Your views on ecumenism

[mark46]

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

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

 

[mark46]

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.

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

BTW, please give me the scripture that tells us which books are scripture. Also, where it says that scripture is the only authority and that we should not listen to Church councils or tradition. Finally, how do we know whose interpretation to use, and of which translation. After all, translations are quite different in their emphasis.

 

[Vicomte13]

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.

I could, but I am not going to, because Scripture is not then focal point of my religion. That is your obsession, of your religion, not the pinnacle of mine. The thread is about ecumenism. Your religion is focused on Scripture (to the point of idolatry in my eyes). My religion is focused on God (who is revealed in Scripture, but not fully - he has revealed himself well past the limitations of Scripture).

Obviously these two views of revelation are incompatible. Your religion and mine are fundamentally different, based on different things, and derive from different sources of authority.

The thread is about ecumenism - which is to say, the question of whether it is possible for people like you and people like me to cooperate, given our very different religions and very different beliefs.

The answer to the question is: it depends. It depends on whether or not you and I are able to look past our clear differences in religion to find common ground, to be able to, say, eat together and work together on common causes despite the fact that our religions are different.

My Church, the Catholic, believes that we can, and has reached out to all of the various Christian denominations, and the Jews, and Muslims, and Hindus, and Bhuddists, and others, to try to find common ground in goodness, so that we can make a better world together DESPITE the fact we all think the others' religion is cracked.

Yours? Well, judging from the way you put the question to me, I'd say that you probably are not at all interested in any sort of fellowship or cooperation with Catholics. You want to be right.

And as for me, personally? I agree with the Catholic Church on the matter of ecumenism in general, but do not have the patience of Job when it comes to antagonistic Christians. I'm more than pleased to sit down at a table with other sorts of Christians of good will and good humor, break bread, and talk about what we have in common. But if it goes dark, I'm easily as capable of exchanging barbs, insults and pointing out the foolishness of heretics as they are of pointing out what they perceive as my errors.

In other words: ecumenism is very hard, because people are bad tempered about religion. It only works with people who aren't bad tempered. You're ill tempered, obviously. And so am I. So we're not going to ever be in an ecumenical dialogue. Our religions are different, and at root we do not respect the other's beliefs. So if we talk, it has to be a fight.

Given that this thread is about ecumenism, it isn't the place for it. So I'm going to turn the other cheek and leave it be...for now. Of course if you come back to pick the fight, I will be more than pleased to exchange insult for insult, blow for blow - because I like to fight every bit as much as you do, and I know that God is ultimately on my side. Presumably you know the same thing.

Which is why the world needs ecumenism.

Taking the high road, then: "Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me." - St. Francis of Assisi.

In other words: not here, not on this thread. That's the best I can do. Let's see if your religion can make you at least as charitable as a Catholic. The world is watching.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

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

BTW, please give me the scripture that tells us which books are scripture. Also, where it says that scripture is the only authority and that we should not listen to Church councils or tradition. Finally, how do we know whose interpretation to use, and of which translation. After all, translations are quite different in their emphasis.

That link shares scriptures that include elders and apostles are given a certain authority. This is something no one denies nor argues. But there is no reference to a single man being the vicar, or pope, or sole head of the church. Jesus is the head of the church.

Scripture that tells us not to add or take away.
Rev 22:18
¶
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Rev 22:19

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

That is your obsession, of your religion, not the pinnacle of mine. The thread is about ecumenism.

No I am not obsessed. My focus is my savior Jesus and what he said and did and instructed. Yes this is about ecumenism and that is my point.

 

[mark46]

Let us accept the primacy of scripture. Thus, obviously, we can add interpretations and new doctrines. HOWEVER, they cannot be in conflict with Scripture.
===========
There are reasons that issues were taken to the Jerusalem Church. Scripture does NOT speak for itself. As individuals, are WE the arbiters of how to interpret the proper translation of a verse, in context with other verses? Scripture teaches us to rely on the Church. And Paul did NOT come to any old Church. He came to Jerusalem.

It was the Church councils that clarified doctrine, not individual interpretations, of which there were many. It was the Church councils that settled on the Nicene Creed. It was the Church councils that rooted out heresies, and defined orthodoxy. It was Church councils that even decided which books should be considered Scripture. Luther and Calvin certainly understood and accepted this.

There were patriarchs of the various churches from almost the beginning, first local bishops, and then patriarchs. The Bishop of Rome was the primus, the highest patriarch among equals. The issue is not so much whether the Church should have a leader here on earth. The issue is the place of the physical Church, a concept not accepted by evangelicals.

Scripture provides for Tradition and the Church. Jesus names the apostles and the first leader, Peter. All of the early Church accepted the idea that the apostles were to pass down the faith, though the Church, with a Church leader. The Orthodox and Romans have argued with regard to the role of the Bishop Of Rome. Evangelicals disagree with the entire concept of the Church, its patriarchs, its bishops and its councils.

For the most part, I agree with Luther's criticisms of the medieval Church. I do NOT think that he would be breaking away from the 21st Century Roman or Orthodox Church. There was a movement that grew out of the Reformation that did reject the whole idea of Church, of sacraments, and of the eucharist. That movement was significantly affected by the fundamentalist movement of the last 150 years.

BOTTOM LINE
The "debate" is about much more than the role of the Bishop Of Rome. It is about the whole idea of the visible Church, and of the role of sacraments. We call one side "mainstream" and the other "evangelicals or fundamentalists".

Evangelicals would have just as much trouble if the leader of the Church were the patriarch of the English Church, of the Lutheran Church, or of one of the Orthodox churches.

That link shares scriptures that include elders and apostles are given a certain authority. This is something no one denies nor argues. But there is no reference to a single man being the vicar, or pope, or sole head of the church. Jesus is the head of the church.

Scripture that tells us not to add or take away.
Rev 22:18
¶
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Rev 22:19

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[Vicomte13]

No I am not obsessed. My focus is my savior Jesus and what he said and did and instructed. Yes this is about ecumenism and that is my point.

Your point, then, is that ecumenism is not possible with you. You come at Christianity from a certain perspective: you insist that, if people are going to speak with you about religion, they have to jump through your hoops and show you where things are written in your Bible.

Essentially, we have to dance by the rules of your religion to talk to you. We're not going to do that, so therefore, we're not going to be able to talk to you. It's as simple as that.

Ecumenism is not possible on terms that require one side to follow the norms of the other's religion in order to have a conversation.

That's your point: ecumenism is not possible with you, because you're not willing to engage in it on any terms other than your own "show me where the Bible says that", and the rest of us are not going to adopt your religious mannerisms in order to talk to you.

We shall, therefore, remain strangers. Ecumenism will happen between those who retain their own religious beliefs but find places where they can cooperate with others of different religions WITHOUT insisting, as an a priori, that the other person have to speak to them in a certain way. That's what you're doing, and the answer from the rest of the world is: if that's the price of speaking with you, then we'd rather not.

And that is that.

 

[Vicomte13]

Let us accept the primacy of scripture.

No. Not in an ecumenical context. Ecumenism also includes speaking with Muslims, Hindus, etc.

So, let's accept the primacy of the Koran, then, so we can talk to Muslims.

Or, among Christians, let's accept the primacy of Scripture: the Ethiopian Canon is the longest, and therefore is the one we should use. Enoch is Scripture.

Etc.

No, we cannot accept the primacy of Scripture, any more than Communists and Americans can have diplomatic relationships on the basis of first accepting the primacy of Das Kapital.

Rather, we must first accept the primacy of cooperation - that cooperation with each other is what we seek, and that means that we are not going to argue about where our religions differ. Because where they differ, obviously everybody with a different opinion is wrong. And then where are we?

We have to simply accept that we are not seeking to convert other people, at all, with ecumenism. We are seeking peace among people, and cooperation to the greatest extent possible between Catholics AS CATHOLICS, and Muslims AS MUSLIMS, and Hindus AS HINDUS, and Baptists AS BAPTISTS.

Ecumenism is not a subterfuge for a new angle at conversion, it is a lysistrata - a truce in battle to tend to the wounded, heal the sick, etc., to be humans as humans, not to be primarily religious humans.

Ecumenism temporary elevates our shared humanity above the demands of our respective gods. To see what how far along we can get in cooperating and not fighting IN SPITE OF the fact that everybody else is a heathen or a heretic. Can heathen, heretic and Catholic sit together at table and eat, and work together on humanitarian projects, and keep the peace.

The ecumenical idea says "Yes". The religious fanatic says "No" - and feels holy about it.

So no, we cannot accept the primacy of Scripture.

 

[Kaon]

What are your personal beliefs on ecumenism, even in Christian churches?

It is a failure from the start.

 

[Vicomte13]

It is a failure from the start.

This is why secularism triumphs everywhere. Huge numbers of religious people of all religions seem to be unable to cooperate because their gods demand they don't. The seculars do not have such complications and therefore cooperate more easily with people who are very strange to them.

Net result: over time religion fades, and the more cooperative form of human existence flourishes. If we don't want religion to fade, we have to do a better job at cooperating with those with whom we religiously disagree.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Let us accept the primacy of scripture. Thus, obviously, we can add interpretations and new doctrines. HOWEVER, they cannot be in conflict with Scripture.

Matthew 20
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Your point, then, is that ecumenism is not possible with you. You come at Christianity from a certain perspective: you insist that, if people are going to speak with you about religion, they have to jump through your hoops and show you where things are written in your Bible.

No I do not expect people to jump through hoops. My point is ecumenism is simply not possible in the fact that we can't be unified in error can we. This is not a matter of disliking a group of people or setting requirements, it is a matter of sound doctrine. My doctrine is based on the Word of God, yours is based on men's tradition superseding that word, there is the main issue. Any form of ecumenism that comes is based on error and false sense of unity. Last time I checked I thought we both had the same bible....

 

[mark46]

fair enough

The word "ecumenism" has been used in two different ways. One way to include all of the world's major religions (not necessarily including various cults). In this sense, we need to understand our common ground, which is considerable. For example, we can learn much from the Buddhist approach to human to behavior and toward life.

I apologize. I thought that we were discussing Christian ecumenism, which is a different discussion. We are one church. We were once one visible Church.

No. Not in an ecumenical context. Ecumenism also includes speaking with Muslims, Hindus, etc.

So, let's accept the primacy of the Koran, then, so we can talk to Muslims.

Or, among Christians, let's accept the primacy of Scripture: the Ethiopian Canon is the longest, and therefore is the one we should use. Enoch is Scripture.

Etc.

No, we cannot accept the primacy of Scripture, any more than Communists and Americans can have diplomatic relationships on the basis of first accepting the primacy of Das Kapital.

Rather, we must first accept the primacy of cooperation - that cooperation with each other is what we seek, and that means that we are not going to argue about where our religions differ. Because where they differ, obviously everybody with a different opinion is wrong. And then where are we?

We have to simply accept that we are not seeking to convert other people, at all, with ecumenism. We are seeking peace among people, and cooperation to the greatest extent possible between Catholics AS CATHOLICS, and Muslims AS MUSLIMS, and Hindus AS HINDUS, and Baptists AS BAPTISTS.

Ecumenism is not a subterfuge for a new angle at conversion, it is a lysistrata - a truce in battle to tend to the wounded, heal the sick, etc., to be humans as humans, not to be primarily religious humans.

Ecumenism temporary elevates our shared humanity above the demands of our respective gods. To see what how far along we can get in cooperating and not fighting IN SPITE OF the fact that everybody else is a heathen or a heretic. Can heathen, heretic and Catholic sit together at table and eat, and work together on humanitarian projects, and keep the peace.

The ecumenical idea says "Yes". The religious fanatic says "No" - and feels holy about it.

So no, we cannot accept the primacy of Scripture.

 

[mark46]

A bishop is a servant of the people. The head bishop is also a servant of the people.

Matthew 20
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

A bishop is a servant of the people. The head bishop is also a servant of the people.

Where is there a mention of "head bishop"? This can go on for pages and pages. The simple fact and not to be insulting but there is no reference found in scripture to point to one single head man in charge. It always points to Jesus, no man is above another. The role of a church elder, bishop, so on is to simply be a mature example of a believer, provide sound teaching, watch for false doctrine, and to provide wisdom...nothing more. We are not to parade around above others, that is exactly why Jesus addressed the Pharisees in the way he did because they usurped and applied authority well beyond what the Lord had prescribed to the point of absolute corruption and abuse of people to which they themselves did not adhere to.

This is really the core issue of any potential form of ecumenism. Any form existing today always has the Catholic church as the ruling standard with the pope at the head. This flies in the face of Jesus own teachings and scripture found in the NT. The Catholic answer is we have tradition, or the church history. So church history only proves this is a long standing error, nothing more. Tradition that often contradicts or even changes around culture is derived from men which is always flawed. While there is those who hold to scripture that no man is head of the church but rather Jesus is. I have no doubt that the church which is made up of those who belong to Jesus reside in many denominations including Catholic but are not derived nor exclusive to any denomination or system of men.

 

[Vicomte13]

fair enough

The word "ecumenism" has been used in two different ways. One way to include all of the world's major religions (not necessarily including various cults). In this sense, we need to understand our common ground, which is considerable. For example, we can learn much from the Buddhist approach to human to behavior and toward life.

I apologize. I thought that we were discussing Christian ecumenism, which is a different discussion. We are one church. We were once one visible Church.

That's ok. I'm not mad at you. Among Christians, the possibility of ecumenism runs chiefly along personality traits. People who are open and friendly can do it easily. People who are not, can't.

 

[Vicomte13]

My point is ecumenism is simply not possible in the fact that we can't be unified in error can we.

Ecumenism works just great! There are all sorts of Christian churches working together, and working with Jews, and even with Muslims and Hindus, all over the place. The extroverted Christians, and Jews and Muslims and Hindus who want peace and amity with their fellow men manage to do it.

Even introverts who want peace manage it.

There are SOME Christians for whom their own doctrines are so all consuming that they cannot play in the sandbox with other people. Ecumenism isn't possible with them.

You have to give everybody a try. When you find kindred spirits, you can work well with them and enjoy the differences of opinion. But when you find combatants you just need to leave them be, because you're never going to be able to build anything with them, or do anything other than bicker, and who needs it?

 

[Kaon]

This is why secularism triumphs everywhere. Huge numbers of religious people of all religions seem to be unable to cooperate because their gods demand they don't. The seculars do not have such complications and therefore cooperate more easily with people who are very strange to them.

Net result: over time religion fades, and the more cooperative form of human existence flourishes. If we don't want religion to fade, we have to do a better job at cooperating with those with whom we religiously disagree.

Secularlism triumphs because they don't have a canon, and ecumenical authorities (if you discount the soft ecumenical authority of academia.) You can't tell adults who to believe, and then dictate what supplementary information they can receive, or how they further their study and connections. Academia is almost there in dictating information which is why I say it is a soft ecumenical authority. It is also why New Ageism is rising: the authority of organized atheism and academic hegemony is pushing adults to radical connections with whatever will stick.

If ecumenism has worked, we are in hell (on earth); didn't the Redeemer come to bring a sword, not peace? He promised people's own family will be their enemy because of what He will bring to light (e.g. lies exposed, lies accepted.)

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Ecumenism works just great! There are all sorts of Christian churches working together, and working with Jews, and even with Muslims and Hindus, all over the place. The extroverted Christians, and Jews and Muslims and Hindus who want peace and amity with their fellow men manage to do it.

2 Corinthians 6:14 King James Version (KJV)
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?


2 John 9 King James Version (KJV)
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

2 Corinthians 6:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

Even introverts who want peace manage it.

Ecumesim is not about peace or living peaceably with your neighbor, it is about joining in error and false teaching.

There are SOME Christians for whom their own doctrines are so all consuming that they cannot play in the sandbox with other people. Ecumenism isn't possible with them.

I do not dislike people based on their faith. But I do not call them brothers or sisters either. I think you are meshing things here.

You have to give everybody a try. When you find kindred spirits,

Again this is not about finding friends or being neighborly. This is about calling another brother or sister when they are not. The only "kindred" spirit is the Holy Spirit, I do not yoke to false spirits.

But when you find combatants you just need to leave them be, because you're never going to be able to build anything with them, or do anything other than bicker, and who needs it?

If I befriend a Buddhist and then do not tell him the TRUTH that they follow a lie and the only way to the Father is through Jesus I am not building anything in love but rather allowing them to remain in deception, that is not friendship.

 

[Vicomte13]

Well, there you go. Not much for us to say to each other. We're not brothers. We don't believe the same things at all. And there's no common ground. So that's that. You go your way, I'll go mine.