Ecumenism

[MKJ]

Have you read Cardinal Newmans essay on the development of doctrine - it is probably the most important treatment of the topic.

 

[Rhamiel]

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

This topic isn't about ecumenism. Ecumenism relates to dialogue between churches or faiths. Ecumenism was very popular during and after Vatican II for a few decades - and it produced a lot of fruit. The ultimate hope of full communion between Catholics and traditional protestants has now been made impossible by female 'ordinations', and so ecumenism has lost a lot of momentum and purpose.

This topic is about the difficult issue of salvation outside the Church. The issue has to do with an understanding of the necessity of the Church and the justice/mercy of God. On the one hand, we know that the Church, which brings us into Christ, who is the only means to salvation, is the only method to salvation. On the other hand, it seems to contradict our sense of justice and mercy for God to reject people who have no access to the Church.

In the past, this was reconciled by the theory of limbo, in which Christians received supernatural happiness in heaven, while good persons received natural happiness in limbo. Nevertheless, this would deny people a supernatural life with Christ for failure, fault or not fault, to know Him.

What is interesting is that we know that people did die without knowing Christ and were saved. Jesus descended into hell to free the righteous.

 

[truefiction1]

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Interesting. Is this an Ex Cathedra statement of Pope Eugine regarding the Catholic faith?

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Interesting. Is this an Ex Cathedra statement of Pope Eugine regarding the Catholic faith?

No.

 

[Michie]

It's my understanding all believers in Christ are united to the Catholic Church but imperfectly.

 

[Basil the Great]

Sorry to disagree, but Pope Eugene's teaching is most certainly considered an infallible declaration. However, today's Church has found a way to proclaim adherence to the EENS salvation doctrine, without interpreting Pope Eugene's statement in a literal, word-for-word manner. The question arises, at what point in history did "invincible ignorance" become a valid reason for non-Catholic Christians to become members of the Catholic Church, without knowing that they were members, and thus eligible for salvation? Did this occur 2-3 generations after Cantate Domino, say by 1500? The answer here would appear to be "no", at least for Protestants, due to the Church's firm stance following the Protestant Revolt. How about by 1600 or by 1700 or by 1800 or by 1900 or perhaps not until the mid-1900's? Since the Church has not declared at what point in time "invincible ignorance" became a valid reason for refusing to join the visible Catholic Church, it would seem that only God knows the answer to this very important question.

 

[Lady Bug]

It's my understanding all believers in Christ are united to the Catholic Church but imperfectly.

I believe in Jesus' teachings I wish I did a better job obeying them.

 

[Michie]

I believe in Jesus' teachings I wish I did a better job obeying them.

I think we are all in the same boat with that one LB.

 

[Basil the Great]

I think we are all in the same boat with that one LB.

Well said there, Michie. We are indeed all in the same boat re: the need to follow Jesus' teachings.

 

[GutenbergPrintPress1454]

Yes, ecumenism has changed. Now the Church no longer holds the traditional view of ecumenism. The goal has totally changed.

Someone told me Queen Elizabeth II, after reading Revolution and Counter-revolution, visited Pope Paul IV and talked about conversion to the Catholic faith. But Pope Paul...

 

[Rhamiel]

It's my understanding all believers in Christ are united to the Catholic Church but imperfectly.

St.Augistine compared Baptism to the small tattoo that roman soldiers received
to the faithful it is a mark of honor
to the deserter, it is a mark that condemns them as traitors

Sorry to disagree, but Pope Eugene's teaching is most certainly considered an infallible declaration. However, today's Church has found a way to proclaim adherence to the EENS salvation doctrine, without interpreting Pope Eugene's statement in a literal, word-for-word manner. The question arises, at what point in history did "invincible ignorance" become a valid reason for non-Catholic Christians to become members of the Catholic Church, without knowing that they were members, and thus eligible for salvation? Did this occur 2-3 generations after Cantate Domino, say by 1500? The answer here would appear to be "no", at least for Protestants, due to the Church's firm stance following the Protestant Revolt. How about by 1600 or by 1700 or by 1800 or by 1900 or perhaps not until the mid-1900's? Since the Church has not declared at what point in time "invincible ignorance" became a valid reason for refusing to join the visible Catholic Church, it would seem that only God knows the answer to this very important question.

Invincible Ignorance has always been a valid reason, at least it was always viewed as a possibility
but it used to be, to be counted as "invincibly ignorant" you would have to be born into some pagan tribe on an island that has never had a Christian missionary
nowadays, being raised Lutheran seems to fulfill the same qualifications.

it has been explained to me that the "diversity of cult" is the reason this has changed.
It was easier for people in the middle ages to see what was the Church and what was not.
now there are thousands of denominations belonging to about 12 faith traditions and most of them are at least a few hundred years old

it is understandable that an individual would be less culpable who was born in A.D. 1990 then someone who was born in A.D. 90

 

[Tallguy88]

What is the problem, Rhamiel? What brought these questions up?

Do you doubt the salvation of those born Protestant? Even though the church says even Jews and Muslims may be saved?

Remember, those encyclicals were written at a specific time, in a specific place, to a specific audience, for a specific purpose.

The church has come to a more fuller understanding of the issue now. Doesn't make the old teaching untrue, just not as cut and dry as was thought.

 

[Tallguy88]

Yes, ecumenism has changed. Now the Church no longer holds the traditional view of ecumenism. The goal has totally changed.

Someone told me Queen Elizabeth II, after reading Revolution and Counter-revolution, visited Pope Paul IV and talked about conversion to the Catholic faith. But ...

Are you Catholic?

 

[Rhamiel]

What is the problem, Rhamiel? What brought these questions up?

Do you doubt the salvation of those born Protestant? Even though the church says even Jews and Muslims may be saved?

Remember, those encyclicals were written at a specific time, in a specific place, to a specific audience, for a specific purpose.

The church has come to a more fuller understanding of the issue now. Doesn't make the old teaching untrue, just not as cut and dry as was thought.

I have doubts
I recognize that my own understanding is weak and I try to trust the Church more then I trust my own way of thinking.

to me, it seems like the Church has done a 180 degree turn, that is the cry of all those schismatic groups like SSPX, that the Church has gone against her old teachings, her hard teachings.
I do understand that there is an evolution in doctrine, a refinement, but it is a refinement, not a total change

as pointed out before, the "diversity of cult" does make things differant now then they were 1000 years ago, or even 250 years ago...
but it still just... how can I say it... does not have the look of an organic refinement, it has the look of a 180 turn...

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Sorry to disagree, but Pope Eugene's teaching is most certainly considered an infallible declaration.

And you say this how?

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

interesting, what are these writtings called? was it collected in a book?

I understand that ignorance lessens the culpability of sin...
it is just, people do not even talk about it like it is a sin anymore!
and instead of invincible ignorance being treated like a possibility, it is treated like the accepted norm, the default setting

It is a sin, you can read it in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

 

[Tomm]

The goal of ecumenism has changed, not a little change but change beyond recognition. It is no longer inviting the separated brothers to return to the Catholic Church but to create a pan-religion. It is a product of VC II.

Didn't you hear that Pope Benedict XVI publicly praised the heretic Luther, who had done so much damages to the Church (thus also the world).

:o

 

[Rhamiel]

Tomc
I am also disturbed by some of this new ecumenicism
but as others have shown in this thread
this was a trend well before VII

 

[QuantaCura]

Ugh, the ecumenism taught by the Church is not about creating a pan-religion. This is explicitly ruled out in the Church's own documents governing ecumenism. For example, here is Ut Unum Sint by Bl. John Paul II:

"Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truth to the preferences of a particular age, or suppressing certain articles of the Creed under the false pretext that they are no longer understood today. The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, "the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth? The Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae attributes to human dignity the quest for truth, "especially in what concerns God and his Church",33 and adherence to truth's demands. A "being together" which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart."

The whole reason the Catholic Church is not a member of the World Council of Churches is because it is pan-Christian.

Also see this:
Doctrinal Note on some Aspects of Evangelization

As it notes, while ecumenism has more of a corporate dimension, that does not negate the duty and responsibility of seeking individual conversions of separated Christians.