J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Okay, I must admit that we’re off on a little tangent. Does anyone else know of any historical precedents for ecumenism? 
- Status
B
barsapp
Guest
don’t we have enough heresy inside the Church to pretend unity with outside heretics? the only result of this “open doors” to the “world” policy has been people going out…
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
I totally agree. I mean, common sense should tell us that ecumenism just won’t work. It’s diametrically opposed to evangelization. Here, think about it this way: A Catholic ecumenist’s goal is to promote Christian unity, which, to him, means to convert to Catholicism (at least that’s what it *should * mean!) Likewise a Lutheran ecumenist’s goal is to promote Christian unity. But to him, this means that people need to become Lutherans! It will never work. Ecumenical people rarely convert, it just doesn’t happen because their very job is in jeopardy if they do!
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Ecumenism promotes doctrinal relativism which was at the very root of the Heretical Revolt, better known as the ‘Reformation.’ If we are to be tolerant, this means that we must accept or, at the very least, respect heresy! 
Is there anyone here that supports ecumenism because it is the very issue that has me pondering whether or not to stay in the Church. 
Because if the Church has embraced heresy in order to conform to the world, then the gates of Hell have prevailed! And if the gates of Hell have prevailed, then Christ lied! And if Christ lied, then Christ wasn’t God! And if Christ wasn’t God, then I can no longer even believe in God, because Christianity is the only logical religion! So, if you don’t want me to leave the Church, whether you agree/disagree with ecumenism, I’m at least asking you to defend the Church’s stance on it for the sake of my soul! (if I even have one?!)
Is there anyone here that supports ecumenism because it is the very issue that has me pondering whether or not to stay in the Church. Because if the Church has embraced heresy in order to conform to the world, then the gates of Hell have prevailed! And if the gates of Hell have prevailed, then Christ lied! And if Christ lied, then Christ wasn’t God! And if Christ wasn’t God, then I can no longer even believe in God, because Christianity is the only logical religion! So, if you don’t want me to leave the Church, whether you agree/disagree with ecumenism, I’m at least asking you to defend the Church’s stance on it for the sake of my soul! (if I even have one?!)
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
I’m just kidding, although those thoughts have definately run through my mind. I can see why people would leave the Church over this issue. So, seriously, whether you agree/disagree with ecumenism, can anyone defend the Church’s stance on it for the sake of souls that may be thinking those things?!Ecumenism promotes doctrinal relativism which was at the very root of the Heretical Revolt, better known as the ‘Reformation.’ If we are to be tolerant, this means that we must accept or, at the very least, respect heresy!
U
USMC
Guest
It depends what you mean by ecumenism. Ecumenism is supposed to be about bringing those outside of the Church into the Church. What it has become for many is the goal of “unity” at any cost - even without them converting. There is no defense for that. It is an error. The Catholic Church does not unite with heretics: it seeks either seeks to convert them, or avoids them, but it does not unite with them.
I would suggest reading the following encyclical which describes true and false ecumenism.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html
B
barsapp
Guest
From Pope Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum (29 June 1896)
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages.
The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: “Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: “One Lord, one faith,” and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: “that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - “but until we all meet in the unity of faith…unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ” (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - “He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (11-12).
And so Hilary: “Christ teaching from the ship signifies that those who are outside the Church can never grasp the divine teaching; for the ship typifies the Church where the word of life is deposited and preached. Those who are outside are like sterile and worthless sand: they cannot comprehend”.
Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true…all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? - without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. “Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ep. James ii., 10). …he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3).
It is then undoubtedly the office of the church to guard Christian doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity.
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13satis.htm
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Here is what Pope Benedict XVI said on World Youth Day:
B
barsapp
Guest
excellent and extremely funny!!!Is there anyone here that supports ecumenism because it is the very issue that has me pondering whether or not to stay in the Church.
but, you know… it is not possible to change this: Matt 16, 18: “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”, no matter what.
If we consider ecumenism as a creation of modernism, could be almost impossible to find historical background to support ongoing process. In fact, we find the opposite: the refusal of ecumenism. The only good ecumenism is to convert all to Catholicism.
C
Contarini
Guest
TNT said:
etc. etc. etc.
How does any of this have anything to do with ecumenism?
Not to mention that you refer to the UN’s “very nature and declared aims” without giving any support for your generalization. But that’s uninteresting to me, because the bigger point is that the UN and ecumenism are totally unrelated.
Of course the same social pressures that lead to the formation of the UN also make Christians think more about unity. But if in fact the UN does become some sort of anti-Christian world government (which it’s very far from right now), then a unified Christendom would be the best way to fight such a thing.
To non-Catholics, what is remarkable in Catholic ecumenism (I’m talking about official Vatican activity, not what liberal Catholic theologians have said) is its steadfast refusal to compromise. To many of us, this is what gives us hope that ecumenism may actually come to something. Intra-Protestant ecumenism is largely meaningless (except among denominations with closely related historic origins), because we have no fixed basis for discussion and we wind up creating something bland and sterile. But ecumenical dialogue with Catholicism is worthwhile because you guys know what you believe, and yet (since Vatican II) are willing to look at new ways to express it that maintain the historic teachings but also incorporate the insights preserved by our “ecclesial communities.”
We (orthodox, conservative Protestants) don’t *want *you to compromise. We don’t *want *to form something like the UCC. We want to grapple more deeply with the common roots of our Faith, and articulate to the world a vibrant, uncompromising, full-blooded Christian orthodoxy.
You can caricature this kind of ecumenism all you want to. But you will only endanger your own soul. Have the courage to look at reality. Recognize the huge differences between the kind of ecumenism championed by JPII and BXVI and the kind that resulted in the UCC. Forget about charity or tolerance or any of that stuff that you despise. In the interests of honesty and truth, you dare not fail to distinguish between things that are clearly different.
Edwin
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
I wouldn’t say that the UN is very far from being anti-Christian. From what I understand, they are facilitating ‘population control’ in poverty stricken areas by distributing contraceptives and making abortion on demand widely available. That doesn’t sound very Christ-like to me and, in fact, it does sound anti-Christian. But you made a good point that this is not the place to discuss the UN.
T
TNT
Guest
WELL:
It was in response to the inquiry:
Originally Posted by Ghosty
TNT: Care to supply your reference for Ecumenism meaning world socialism and one world religion?
Peace and God bless!
Originally Posted by TNT
The UN :
by its very nature and declared aims, the UN seeks to embody the Modern State and to act as the supreme organ of the Universal Republic, the long-held dream of revolutionaries past and present. …
And how the VATII popes gave their goals unqualified support.
So, I cared and I responded. Ecumenism in the New Order is part and parcel to World Unity…on the secular, not just religious basis.
B
barsapp
Guest
thank you for your post.
regarding the root of the Catholic Church is Christ… check post #47. as far as I know you left the Catholic Church about 1520, so the root of your faith is the Catholic Church. So, you are always welcome back!
B
barsapp
Guest
“eugenics” is the best word to describe this totalitarian policy.
J
johnshelby
Guest
thank goodness the Savior of the world, is also the Judge of the
world…
world…
S
Sarah_Jane
Guest
You misjudge Benedict!
Read the second part of this letter by Karl Keating :
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_050913.asp%between%
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Sarah Jane:
I think that that is a good point, let’s just hope that Fr. Harrison’s interpretation is correct and that Benedict does desire doctrinal unity.
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes, but you don’t back this up. You just assert it. And it has nothing to do with ecumenism.
But you have to show that the popes were supporting the goals that *you *attribute to the U.N. There’s no indication that they did. There are four possibilities here (at least):
- You are right that the U.N. is a thoroughly evil organization, and the Popes were wrong to support it, failing to understand the full scope of its goals.
- You are wrong in your assessment of the U.N. This is possible since you have provided no support for your claims so far.
- You are right in both your claims about the U.N. and your claims about the Popes.
- You are at least partly right about the U.N., and the Popes know this, but they choose to emphasize the positive for diplomatic reasons (this implies that the U.N. has at least some positive elements, which is surely not hard to see).
You still have not provided a shred of evidence that the ecumenism promoted by the modern papacy has anything to do with any “New Order” or “World Unity.” You’re spinning these accusations out of a bottomless abyss of paranoia.
I repeat–if you are right about the U.N., in the long run, then Christian unity is the best way to oppose the evils of such a world government.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I didn’t say it was very far from being anti-Christian. I said it was very far from being some kind of anti-Christian world government. It has some anti-Christian elements and some positive ones. And it is not currently anything that could reasonably be called a world government. That is all I was saying.
Edwin
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
- Status