Ecumenical Dialogue from a Non-Catholic Perspective

[JMJ_coder]

This question is for the non-Catholic posters here.

From your non-Catholic perspective, what is the purpose of ecumenical dialogue, particularly with the Catholic Church? What goals are you setting out to achieve through it, and what is the criterion for judging the achievement of those goals?

 

[AbideWithMe]

This question is for the non-Catholic posters here.

From your non-Catholic perspective, what is the purpose of ecumenical dialogue, particularly with the Catholic Church? What goals are you setting out to achieve through it, and what is the criterion for judging the achievement of those goals?

This is a great question. I’m dog-tired tonight, but I look forward to the replies and hope to reply myself in the morning.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

This question is for the non-Catholic posters here.

From your non-Catholic perspective, what is the purpose of ecumenical dialogue, particularly with the Catholic Church? What goals are you setting out to achieve through it, and what is the criterion for judging the achievement of those goals?

The ultimate goal of ecumenicism is of course, one, solid, unified Christian Church.

But, given that that’s rather unlikely, I hope that at least it could lead to some sort of understanding among Christians of our various differences, and that we would support each other in Christian charity, especially in times of persecution.

 

[benjohnson]

For me - four fold:

Curiosity and friendship: I love visiting foreign places and meeting people, so this is natural for me. Oddly enough, I’m one of the shyest people ever made by God, but I do ok.

To explain: I have a need to Lutheran Sola scriptura and other “Lutheran” ideas that may be of value for other Christians. Others may not necessarily agree, but at least they understand we’re not entirely insane.

To learn: Lutherans in America have lost a lot of valuable church traditions due to having to flee their home countries. In my church, we’ve brought back the thuribles for example, and we’re thinking about commissioning the stations of the cross in stained glass.

To help understand other Christian faiths: Not so that I can poach wayward Catholics and others (we’ll… I will help poach people who go to mega-churches), but to help build them in their faith.

 

[Monergistic]

This question is for the non-Catholic posters here.

From your non-Catholic perspective, what is the purpose of ecumenical dialogue, particularly with the Catholic Church? What goals are you setting out to achieve through it, and what is the criterion for judging the achievement of those goals?

Practically and realistically- and personally- learning and understanding is a more immediate goal, valuable in its own right but also a part of achieving a larger, long-term goal. The larger goal is functional unity. What is functional unity? Literally, functioning as a unit. Christians from different denominations, creeds, traditions, and various parts of the world tend to function best and work together best with those who are most like them. Ecumenism allows different people to do more together and do it better. Specific to Protestants and Catholics, right now in America it means protecting life and working together on behalf of the least of these. From our end, at least, these are things we see American Catholics being very good at and we want to be a part of that. But the specifics depend on who’s good at what and what’s realistic- in any example, though, the goal is do life as Christians and increase the extent to which we do the Christian life with these other Christians.

Further opinion by me- this is a starting point. I’m finally mentioning doctrinal differences and disagreements, and while there is a place for reasoned arguments and sharing of expertise and attempts to better understand and then better align divergent teachings, I think the “do the Christian life together” part is the proper starting point. It’s better to start with relational, and that experience is valuable in telling you where you’re really at and what you need to do. If it’s strictly academic, goals are on paper and only necessary in theory, and in practice, you still need to find that out anyway. The early and continuous exploration of relationality and functional cohesion gives you something more concrete, though, and those successes and shortcomings can do a nice job of informing the next couple of steps.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Ultimately useless.

 

[Indifferently]

Church unity. RC attitudes to ecumenical dialogue are obviously evangelistic in nature, and that’s not what we generally go for (because we believe in justification by faith, something which in practice is now taught and believed in the RCC).

But it still grieves me that different Christians cannot break bread together, or disagree on many aspects of the faith. We need doctrinal unity as well as communion with one another. Until then, Christians need to at least be speaking to the outside world with one voice, against the evils of this world, especially the new left-wing secular religion which threatens our very existence and our faith - even moreso than the Soviet Union’s godless terror squads.

 

[Stilldreamn]

I’m here to get a better view of what the One Church will look like someday. We have shared histories and will have a shared future, too.

 

[Monergistic]

As Catholics and Protestants approach each other in the interest of ecumenism, we tend to come at it with divergent points of view on the Reformation that are fairly predictable and also part of a mostly-unspoken subtext where each side is trying to bring the other around to their own perspective. On one hand, most Protestants (with some exceptions that you can already see on this thread) tend to have and encourage an attitude of acceptance toward the Reformation and what came of it. We got what we got, now let’s work with this. I don’t think you get as much acceptance from the Catholic side, and from what I gather, there’s more of an attitude of regret. I’m sorry this happened, maybe we can undo some of the damage the Reformation did, that sort of thing. And it feels like Catholics are equally invested in this subtext of regret, which they hope to show Protestants (mostly indirectly) and help them see how that makes sense. Of course, there’s exceptions with this one too, but I think there’s a general rule here.

So I think attitudes toward the Reformation are a fairly big part of the Protestant-Catholic subtext, where each side is quietly invested in helping the other acquire a different attitude toward it and toward the place we’re at now. One with regret, and the other with acceptance. Generally speaking, some exceptions.

 

[Nicea325]

Ultimately useless.

I wonder if Jesus would find it useless?

 

[benjohnson]

I wonder if Jesus would find it useless?

Indeed! Thanks be to God that the apostles didn’t hide the Gospel in their own religion.

For me, ecumenical dialog is preaching the Gospel to the unconverted, and bolstering the hearts of the already converted.

 

[dzheremi]

Ultimately useless.

This is probably closest to my own view, but with certain reservations.

It is worth stating at the outset that the only reason any in the Orthodox Church should seek dialogue with others is in order to put them on the path toward the Orthodox faith. Much-lauded “understanding” can come without such high level talks, but when we do see them, they always have (or always should have) an actual point in terms of dogmatic theology. For instance, the meetings between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Nestorians back in the 1990s. It was the purpose, from the Coptic side, that the meetings should lead to the Nestorians renouncing any veneration or teaching of Nestorious, Theodore of Mopsuestia, etc., and when it became clear that the Nestorians were not interested in that, the dialogue was ended. As it should be. For too many, Ecumenism is a byword for photo ops and useless agreed-upon statements that don’t lead to anything of substance. When that is the case, it is useless.

 

[JonNC]

This is probably closest to my own view, but with certain reservations.

It is worth stating at the outset that the only reason any in the Orthodox Church should seek dialogue with others is in order to put them on the path toward the Orthodox faith. Much-lauded “understanding” can come without such high level talks, but when we do see them, they always have (or always should have) an actual point in terms of dogmatic theology. For instance, the meetings between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Nestorians back in the 1990s. It was the purpose, from the Coptic side, that the meetings should lead to the Nestorians renouncing any veneration or teaching of Nestorious, Theodore of Mopsuestia, etc., and when it became clear that the Nestorians were not interested in that, the dialogue was ended. As it should be. For too many, Ecumenism is a byword for photo ops and useless agreed-upon statements that don’t lead to anything of substance. When that is the case, it is useless.

In which category is the dialogue in the link?

helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutortjointtext.html

Jon

 

[KnitNut]

It is worth stating at the outset that the only reason any in the Orthodox Church should seek dialogue with others is in order to put them on the path toward the Orthodox faith.

This.

 

[dzheremi]

In which category is the dialogue in the link?

helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutortjointtext.html

Jon

Seems fairly useless to me. There is a long history, of course, of Byzantine-Lutheran engagement, dating back to the time of Patriarch Jeremias II in the mid-16th century. That initial contact did not last very long, of course, before the Patriarch realized that it was useless. His final message to them is instructive of the problems of the modern dialogues as well:

“Therefore we request that from henceforth you do not cause us more grief, nor write to us on the same subject if you should wish to treat these luminaries and theologians of the Church in a different manner. You honor and exalt them in words, but you reject them in deeds. For you try to prove our weapons which are their holy and divine discourses as unsuitable. And it is with these documents that we would have to write and contradict you. Thus, as for you, please release us from these cares. Therefore, going about your own ways, write no longer concerning dogmas; but if you do, write only for friendships sake. Farewell.” (source)

This is still the case. We see it in observing how far off the rails most Lutheran congregations have gone (causing modern dialogues to break down, too). Were there genuine progress in beginning to follow the Fathers, rather than just referencing them and paying lip service to them, we would see a much different situation. But over and over, these talks break down because ultimately the churches which seem most open to ecumenism are no less closed to changing their erroneous doctrines and practices than the Orthodox are to changing their correct doctrines and practices to fit the exonormative standards of their heterodox interlocutors.

 

[JonNC]

Seems fairly useless to me. There is a long history, of course, of Byzantine-Lutheran engagement, dating back to the time of Patriarch Jeremias II in the mid-16th century. That initial contact did not last very long, of course, before the Patriarch realized that it was useless. His final message to them is instructive of the problems of the modern dialogues as well:

This is still the case. We see it in observing how far off the rails most Lutheran congregations have gone (causing modern dialogues to break down, too). Were there genuine progress in beginning to follow the Fathers, rather than just referencing them and paying lip service to them, we would see a much different situation. But over and over, these talks break down because ultimately the churches which seem most open to ecumenism are no less closed to changing their erroneous doctrines and practices than the Orthodox are to changing their correct doctrines and practices to fit the exonormative standards of their heterodox interlocutors.

It is true what you say about some Lutherans sadly. Why do you think these
Orthodox theologians then pursue such 'useless" dialogue?

Jon

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t know. You’d have to ask them. It is my understanding that the only meetings thus far between my Church and Lutherans (of which there have been two, according to Maged Attia’s book “The Coptic Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement”) were initiated at the Evangelical Church of Germany’s request. At the first, held at the Coptic Orthodox Monastery of St. Anthony in Kroffelbach, they discussed the sacraments, and at the second in Hanover they discussed Christology. At the end of the second, what Attia refers to as a “joint communique” was issued.

Still seems pretty useless to me.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t know. You’d have to ask them. It is my understanding that the only meetings thus far between my Church and Lutherans (of which there have been two, according to Maged Attia’s book “The Coptic Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement”) were initiated at the Evangelical Church of Germany’s request. At the first, held at the Coptic Orthodox Monastery of St. Anthony in Kroffelbach, they discussed the sacraments, and at the second in Hanover they discussed Christology. At the end of the second, what Attia refers to as a “joint communique” was issued.

Still seems pretty useless to me.

Thanks for your responses. I’d like to think they are not useless, in terms of seeking better understanding, and finding areas of agreement. Again, thanks for your responses.

Jon

 

[dzheremi]

Thank you for your kind words, Jon. Of course, I will continue to disagree, but it is good to disagree peaceably. Still, I have to fall back on the words of our beloved departed Pope, HH Pope Shenouda III, who pointed out that the problem of meetings with Protestants is that they love to attend them…so long as the parts of our theology and practices which condemn their innovations are kept away/not emphasized, etc. So it weakens our Church, and compromises Orthodoxy. This is why many Orthodox object to ecumenism in the modern sense, as it is in a way a kind of “race to the bottom”, whereby yes, commonalities are found and elucidated, but they are of such basic nature that they don’t really tell us anything we don’t already know, and more importantly, they do not help to transform the heterodox and bring them to Orthodoxy. Why? Because the minute you actually start speaking of the Orthodox faith (read: not the things that the Protestants [or Catholics] hold in common and are already comfortable with), they don’t want to hear it. So maybe to just call it useless might not even be going far enough, depending. It’s not only useless, it can be dangerous.

HH Pope Shenouda III: “Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy”

 

[JMJ_coder]

Seems fairly useless to me. There is a long history, of course, of Byzantine-Lutheran engagement, dating back to the time of Patriarch Jeremias II in the mid-16th century. That initial contact did not last very long, of course, before the Patriarch realized that it was useless. His final message to them is instructive of the problems of the modern dialogues as well:

This is still the case. We see it in observing how far off the rails most Lutheran congregations have gone (causing modern dialogues to break down, too). Were there genuine progress in beginning to follow the Fathers, rather than just referencing them and paying lip service to them, we would see a much different situation. But over and over, these talks break down because ultimately the churches which seem most open to ecumenism are no less closed to changing their erroneous doctrines and practices than the Orthodox are to changing their correct doctrines and practices to fit the exonormative standards of their heterodox interlocutors.

I think one thing that we all have to be very careful with is being too insular. We are all commanded by Christ to preach the Gospel. I’m struck especially by the address our new Pope gave just prior to the conclave that elected him in which he said: “When the Church does not come out of itself to evangelize, it becomes self-referential and then gets sick.”

I also think that this ‘going out of oneself’ must extend beyond just theological dialogue and into what are traditionally referred to as corporal acts of mercy. I sadly see in many people I know a lack of care and concern with people who are “not us”.

Perhaps if we could look at every single person as our brother or sister and bring Christ to them both physically, spiritually, and morally the world would be a little better.

Hey!..how did this soapbox get here.