Amen — after all, Pope Benedict XVI was behind the Vatican document, Dominus Iesu which clearly stated that the fullness of God’s revelation is in Jesus Christ and His Church and that there is no need to go to other religions to find truth or that other religions are equally valid, a common heresy today.
Ok, to me, you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting ecuminism. Uniting does not mean blending. Say it with me, uniting does not mean blending.
Definition of ecumenicalism-
Well put.
Yes, Catholics from the beginning have sought to make the world one, united in the worship of God *by exhorting all to abandon their false religions and repent of their sinful practices, *and enter the only ark of salvation outside of which all will perish in the flood, the Apostolic Roman Catholic Church. Anyway, aren’t lies dangerous because they all blend elements of truth in them? How many conversions has the ecumenical “dialogue” of the last 40 some years resulted in? On the other hand, how many Catholics have abandoned the Church in favor of other religions or no religion at all?
Oh ok so I guess we didn’t believe in or practice these things before V2 when we engaging in “ecumenism” and fruitless dialogue that has resulted in nothing but the loss of faith amongst Catholics and lack of conversions from other religions? Give me a break.
Which is not exactly the same thing as the “Love thy neighbor…” defintion you give it. If dictionary.com’s definition of ecumenism is correct, then ecumenism is definitely contrary to Catholic principles. For how can their be unity amongst the True Religion and false religions? How can men achieve unity in a way that does not encompass their conversion to the One True Church of Christ?
May God break your heart. God bless!
No, I didn’t miss it. I have read the whole passage. What’s your point though? This, in NO WAY, changes what Paul stated. Are you saying that Paul actually would feel he could judge himself if he was not trying to teach those he was writing to? Not a very good argument.
Uhhhh… I think I was pretty clear to make a distinction between those who actively deny or reject and those who have, “through no fault of their own” been able to accept the Gospel. Furthermore, only GOD can judge a person’s heart to know the degree of culpability that individual has in either rejecting or not hearing the Gospel in a way that it could be accepted. Thus, you are judging the man’s culpability when you assume that the fact he is not Christian is because he has REJECTED the Gospel. This in no way, alleviates our responsibility to share the Gospel with them. The question has never been whether we should do this, but HOW. You keep missing the point. You want to cram it down people’s throats, which they will never be able to receive. I want to preach the “truth” in “love,” as the Scripture commands. Your prooftexts have done nothing to contradict my position, only strengthen it.
You’re missing the point of the unity. The unity begins in acknowledging the similarities. Once I have established a solid relationship based on similarities, we can start to evaluate the difference. The Catholic position is to never sacrifice the truth for the sake of unity, as someone posted on the previous page. However, we can’t just start as antagonists. That is not effective. We start by living the Gospel, praising a person where they hold on to the good and true, and then gradually immerse them in the Catholic faith. Nobody is saying that the false religions will be equal to the Catholic faith in the newly found unity. We are saying that we must approach these people with respect, and “preach the truth in love.”
And we weren’t doing that prior to the 1960s?? Again, how many genuine conversions has “ecumenical dialogue” resulted in?
I’m sorry? The Scriptures tell us that the Muslims are the anti-christ? I understand this is a popular beleif today but nowhere do the Scriptures teach this.
I absolutely love the way people round here pick snippets without context…
Thanks for not answering the question.
The Scriptures say that anyone who denies Jesus Christ is an antichrist and is of the devil.
It’s resulted in double digit solid conversions of people in my life, and I have been doing this for less than 10 years. I can’t speak for anyone else.
In order to “deny” something, we must make a choice to reject it. It is an act of the will. In order to make this choice in a way that is going to hold us to the utmost degree of culpability, we must choose it freely, and without coercion. Thus, we must be informed on what the choices are, in order to make this choice freely. Without understanding what is true, I can still do wrong. Yet, my culpability is different from someone who does not know what is true and is making decisions based on the information they have. For example, a mentally retarded person cannot be held to the same standard of culpability as I can, because they are not capable to the degree I am of making informed, reasoned, free choices.
I don’t know if they qualify. It is not my place to know a man’s heart. It is God’s place ALONE. Since you seem to know whether a man is worthy of salvation or not, maybe you can just kick Christ off of His judgment seat. Apparently you think it’s your place to judge their heart, so you keep it up. Let all the Muslims know how evil they are, and that they’re going to Hell. That’s always a good place to start when evangelizing.
Myfavoritmartin-
Thank you for your kind and charitable reply. Since there was no context provided I merely assumed.