Ecumenism ... can we make changes happen?

[Peter_J]

I think it’s clear that ecumenism is largely about talking (which is good); but I’d like to ask, is it possible to make changes happen? (Orthodox and protestants are welcome to answer as well as Catholics.)

I’ll start. I think it is possible, although rare. Two examples that come to mind are:

1. From the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism: “137. Catholic churches are consecrated or blessed buildings which have an important theological and liturgical significance for the Catholic community. They are therefore generally reserved for Catholic worship. However, if priests, ministers or communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies, the diocesan Bishop may allow them the use of a church or a Catholic building and also lend them what may be necessary for their services. Under similar circumstances, permission may be given to them for interment or for the celebration of services at Catholic cemeteries.”
2. From the Balamand Statement, “Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other”

Oddly enough, those were both issued in 1993, so I guess that was a good year.

There are probably other examples that I’m not thinking of …

 

[JonNC]

I think it’s clear that ecumenism is largely about talking (which is good); but I’d like to ask, is it possible to make changes happen? (Orthodox and protestants are welcome to answer as well as Catholics.)

I’ll start. I think it is possible, although rare. Two examples that come to mind are:

1. From the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism: “137. Catholic churches are consecrated or blessed buildings which have an important theological and liturgical significance for the Catholic community. They are therefore generally reserved for Catholic worship. However, if priests, ministers or communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies, the diocesan Bishop may allow them the use of a church or a Catholic building and also lend them what may be necessary for their services. Under similar circumstances, permission may be given to them for interment or for the celebration of services at Catholic cemeteries.”
2. From the Balamand Statement, “Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other”

Oddly enough, those were both issued in 1993, so I guess that was a good year.

There are probably other examples that I’m not thinking of …

Three thoughts:

1. How about the Joint Declaration? I know, not complete and not signed on by everyone, but ISTM small steps is the way of ecumenism.
2. Changes can occur if first we recognize the Holy Spirit in each other. Once done, there grows mutual respect and love, an entire change in the atmosphere. I think that has happened a great deal between Lutherans and Catholics since Vat II.
3. This leads to a greater willingness to work together in other areas, the stance the LCMS has taken in defense of Catholics regarding the HHS Mandate, as an example.

Full unity may or may not ever be achieved this side of the Second Coming, but where we can stand united, doctrinally, socially, etc., ecumenism can bring a greater love and respect between us, making these more marginal stances of unity effective in front of the world.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

1. How about the Joint Declaration? I know, not complete and not signed on by everyone, but ISTM small steps is the way of ecumenism.

Good point. I should have thought of JDDJ – especially with all the recent threads about Lutheranism.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I think it’s clear that ecumenism is largely about talking (which is good); but I’d like to ask, is it possible to make changes happen? (Orthodox and protestants are welcome to answer as well as Catholics.)

I’ll start. I think it is possible, although rare. Two examples that come to mind are:

1. From the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism: “137. Catholic churches are consecrated or blessed buildings which have an important theological and liturgical significance for the Catholic community. They are therefore generally reserved for Catholic worship. However, if priests, ministers or communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies, the diocesan Bishop may allow them the use of a church or a Catholic building and also lend them what may be necessary for their services. Under similar circumstances, permission may be given to them for interment or for the celebration of services at Catholic cemeteries.”
2. From the Balamand Statement, “Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other”

Oddly enough, those were both issued in 1993, so I guess that was a good year.

There are probably other examples that I’m not thinking of …

Both of my parents are buried in a diocesan Catholic cemetery; I don’t even think anyone even asked if they were Catholic. Of-course, my experience of inter-communion between Lutherans and Catholics goes back decades but I have come to realize on this forum that the practice is not universal, by any means.

As a Lutheran, I am concerned that the worldwide Lutheran Communion is dividing over the issue of female clergy and gay marriage with some national churches severing ties with the Church of Sweden and ELCA.

 

[Peter_J]

Both of my parents are buried in a diocesan Catholic cemetery; I don’t even think anyone even asked if they were Catholic. Of-course, my experience of inter-communion between Lutherans and Catholics goes back decades but I have come to realize on this forum that the practice is not universal, by any means.

As a Lutheran, I am concerned that the worldwide Lutheran Communion is dividing over the issue of female clergy and gay marriage with some national churches severing ties with the Church of Sweden and ELCA.

You bring up (at least indirectly) a good point: namely, that changes can be negative as well as positive. For example, I would regard the intercommunion you mention as harmful to ecumenical efforts, since it’s done without permission. Or there’s the possibility of the Catholic Church creating a “Lutheran Ordinariate(s)”, which Lutheran leaders have said would harm ecumenism.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Pope starts by conceding he doesn’t have universal jurisdiction.

Anglicans start by clearing out the liberalism in their church.

Both of these are unlikely to happen. Ultimately one side has to change and one side has to submit, but no side wants to.

 

[Origen52]

I guess we start by saying we all believe in the resurrection, then you go from there. I can’t see a time when all Christians will belong to one church, I think there are too many theological and traditional differences. But if we all believe in the risen Christ that provides common ground on which to build respect and cooperation. As a child I remember being taught that only baptized Catholics could go to heaven, and every Protestant church had the same edict about themselves. I’m glad we’ve come a long way from that.

One of my good friends is a female baptist minister, her faith is astounding and she has been a great comfort to me during some difficult times. She sends her daughter to a catholic school, I’ve gone to hear her preach at a baptist church. We respect and discuss the differences in our respective doctrines, but we are united in our hope and love in Jesus. I don’t know if that’s ecumenism but it works for us.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I guess we start by saying we all believe in the resurrection, then you go from there. I can’t see a time when all Christians will belong to one church, I think there are too many theological and traditional differences. But if we all believe in the risen Christ that provides common ground on which to build respect and cooperation. As a child I remember being taught that only baptized Catholics could go to heaven, and every Protestant church had the same edict about themselves. I’m glad we’ve come a long way from that.

One of my good friends is a female baptist minister, her faith is astounding and she has been a great comfort to me during some difficult times. She sends her daughter to a catholic school, I’ve gone to hear her preach at a baptist church. We respect and discuss the differences in our respective doctrines, but we are united in our hope and love in Jesus. I don’t know if that’s ecumenism but it works for us.

You have beautifully defined ecumenism in practice and respect.

 

[SteveVH]

Pope starts by conceding he doesn’t have universal jurisdiction.

Anglicans start by clearing out the liberalism in their church.

Both of these are unlikely to happen. Ultimately one side has to change and one side has to submit, but no side wants to.

Therein lies the problem. No faith tradition should give up what they believe to be true in the interest of placating the other. Truth cannot be compromised and replaced with a façade of unity.

 

[Mickey]

Truth cannot be compromised and replaced with a façade of unity.

Exactly!

 

[Peter_J]

**Pope starts by conceding he doesn’t have universal jurisdiction.
**
Anglicans start by clearing out the liberalism in their church.

Both of these are unlikely to happen. Ultimately one side has to change and one side has to submit, but no side wants to.

Yes, quite unlikely. A more modest hope is for the pope to say that Vatican I, along with the other councils since the 7th ecumenical council, expressed Catholic teaching but wasn’t an ecumenical council.

And yet even that seems, to me, a little too ambitious at this point. Instead I’m going to hope for a reduction of our list of ecumenical councils from 21 down to 13 – that is to say, to remove the 8 that were added to the list en masse around the time of the Reformation.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, quite unlikely. A more modest hope is for the pope to say that Vatican I, along with the other councils since the 7th ecumenical council, expressed Catholic teaching but wasn’t an ecumenical council.

And yet even that seems, to me, a little too ambitious at this point. Instead I’m going to hope for a reduction of our list of ecumenical councils from 21 down to 13 – that is to say, to remove the 8 that were added to the list en masse around the time of the Reformation.

The first seven councils would be an excellent starting place. It brings Lutherans, probably Anglicans, and who knows, maybe some others into the discussion.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

The first seven councils would be an excellent starting place. It brings Lutherans, probably Anglicans, and who knows, maybe some others into the discussion.

Jon

True.

Now, if I understand rightly, As & Ls (well, the conservative ones) agree with the first 4, but are a little iffy about 5,6,7. Is that right?

 

[steve_b]

Both of my parents are buried in a diocesan Catholic cemetery; I don’t even think anyone even asked if they were Catholic. Of-course, my experience of inter-communion between Lutherans and Catholics goes back decades but I have come to realize on this forum that the practice is not universal, by any means.

Were they Catholic?

It’s a subject that goes way back. newadvent.org/cathen/03071a.htm

 

[steve_b]

I guess we start by saying we all believe in the resurrection, then you go from there. I can’t see a time when all Christians will belong to one church, I think there are too many theological and traditional differences. But if we all believe in the risen Christ that provides common ground on which to build respect and cooperation. As a child I remember being taught that only baptized Catholics could go to heaven, and every Protestant church had the same edict about themselves. I’m glad we’ve come a long way from that.

The Church has not changed her position. There are no heretics, schismatics, dissenters, yada yada in heaven. That’s scripture. [Gal 5:19-21]

 

[Peter_J]

I guess we start by saying we all believe in the resurrection, then you go from there. I can’t see a time when all Christians will belong to one church, I think there are too many theological and traditional differences. But if we all believe in the risen Christ that provides common ground on which to build respect and cooperation. As a child I remember being taught that only baptized Catholics could go to heaven, and every Protestant church had the same edict about themselves. I’m glad we’ve come a long way from that.

One of my good friends is a female baptist minister, her faith is astounding and she has been a great comfort to me during some difficult times. She sends her daughter to a catholic school, I’ve gone to hear her preach at a baptist church. We respect and discuss the differences in our respective doctrines, but we are united in our hope and love in Jesus. I don’t know if that’s ecumenism but it works for us.

Good post.

At the risk of stating the obvious, it would an awful mistake for any of us to jump to conclusions about people based on their affiliation. There are good and bad apples in pretty much every body of Christians.

I’d like also throw in one of C.S. Lewis’ most memorable statements

“Certainly I have met with little of the fabled odium theologicum from convinced members of communions different from my own. Hostility has come more from borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any communion. This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.”

(emphasis added)

 

[ahs]

I guess we start by saying we all believe in the resurrection, then you go from there. I can’t see a time when all Christians will belong to one church, I think there are too many theological and traditional differences. But if we all believe in the risen Christ that provides common ground on which to build respect and cooperation. As a child I remember being taught that only baptized Catholics could go to heaven, and every Protestant church had the same edict about themselves. I’m glad we’ve come a long way from that.

One of my good friends is a female baptist minister, her faith is astounding and she has been a great comfort to me during some difficult times. She sends her daughter to a catholic school, I’ve gone to hear her preach at a baptist church. We respect and discuss the differences in our respective doctrines, but we are united in our hope and love in Jesus. I don’t know if that’s ecumenism but it works for us.

Good post. Yes, ecumenism starts by finding the common ground, and going from there. And it requires a willingness by all parties involved to look at the others’ point of view, honestly seek to understand it, and then find out where Truth leads us.

Once we get to a point of “…I’ll let go of “this” belief if you let go of “that” one…” then we are no longer seeing ecumenism, but something else that is only going to fail in the end…because Truth cannot be compromised.

 

[GaryTaylor]

St Irenaeus wrote; "It is necessary that every church should agree (or come together), that is the faithful from everywhere, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved [by those who are from everywhere]. "

 

[steve_b]

St Irenaeus wrote; "It is necessary that every church should agree (or come together), that is the faithful from everywhere, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved [by those who are from everywhere]. "

The actual quote is very specific…

Bk 3 ch 3, vs 2 “Against Heresies”
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that **every Church **should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men] who exist everywhere.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The actual quote is very specific…

Bk 3 ch 3, vs 2 “Against Heresies”
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that **every Church **should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Yes, I was being very ecumenical.