Ecumenical Dialogue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It does go a bit beyond green tea, though. Here are extracts of how the World Council of Churches defines ecumenical dialogue :
Etymologically dialogue means a conversation; but a conversation with an aim: to discover the truth.
Click to expand...
Dialogue is not merely “discourse”. It is primarily a way of being together in charity, which gradually changes and renews the atmosphere essential for a joint profession of faith; where profound exchanges of thought and expression can achieve something which goes beyond clarity of conversation or individual conviction.
Click to expand...
Dialogue is not a confrontation between Churches which are concerned about their own positions and their own structures. It is their meeting and collaboration in a common task, an effort to bear joint witness, a desire to obey the Lord whose Will it is that they should be one so that the world may believe.
Click to expand...
If not for a common discussion in charity with an aim toward truth and unity, I am not sure what can bring unity to Christianity. It is probably the best option we have.

As for dialogue not resulting in conversions, I’m the living proof of the contrary (even though I’m technically “reverting”, none of it would have happened without ecumenical dialogue).
 
Jesus’ way is still the best.

Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

And then there’s:

Mark 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

In other words, they may not be Catholic. But if they’re not trying to tear down the Catholic Church, they are not at war with us and we can work with them.

But:

Luke 11:23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

We need to have a common goal. Perhaps a common enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But you have to have both feet in one camp.

Revelation 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

And that is a problem both in liberalism and conservatism. Too many, walk the line. They can’t give up the old man.

My two cents.
 
Maximus1 said:
Where there is a time and place to debate differences …
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this rarely happens. If the churches that want legal abortion also want clean water, then we must talk only about clean water, and never about abortion.

That’s the dogma of the New Ecumenism.
 
Last edited:
Padres1969 said:
You do realize the majority of Protestantism is still pro-life right?
Click to expand...
That would totally depend upon what is encompassed by one’s definition of pro-life. It sounds good on paper, may be an ideal to which many aspire, and may have been true at one time. Lol! But drug store purchases aren’t Top Secret! 😀

In my dealings with Protestant women over 60+ years (few Catholics in my communities, workplaces, or social gatherings in three states), I’d guess that a high number are pro-life only in the sense that they’d not consider abortion for themselves, but have a “live and let live” outlook and are okay with others choosing abortion for themselves.

As far as medication, spermicidal jells, and condoms for avoiding pregnancy, I think those items are pretty much standard operating procedure for most Protestants, and some Catholics, unless they’re trying to get pregnant.

A gal (with a name something like Evangel) even came online, digging at CAFers for having such a crazy idea as unprotected sex, and Natural Family Planning, wanting to know how Catholics came up with that idea. She quickly departed after hearing that God/Jesus was the author, and that it was SOP for Christians until 1930, when Anglican bishops decided contraception was okay during certain circumstances. It didn’t take long for contraception to be okay for almost all Christians, except Catholics.
 
Last edited:
I am missing the point. Other than you are pointing out a hypothetical about points of agreement. I would imagine the very real Christian value of our place as " gardener" or tender of the garden is our fundemental function in God’s plan, per Genesis and this is a good place to dialogue.
What am I missing?
 
If the Church only repeats the same truths that the secular world preaches - the position of the mainlines - there is no value to the Church’s (name removed by moderator)ut. The valuable teacher is the one who teaches what the secular world has forgotten.
 
Your hypothetical, our catechism about clean water( the environment and our place in it) is still a material issue of faith. Regardless of secular camps.
Granted, it is worthwhile to address things novel to secular discussion, but it is meritorious to advance our values regardless as reflected in the catechism. In terms of being charged by God as tenders of the garden, nothing is more fundemental.
I still don’t know if I am missing your point. In an ecumenical dialog on the subject I think awareness of Christian values on the subject for both congregations is worthwhile.
 
In the 1940s, in the South, congregations would have been quite content to discuss to discuss issues such as clean water. But some congregations would have objected to bringing up controversial subjects like racism, or, in 2019, abortion.

If a congregation actually endorsed White Supremacy in 1948, or legal abortion, in 2019, I would say time to find another dialogue partner.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure I am the one you were responding to. If it is the case, then it’s not the clearest of wordings, I give you that. (But many of the WCC theologians do not have English as a first language, and try their best ; I don’t have English as my first language either, and I apologize for any goobly glark too.)

As a (future ex) Protestant I’m perfectly willing to admit that my own tradition doesn’t have the fullness of the truth, but would you say the same of Orthodox churches ? Most of them, Eastern and Oriental, belong to the WCC and actively contribute to its theological elaboration.

And the whole point of that WCC quote on truth was that, from the completely non-Catholic point of view of the WCC, ecumenical dialogue means discovering truth. I don’t know how anyone could take exception to non-Catholics wanting to discover truth.
 
We have to make a distinction between persons and organizations.

Never give up on persons. Always keep the door open for conversation, no matter what their views are. We should never stop loving them.

Organizations are different. Yes, we should keep trying, with individual White Supremacists, but no, we should not try ecumenical dialogue with the KKK. We should not invite the organization to come speak to our parish about, say, the environment. Same goes with pro abortion denominations, but still keep open communication with individuals.
 
From a supreme teacher of infallible truth and true faith:
In Christ’s “conversation” with men, God reveals something of Himself, of the mystery of His own life, of His own unique essence and trinity of persons. At the same time He tells us how He wishes to be known: as Love pure and simple; and how He wishes to be honored and served: His supreme commandment is love. Child and mystic, both are called to take part in this unfailing, trustful dialogue; and the mystic finds there the fullest scope for his spiritual powers.
Click to expand...
the very fact that he engages in a dialogue of this sort is proof of his consideration and esteem for others, his understanding and his kindness. He detests bigotry and prejudice, malicious and indiscriminate hostility, and empty, boastful speech.
If, in our desire to respect a man’s freedom and dignity, his conversion to the true faith is not the immediate object of our dialogue with him, we nevertheless try to help him and to dispose him for a fuller sharing of ideas and convictions.
Click to expand...
Our dialogue, therefore, presupposes that there exists in us a state of mind which we wish to communicate and to foster in those around us. It is the state of mind which characterizes the man who realizes the seriousness of the apostolic mission and who sees his own salvation as inseparable from the salvation of others. His constant endeavor is to get everyone talking about the message which it has been given to him to communicate.
Click to expand...
From St Paul VI Ecclesiam Suam
 
I do not know anything about that sort of thing. I have never seen it.

OTOH I have seen lots of people who do not try to promote love and kindness, but who adopt a dismissive attitude toward others and treat them as if they have nothing of value. They often express the kind of disdain you display here

If that is the attitude you want to develop in others, it is not “true ecumenism.” And if you are successful, do not be surprised to be treated with disdain.
 
Thanks!

You addressed the exact phrases that gives me this heartburn every time I see it.

The double standards on this site are astonishing. Totally not ecumenical at all. Who are we kidding?
 
Last edited:
I am not questioning “your” zeal but the part about double standards are being MAGNIFIED quite a lot!
 
Well not you personally. But if you are asking? The exact post I responded to:

Sounds like a bunch of goobly glark, all that “I’ve got the fullness, you’ve got snidbits” stuff.

Just a quote and an observation.

Regards
 
Unless someone states the truth forcefully to get you to embrace your faith.

You demand the right to be “orthodox” but you ignore Church teaching on being kind. You prefer disdain, using shaming language like goobly glark and snidbits.

I make these comments in the same spirit that you assert your positions. I am talking about being orthodox, behaving as the Church teaches we should behave.
 
Last edited:
If Jesus had said, the greatest commandment is to go out and evangelise, then I would agree with you.

I believe the greatest commandments are summed up in the parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritan who was of the wrong religion, was the one who showed mercy. The priest and Levite who were both from the right religion were seen to be the bad guys.

On many occasions, Jesus did not seem very kind to religious people, there has to be something more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top