Ecumenism

[boughtwithaprice]

A bit cynical? We should not put words and intentions in peoples mouths, and we should not judge what we do not understand.

I have seen plenty of people convicted and converted by the openness and willingness to dialogue of the Catholic church. A document like Lumen Gentium shows me that it truly understands the universal mission of the church.

 

[Maximus]

error - please delete

 

[plainswolf]

I certainly don't judge the people themselves, for if I cannot see and know what is in their hearts how can I? But I am worried about the indifferentism I see all around me in my own town and at the same time these ecumenical services here in my own diocese. We cannot fool ourselves into believing there will somehow be some sort of "Christian Unity" despite the division of doctrines from which neither side refuses to budge from..

Ecumenism may have had the best intentions, but I respectively fail to see what it has produced except the watering down of our own faith for the sake of some false unity. Did not the Church reach out long before ecumenism? Has she not always strove to bring those lost sheep back into her own fold? Long before ecumenism people like St. Francis De Sales brought back 72,000 people back to the fold of the Catholic Church... She has always praised the good and Godly things that all Christians have done, and rightly so. Though the Church has always done what she could in this regard, it must be remembered that despite our best human efforts, conversion is a grace from God.

J.M.J.
plainswolf

 

[Maximus]

A bit cynical? We should not put words and intentions in peoples mouths, and we should not judge what we do not understand.

That's ironic, since you seem to be doing those things to me.

I have seen plenty of people convicted and converted by the openness and willingness to dialogue of the Catholic church. A document like Lumen Gentium shows me that it truly understands the universal mission of the church.

I have never seen anyone converted through the ecumenical movement, although I have seen Catholics infected with Protestant ideas, like Dispensationalism, Pentecostalism, liberalism, and indifferentism.

Oh, there are Protestants being converted, to be sure, but not via ecumenism.

What I have seen of the ecumenical movement consists of meetings or "dialogues" between representatives of the Catholic Church and leaders of various sects. They usually result in declarations of "progress" and the promise to schedule another meeting.

Of course, there is another, darker side to ecumenism that involves non-Christian religions and leads to things like this.

 

[plainswolf]

That's ironic, since you seem to be doing those things to me.



I have never seen anyone converted through the ecumenical movement, although I have seen Catholics infected with Protestant ideas, like Dispensationalism, Pentecostalism, liberalism, and indifferentism.

Oh, there are Protestants being converted, to be sure, but not via ecumenism.

What I have seen of the ecumenical movement consists of meetings or "dialogues" between representatives of the Catholic Church and leaders of various sects. They usually result in declarations of "progress" and the promise to schedule another meeting.

Of course, there is another, darker side to ecumenism that involves non-Christian religions and leads to things like this.

Exactly! And then there was that Hindu prayer service at Fatima as well... It all may have had the best intentions, but was quite scandalous to say the least. I believe that the Church does indeed have the very best of intentions indeed, but is this the right approach??

J.M.J.
plainswolf

 

[nyj]

Some people are playing the part of Don Quisote here and are tilting at windmills. I suggest they read the following...

Unitatis Redintegratio - Decree on Ecumenism

This decree ends simply enough...

Now that we have briefly set out the conditions for ecumenical action and the principles by which it is to be directed, we look with confidence to the future. This Sacred Council exhorts the faithful to refrain from superficiality and imprudent zeal, which can hinder real progress toward unity. Their ecumenical action must be fully and sincerely Catholic, that is to say, faithful to the truth which we have received from the apostles and Fathers of the Church, in harmony with the faith which the Catholic Church has always professed, and at the same time directed toward that fullness to which Our Lord wills His Body to grow in the course of time.​

So now, I dare anyone to read this document and point out the error there. I dare any Catholic to do that. Read it, and then disagree with it... if you can find anything.

 

[Maximus]

Some people are playing the part of Don Quisote here and are tilting at windmills. I suggest they read the following...

Unitatis Redintegratio - Decree on Ecumenism



This decree ends simply enough...

Now that we have briefly set out the conditions for ecumenical action and the principles by which it is to be directed, we look with confidence to the future. This Sacred Council exhorts the faithful to refrain from superficiality and imprudent zeal, which can hinder real progress toward unity. Their ecumenical action must be fully and sincerely Catholic, that is to say, faithful to the truth which we have received from the apostles and Fathers of the Church, in harmony with the faith which the Catholic Church has always professed, and at the same time directed toward that fullness to which Our Lord wills His Body to grow in the course of time.​

So now, I dare anyone to read this document and point out the error there. I dare any Catholic to do that. Read it, and then disagree with it... if you can find anything.

I have read it.

Please understand that no one here has criticized Unitatis Redintegratio.

But The Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II is one thing, and the way ecumenism actually plays out in real life is quite another.

Need we cite examples?

 

[nyj]

I have read it.

Please understand that no one here has criticized Unitatis Redintegratio.

But The Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II is one thing, and the way ecumenism actually plays out in real life is quite another.

Need we cite examples?

If ecumenism "plays out" in a manner not outlined in Unitatis Redintegratio, then it is not ecumenism. Therefore, I would suggest people not attack ecumenism as much as stand against the people who would seek to pervert it.

Do not shun ecumenism, do not poo poo the idea, stand up and say "Ecumenism is ours, we will not let you take it from us."

 

[Maximus]

Well, I think we have come to a turn in the path of this thread down which - in the interests of peace - I do not wish to go.

Ecumenism will be judged - must be judged - by its fruits.

 

[Rising_Suns]

So, shouldn't we be praying for the conversion of those outside the Church, rather than for a unity that cannot possibly exist without their conversion?

If anything, Catholics should be praying for the conversion of Catholics, because the state in which the Church stands today is not a good one. Most Catholics don't even know what the Catholic Church teaches, let alone are following the faith.

I must be honest with everyone; some of the posts in this thread seem unbalanced to me. There seems to be alot of pointing to the splinter in other eyes while ignoring the planks in our own. If the Catholic Church is truly the Church Christ institutded, then we should begin to start acting like it, and this first begins by helping to strengthen existing Catholics with love and diligence; not just talk empty elitist words. That will be our most powerfull witness.

It is ignorant and arrogant to think that we can succesfully convert people to Catholicism on a substantial scale when Catholics themsevles aren't even living the faith. Lets try to keep our perspective here, and learn to crawl before we can walk.

Ecumenism will be judged - must be judged - by its fruits.

The success of Ecumensim is directly based on the spiritual maturity of those behind it. So don't be so quick to undermine the potential merits of Ecumenism if the concept fails to be employed to your liking.

 

[Maximus]

If anything, Catholics should be praying for the conversion of Catholics

Well, you're right about that, at least, although I'm not sure we mean the same things by it.

 

[bigsierra]

This is kind of a continuation of what Rising_Suns was saying.

My decision to come into the Catholic Church, had a lot to do with the folks here and the historic doctrines of the Church. I think I could say it had ZERO to do with Catholics, around me, that I knew at work. I never had known a "livin it" Catholic till coming here. Many points(priest/sex scandal, Kennedy/Kerry/others membership, ignorant members) from the outside that other bring up is humiliating and seem hard to explain. That's not how I feel. I look at the historic Catholic Church and don't feel worthy to be a member. It's still the same Church Jesus started back in the first century.

I feel fortunate that God made it so, I could see past the issues and the scandals, but I could understand why others wouldn't. We have the inside scoop, that others outside the don't have the advantage of. I don't think there is any room for "big heads." It's Christ that has protected the Church and He will continue to do so, in spite of many of it's members.

Doctrine should never be compromised for the sake of ecumenism. We have promises that it won't be and it has made it to this point, safely. The Catholic Church is the only church that makes sense, and I think many in the protestant world are coming to see that in our day.

 

[Skripper]

I'm Catholic. I believe the Catholic church is the one true church - for me. I am not however ready to condemn the rest of the world.

While no one here is condemning the rest of the world, which apparently the implication is that someone here is doing just that, this statement seemingly implies a sort of religious relativism in that it implies there is more than "one true church" . . . "one true church" for you . . . while there may be another "one true Church" for others. Perhaps you can't see the inherent error in this, if indeed this is what you are implying. Because if there is one "true Church" at all there is not, and in fact cannot be, another "one true church" for someone else but only degrees by which one is the fold of the one true Church and, therefore a beneficiary of the grace of Christ through that one and only "one true Church." Perhaps your view is better stated in more clear relativistic terms such as the belief that the Catholic Church is "a true church"?

I think I've been crystal clear.

Actually . . . no. You've actually been far from crystal clear, though your apparent position is becoming clearer as you continue to post.

Who is saved? Who goes to heaven?

Those saved by the merits and sacrifice of Christ, which come to individuals, normatively speaking, through the one true Church He established on earth.

Who goes to hell? Simply put - it is not our job. Our job is to live our lives the best we can and let God make those decisions.

Agreed, to a certain extent, yet we are not merely bystanders in God’s plan as your statement seem to imply but are indeed God’s co-workers in the economy of salvation. It is our job to the extent that we are to try to help bring souls to salvation through the means by which Christ has established – His Church. Yet it is God, not us, Who is the Judge. It should also be pointed out that you are seemingly arguing against something that nobody, save yourself, is saying. Namely, that you are seemingly implying that there are some in this thread who are trying to usurp God’s position as Judge on who enters heaven which, of course, simply is not true.

Now, if you wouldn’t mind, please clearly and unequivocally state what, exactly, your position is and then demonstrate, just as clearly, the consistency between this and the views of the current pope, as you claimed earlier?

Moreover, if I am correct in my above assessment of your position being a form of religious relativism, perhaps you could demonstrate how this position is consistent with the views of this (or any) pope? On the other hand, if I am wrong in my assessment, perhaps you could demonstrate how your position is not a form of religious relativism?

 

[Aaron-Aggie]

Doctrine should never be compromised for the sake of ecumenism. We have promises that it won't be and it has made it to this point, safely. QUOTE]

And if it ever does, then Scripture and the Church have both lied and thus christianity is a lie.

Thus why I don't understand those who claim to be part of the church but belive its so corrupt and can't do anything right.

IF the new way is so corrupt it means the Holy Spirit isn't guiding us which means the Church is false which in turn means the old way they hold so dear was false also.

 

[Benedicta00]

In the context of this discussion, I reject the teaching that says any human has it all figured out and can say definitively who goes where. That is God's decision. M

No, it isn’t God’s decision. It’s ours. You can’t leave free will out of this. If anyone is saved, it is by Jesus Christ if anyone is damned it is by their sin and lack of contrition.

 

[Rising_Suns]

IF the new way is so corrupt it means the Holy Spirit isn't guiding us which means the Church is false which in turn means the old way they hold so dear was false also.

In the 12th century, God appeared to St. francis of Assisi and told him to; "Rebuild my Church, which as you see is falling into ruin." It is clear that the Church can be corrupted in certain ways (not in doctrine but through the actions of its members). This is why it is so critical for us as Catholics to be accountable to each other, and to the Church as well. The Church is not free from corruption and we should not be blindly following her leaders, but actively participating in her developement. This means that although we accept her doctrines/dogma as infallible, we do not accept policies/actions of Church leaders as infallible. We as the laity must recognize the human/fallible aspect of the Church and help be accountable for her; that was part of the whole point of Vatican II.

One such weakness is in poor Catechisis of Catholics. I believe education must be a point of great reform if the Church is ever going to be strengthened on a significant scale. I think we have alot to do to help the Church, before we start pointing the finger to others.

 

[Benedicta00]

Wow, isn't that a little..... ummmm...... harsh? The true original Church is the Catholic Church but the Church regards our separated brethren as being a part of the Church, against their will, perhaps, but still a part of the Church. Isn't God a merciful and gracious God?

They are part of the church through baptism, meaning they, through Christ merits have been born again, e.g. have had original sin (and what ever personal sins at the time) removed from them through the ministry of the Church even though the “minister” who baptized is not in union with the Catholic Church- their redemption is still through the ministry of the Catholic Church whether they accept this reality or not.

We know salvation basically has two parts in a sense, that after we have been re born, we have to accept and embrace the new life we have been given and live it out, this takes sacraments that Protestants lack. So they are part of the church but not part of the Church.

We can’t judge them, God does but they are taking a hell of a risk, IMO.

 

[Aaron-Aggie]

In the 12th century, God appeared to St. francis of Assisi and told him to; "Rebuild my Church, which as you see is falling into ruin." It is clear that the Church can be corrupted in certain ways (not in doctrine but through the actions of its members). This is why it is so critical for us as Catholics to be accountable to each other, and to the Church as well. The Church is not free from corruption and we should not be blindly following her leaders, but actively participating in her developement. This means that although we accept her doctrines/dogma as infallible, we do not accept policies/actions of Church leaders as infallible. We as the laity must recognize the human/fallible aspect of the Church and help be accountable for her; that was part of the whole point of Vatican II.

One such weakness is in poor Catechisis of Catholics. I believe education must be a point of great reform if the Church is ever going to be strengthened on a significant scale. I think we have alot to do to help the Church, before we start pointing the finger to others.

Pointing out poor Catechisis and working to imrpove that is a diffrent thing then attacking a Counicle of the Church.

 

[Rising_Suns]

Pointing out poor Catechisis and working to imrpove that is a diffrent thing then attacking a Counicle of the Church.

which is different from taking what a council said out of context.

 

[marciadietrich]

Doctrine should never be compromised for the sake of ecumenism. We have promises that it won't be and it has made it to this point, safely. QUOTE]

And if it ever does, then Scripture and the Church have both lied and thus christianity is a lie.

Thus why I don't understand those who claim to be part of the church but belive its so corrupt and can't do anything right.

IF the new way is so corrupt it means the Holy Spirit isn't guiding us which means the Church is false which in turn means the old way they hold so dear was false also.

Well I'm hitting this myself now.

The traditionalists would say that for a period of time there can be falsehoods/heresies within the Church without the real Church itself being defeated, because that is the case of what happened with the Arian heresy. So there has been a creep in of modernism or whatever and it is something that needs rooted out and to stop it from happening further.

But I'm not finding that quite satisfactory either... just don't know.