in fact we don't.

love for the person means correcting their mistakes as well

Not instantaneously, LS. It will take a great deal of time to establish Trust and Mutual Respect. Ecumenis is a long process. We already know, going "in", that we disagree. But we look for common ground. We don't start with "Differences". That comes much later.

If they won't accept Christ's Church, or even Mary's virginity, and think of intercession of saints as idolatry, then we must not only defend the these doctrines, we must show why calvinist predestination, sola scriptura, personal interpretation, etc are false and unnacceptable. This is not extreme, is it?

You're just going too fast, LS. I recognize the truth of what you are saying. What I'm saying is: Slow down. Give the process a chance.

We should work together when we can, LS.
We should fellowship when we can.
We should discuss differences when we can.

Pro-Life work has helped Ecumenism tremendously. It's a good place to start. Working together for the poor is something else that works.

After we get to know each other. Then we can fellowship. Then we can pray together. Then we can talk about doctrine, answer questions, ask questions. It's a slow process. Verrrrrrrry slow.

 

[Carrye]

It's a slow process. Verrrrrrrry slow.

... like watching paint dry, only far more important.

 

[Axion]

Yes, love must always be the driving force between religious dialogue.

But love for the person means correcting their mistakes as well. Sometimes it seems Catholics and protestants are pretending they have everything in common. When in fact we don't.
If they won't accept Christ's Church, or even Mary's virginity, and think of intercession of saints as idolatry, then we must not only defend the these doctrines, we must show why calvinist predestination, sola scriptura, personal interpretation, etc are false and unnacceptable.

This is not extreme, is it?

Yes. I think there is good and bad ecumenism.

Bad Ecumenism

• 
  Is where we hide and cover-over our teachings and traditions in order "not to offend" or alarm non-catholics.
  
  Is where we water-down Catholicism into a bland "lowest common denominator", "just be nice to everyone", Christianity.
  
  Is where we do not teach the fullness of the faith in an attempt to emphasize "similarities" and hide differences with non-catholics.
  
  Is where we de-sacralise the mass, to make it supposedly more "accessible" and familiar to visitors or non-believers.
  
  Is where we say that other faiths are in any way as valid as the Catholic church

Good Ecumenism

• Is working with other Christians to fight Atheism, poverty, abortion and other evils.
  
  Is sharing our beliefs with other genuine Christians in fellowship, being proud of those things that are particularly Catholic and explaining why we believe and worship as we do, and why we think this is right, but not setting out to condemn others.
  
  Is looking at good things non-catholics do, such as evangelise, study scripture and share responsibility for many church activities, and try to learn the right lessons.

 

[tigersnare]

, we must show why calvinist predestination, sola scriptura, personal interpretation, etc are false and unnacceptable.

Good luck, Calvinist are hard to budge....I must admit, I was overcome....

 

[Markh]

i like what Axion posted- there are good poverty fighting charities out there supported by all Christians together.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Good luck, Calvinist are hard to budge....I must admit, I was overcome....

Ever read St Francis de Sales?

He seemed to be able to "overcome" 60,000 Calvinists.

 

[bigsierra]

Lifesaver, Read this article to get an idea of things we agree and disagree with Calvinist on.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm
Predestination, isn't one of the things we would have to take issue with.

What would a Catholic say about this? He certainly is free to disagree with the Calvinist interpretation, but he also is free to agree. All Thomists and even some Molinists (such as Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez) taught unconditional election.

 

[Big Al T]

Ecumenism is a good and worthy focus.

I have experienced both sides of the fence and can assure you that there is much commonality between the Catholic and Protestant positions, even in some surprising areas. There are many areas where the greatest barrier is language and lack of udnerstanding rather than doctrine, where Protestants mistake veneration for idolatry and Catholics misread personal interpretation as throwing away tradition (though of course there are always extreme elements that are good examples of, and therefore perpetuate, precisely these misunderstandings).

Both trace their roots through the same ancient history: OT, NT, ECF, Monks, and so on, though of course differ in their reading of this same story, and both have elements within that are content to remain within their respective trenches lobbing theological grenades at the other side in order to destroy (convert) their caricatured enemies.

Perhaps the greatest ecumencial stumbling block is not doctrinal so much as unexamined presuppositions. Catholics believe they are the one church, tending to fall into a weak institutional reading of ecclesial form, while Protestants believe they are the true church, tending to spiritualise ecclesiastical structures. Catholics hold to a weak view of scriptures relative to tradition (centralising the hermeneutical endeavour)while protestants tend to a weak perspective on tradition relative to scripture (personal hermeneutics thereby tending to dominate).

This is not meant to denigrate the differences, for they are real, however so many of them are the result of centuries old disputes that need to be aired, revealing them for what they are. Calling Protestant church forms a heresy, or ecumenism for the purpose of conversion to Catholicism, both bespeak a lack of understanding of the theological depth and riches of the Protestant church as it exists today. Protestant scholars are the biblical and tradition equals of any Catholic or Orthodox scholar, hence the inability of any of the 'sides' to make significant headway in their disputes. Understanding is the key.

We should all pray and work towards a full understanding of each other, we are after all brothers in arms, beloved of the one Mighty, Loving God, His Son Jesus Christ and the blessed Spirit.

 

[bigsierra]

Lifesaver, check out this article to get an idea of things we agree and disagree with Calvinist on.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm
Predestination, isn't one of the things we would have to take issue with.

What would a Catholic say about this? He certainly is free to disagree with the Calvinist interpretation, but he also is free to agree. All Thomists and even some Molinists (such as Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez) taught unconditional election.