Is ecumenism worth the effort?

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
If I may, the problem with that view is that it assumes that one or the other stance will be given up if it is found to be 'untrue', or that this is how doctrinal stances even work in the first place. You are a Roman Catholic, for instance, so even if you hear 5,000 times about how false your church's ecclesiology vis-a-vis the role of your Pope is, it's not like hearing it 5,001 times is going to be the thing that changes it all, and causes you to affect unity with ____ (whatever body is arguing against your ecclesiology). That's simply not how things work, and it would be extremely naive to think they could, would, or even should work that way. And yet your interlocutor in this hypothetical example is not doing anything but sticking to and articulating the truth, as they recognize it.

Your truth (A) is not the same as mine (not-A) or someone else's, and at the level of traditions which are lived in communion, it is beyond any one indivdiual's or group's power to do anything about that -- meaning you may convert one or a group from A to not-A or vice-versa, but A and not-A will not therefore be 'unitable' as positions/traditions unless all who profess either find some way to do so. That is why, as you've put it earlier, union between OO and EO (who are much closer to each other in terms of mindset than any other pair, so you'd think it would be the easiest test case for this whole 'reunion' idea) is held up by a few key people. Unity means everybody involved in the enterprise, not everybody minus the people who don't agree who we are going to stop counting so that we can pretend to have more unity than we have. For another historical example that I will assume will have some resonance with you as a Roman Catholic, this is why the attempted reunion council of Florence in the 15th century (between the RC and the separated Eastern and Oriental churches) did not produce any lasting unity. On the EO side, Mark of Ephesus stood up and eloquently protested what the majority were ready to accept, while on the OO side we never actually had the same understanding as Rome of what we were signing on to in the first place.

It's not as simple as "A is true, and if we sit down and talk about it, people who don't believe that A is true will change their minds/unite with us." We've been talking for over 1400 years (remember that the first major schism involving a still-existing Christian body was when the Nestorians left in the wake of Ephesus in 431; we in the Coptic Orthodox Church only stopped talking to them in the mid-1990s after the breakdown of talks held at Anba Bishoy monastery in Egypt, while your communion is still talking to them, since your principles re: dialogue are different enough than ours to allow that). It has yet to magically (re-)unite Christendom. Dial back your expectations a bit, maybe.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
Your truth (A) is not the same as mine (not-A) or someone else's
Had it not been for ecumenical talks, we would never have discovered that the Oriental Orthodox left Chalcedon over a translational problem. Based on this, there is nothing barring the reunification of the OO and EO churches (except a few EO bishops dragging their feet out of prejudice).
 
Upvote 0

ubicaritas

sinning boldly
Jul 22, 2017
1,842
1,071
Orlando
✟68,398.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
In my experience, attacking ecumenism is simply a way to take a jab at mainline Protestants and Catholics. Because our desire for ecumenism comes from our overall ethical approach. But if you think tribalism and polemicism are more important values, of course you are going to find ecumenism offensive. Being "right", self-righteousness, is more important for some people.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 14, 2010
2,285
218
46
San Juan del Río
✟26,797.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
As I see the problem in the current situation of Christendom there are at least Theoogical, Economical, Historical, Ethnical, Ecclesiological and Political reasons that obstacle the process of conciliaion.

In the times before Constantine, all the Bishops were catholic and in communion with Rome, except for the heretics of the many flavors and colors which apeared along the first three centuries of Chrsitendom. along those years, no Creed no Filioque, no Arrius, no Nestorius, no Monophisites existed.

It was not until the church stoped from being persecuted that some scholars began to set divisions and upheld novel interpretations. When Bishops and priests became bureaucrates paid by the roman empire, the Church became a mater of games of power. that is why the Bishop of Byzantium became Patrarch and was claimed to be as important as the Bishop of "old Rome"

Yet the bishop of Rome was not the First due to Rome as capital of the Empire but because of Peter and Paul who lead the Church of Rome together and that preapred it tobe the Apostolic See of the christendomfter the death of the apostles. And so the Church of Rome was regarded since the apostolic times.

And of course, everytime there was a Council, there emerged a new schism.
 
Upvote 0

Stabat Mater dolorosa

Jesus Christ today, yesterday and forever!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
17,708
8,068
Somewhere up North
✟293,971.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Traditional. Cath.
Marital Status
Single
To answer the OP: I dont think manmade ecumenism is worth as much as one minute. I believe true ecumenism (which really, really isnt what we`re seeing now adays) is to rediscover our love for one another across denominations and ecclesiastical barriers.

What we`re seeing in Our days are nothing less than lukewarm nonsense. Trason is a fitting word for it as all theyre doing is watering down what we believe. The total lack of polemics in todays christianity says more than thousands of Words ever could.

I respect and admire many People of which i would dissagree loudly With such as Calvin, Luther, J. Wesley or even the SDA and Ellen Wight for their willingness to stand up for and confessing their faith regardless of extent of heresy in said faith.

To say its all the same is the syntesis of all heresy and undermining of the Christian gospel.
Do you think St Paul woudlve accepted ecumenism in all its pragmatism and nodding?

(Make no mistake about my post, (Pope???) Francis is worse than any so Im not attacking protestantism in general. This desease is as deadly for our Catholic Church as it is to anyone.)
 
Upvote 0

Basil the Great

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 9, 2009
4,766
4,085
✟721,243.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Green
Yes, it is worth it, if only to grow in love and fellowship with each other. If my prediction of the future is correct, namely, that all four branches of Christianity will continue to lose faithful adherents in the coming decades, then it will be all the more important for Christians to embrace each other in love, but with mutual respect.
 
Upvote 0

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I think it weakens us greatly. It sends a divided and mixed message to those who don't know the gospel.
It is the fact that Christians have so many conflicting teachings that causes the secular culture at large to wonder about us, not whether Christians themselves try to find unity in all this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ken Rank
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Is it worth it, in your opinion, to work for ecumenism?
Yes. Even if nothing substantial comes from it, I can't see the harm in our leaders talking to one another and working to understand where the other side is coming from. Often the divisions between us aren't as strong or substantial as we think.

Does the lack of unity between churches weaken the christian testimony or is it indifferent to the unbeliever?
Yes. We can't present as consistent a witness to the non-believing world when we all disagree so much with each other. It doesn't help matters that we're so alienated from one another.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums