Ecumenism ... can we make changes happen?

[clem456]

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

For you and I, trying to live our faith in the context of the post you were addressing, these terms assume lots of knowledge we personally don’t have.

Is someone who was a heretic always a heretic? How do you and I know someone is a heretic? We don’t know the final disposition of a person’s soul.

 

[steve_b]

Yes, I was being very ecumenical.

I was merely pointing out, the paraphrase actually contradicted the actual quote.

 

[steve_b]

For you and I, trying to live our faith in the context of the post you were addressing, these terms assume lots of knowledge we personally don’t have.

Is someone who was a heretic always a heretic? How do you and I know someone is a heretic? We don’t know the final disposition of a person’s soul.

Hi Clem

When I quoted [Galatians 5:19-21 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Galatians Chapter 5)Paul lists various mortal sins . We know they are mortal because he says if one remains in these sins they won’t go to heaven when they die…i.e. they go to hell.

from that list of sins is “enmities, contentions, emulations, dissensions, sects”. Paul is talking to the baptised members of the Catholic Church. Already some are involved in heresies, dissentions, and causing sects(divisions). Even though he had to warn them twice, he didn’t back off. Is Paul using terms they don’t understand? No. He laid it on the line. He wasn’t fooling around.

In case our non Catholic friends reading this want to take issue with my use of “Catholic Church” there.

• Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all ἐκκλησία , καθ’ , ὅλης , τῆς Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…"

iow [ekklasia….Kata…Holos…ho = the Catholic Church Luke 4:14; Luke 23:5; Acts 9:31; Acts 9:42; Acts 10:37.
The English word catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

that’s why from the beginning we see

• St Ignatius Bp of Antioch, ~69 a.d. - ~107 a.d., ordained by apostles, disciple of St John the apostle, called the Church the Catholic Church Epistle to the Smyrnæans of which schismatics won’t be going to heaven Epistle to the Philadelphians
• St Polycarp, Bp Smyrna, disciple of St John called the Church the “Catholic Church” The Martyrdom of Polycarp
• Muratorian canon http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/muratorian.html
• Irenaeus ~180 a.d. wrote “Against Heresies” called the Church the “Catholic Church” Adversus haereses Bk 1 Ch 10 v 3], and also Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp, teaches all must agree with Rome [Bk 3, Ch 3, v 2-3]Chapter 3
• Cyprian~250 a.d. Epistle 54
• The Nicene Creed, 325 a.d., it’s a matter of faith to believe in the “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”
• etc etc

Re: knowledge, that you mention

would you agree 21st century People in terms of ability to learn, and gain access to knowledge, are light years away in advantages, from the ability people had in the early Church? It’s waaaaaaaay harder for people today to plead ignorance of things they should know regarding the faith… Especially since knowledge of the faith is at everyone’s finger tips today.

The Catholic Church is the Church Jesus established on Peter and the apostles. It’s the Church Jesus gives all His promises to, apart from which Paul say there is no salvation.[Gal 5:19-21]

 

[clem456]

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.

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

Hi Clem

would you agree 21st century People in terms of ability to learn, and gain access to knowledge, are light years away in advantages, from the ability people had in the early Church? It’s waaaaaaaay harder for people today to plead ignorance of things they should know regarding the faith… Especially since knowledge of the faith is at everyone’s finger tips today.

The Catholic Church is the Church Jesus established on Peter and the apostles. It’s the Church Jesus gives all His promises to, apart from which Paul say there is no salvation.[Gal 5:19-21]

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying on a factual basis .
I am responding in the context of Origen’s original post about finding common ground. Your response to that was to talk about heresy and schism, and seems to come out of nowhere in that context. The words heresy and schism are not very meaningful to separated brothers and sisters and don’t advance the discussion very well. Dissentions and factions do not belong always to others, Gal 5 is addressed to all of us, who insist on living according to our own flesh.

To quote Gal 5 in context:

13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”** 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.**
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

 

[steve_b]

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying on a factual basis .
I am responding in the context of Origen’s original post about finding common ground. Your response to that was to talk about heresy and schism, and seems to come out of nowhere in that context. The words heresy and schism are not very meaningful to separated brothers and sisters and don’t advance the discussion very well. Dissentions and factions do not belong always to others, Gal 5 is addressed to all of us, who insist on living according to our own flesh.

It seems an explanation is in order.

As long as one doesn’t talk about the fact there are divisions, schisms etc, (which scripture condemns and those who do it) then yeah, those in that relationship won’t see themselves that way, when in fact they are. Is it okay to ignore that and don’t bring it up? I would say no. That’s not being charitable to one’s neighbor.

It’s not like this is a new topic. With Protestants this conversation has been ongoing for almost 500 years. With the EO it’s 1000 years. With the Jews it’s 2000 years. What’s changed in these groups? When the faith was new, and Paul preached in the temple, they threw him out. Was Paul uncharitable for speaking truth to people who disagreed with him? I would suggest, that he, having the truth, if he didn’t preach that truth to them unvarnished, and instead kept it to himself, or watered it down, for purposes of being “ecumenical” a word that wasn;'t even there in his day, he would have NOT been showing love to his fellow man. Obviously in the beginning, the Church was 100% Jewish. Some progress then was obviously made with the Jews even if the majority of Jews in the day didn’t respond to it.
C:

To quote Gal 5 in context:
13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”** 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.**
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

vs 15 - 18 are itemized in vs 19-21

The part you’ve highlighted, vs 24, Paul is recognizing **“those” **people who have listened to Paul, & obeyed him. All those sins Paul mentions, vs 19-21 are not in THEM. However, there ARE “some” who are mired in those sins of the flesh…some involved in dissension and factions. (those who divide or are divided from the Catholic Church)

BTW, the word in Greek for dissension in that verse, is the same Greek word used in Rom 16:17.

• *Depending on the translation one uses, that Greek word might get translated as dissension, or sedition, or division, but it’s the same Greek word. διχοστασί**α dichostasia = dissension / sedition / division ] *

Therefore, it’s condemned!

So Paul says to THEM as he says to US, “I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.” iow don’t divide from the Catholic Church.

That’s a serious warning. A warning that has no expiration date. It’s the same in the 1st century, as it is in the 11th century, the 16th century, the 21st century and forever! It isn’t suspended, ignored, or changed for purposes of “ecumenism”. Therefore, it’s our responsibility to show people who they are seperated from. Leaving people ignorant isn’t a strategy.

That’s why People need to know this and the condsequences of those sins. IMV It’s not ecumenical to avoid telling people that. .

 

[clem456]

It seems an explanation is in order.

As long as one doesn’t talk about the fact there are divisions, schisms etc, (which scripture condemns and those who do it) then yeah, those in that relationship won’t see themselves that way, when in fact they are. Is it okay to ignore that and don’t bring it up? I would say no. That’s not being charitable to one’s neighbor.

It’s not like this is a new topic. With Protestants this conversation has been ongoing for almost 500 years. With the EO it’s 1000 years. With the Jews it’s 2000 years. What’s changed in these groups? When the faith was new, and Paul preached in the temple, they threw him out. Was Paul uncharitable for speaking truth to people who disagreed with him? I would suggest, that he, having the truth, if he didn’t preach that truth to them unvarnished, and instead kept it to himself, or watered it down, for purposes of being “ecumenical” a word that wasn;'t even there in his day, he would have NOT been showing love to his fellow man. Obviously in the beginning, the Church was 100% Jewish. Some progress then was obviously made with the Jews even if the majority of Jews in the day didn’t respond to it.

Yes, an explanation is in order.
Just starting with this one point:
it is not proper to speak of Protestants as heretics. They are not heretics. Or schismatics. Martin Luther may have been a heretic, I’m not sure exactly how the Church sees him, because he was a Catholic. But a living person who is part of a protestant denomination is not called a heretic. That’s not how the Church sees it. (The Church is a sure guide to the charity you reference!)

So, It serves no purpose to throw those terms around improperly, out of context.
There are a bazillion threads on this issue if you search a little.

 

[steve_b]

Yes, an explanation is in order.

Just starting with this one point:
it is not proper to speak of Protestants as heretics. They are not heretics. Or schismatics.

nonsense

1.there’s alot of ex Catholics who populate Protestant organizations. They are now Protestant, not Catholics. And Yes they are heretics and schismatics.

**2089 ***Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Re: Outside the Church, this goes for every non Catholic
846 Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, ***knowing ***that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
c:

So, It serves no purpose to throw those terms around improperly, out of context.
There are a bazillion threads on this issue if you search a little.

Please show me just one credible Church source that says it’s okay to be a Protestant, with no necessity what so ever, to be Catholic, or that their is absolutely no problem for a Catholic to leave the Catholic Church and become Protestant…

 

[clem456]

nonsense

1.there’s alot of ex Catholics who populate Protestant organizations. They are now Protestant, not Catholics. And Yes they are heretics and schismatics.

**2089 ***Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Re: Outside the Church, this goes for every non Catholic
846 Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, ***knowing ***that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

Please show me just one credible Church source that says it’s okay to be a Protestant, with no necessity what so ever, to be Catholic, or that their is absolutely no problem for a Catholic to leave the Catholic Church and become Protestant…

Please do not put words in my mouth. I can speak for myself without interpretation. I have offered you the same courtesy by posting both your comments and the post from Origen you objected to. I never said what you claiim I say in your last paragraph above.

Back to the topic at hand…

It is not proper to refer to Protestants as heretics. Protestants are not Catholics, they cannot be heretics by definition, although there may be one here and there who was baptized Catholic and leaves as you say above. That’s not what we are talking about in this thread. We are talking about ecumenism. Protestants are not Catholic heretics or schismatics.

Since we are looking for explanations I will defer to these posts as I don’t pretend to be an expert in this area:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10252408&postcount=254
Notice the tone of this section:

As to non Catholics, it is true that they blend heresies with truth. If their beliefs coincided with our own, there would be no need for different denominations. As Pope Benedict said last year during the week of Christian Unity. Protestantism is not what it was. It’s not so black and white as many Catholics think. That’s what he said.

He said that Protestantism has become a living faith for those who are born into the Protestant family. They do not understand why we can’t see things their way. This misunderstanding is very honest. It’s not stubbornness. Very often, they are afraid to look at our position out of fear of offending God. In this sense, their hearts are in the right place, which is to please God.

When he said this, I thought to myself that this made perfect sense. I am a Jew. I know how hard it is for devout Jews (not cultural Jews) to consider Christianity. They are terrified of looking at Christian claims out of fear of being contaminated by sin. Their biggest fears are the Incarnation and the Trinity. The more devout they are the stronger they feel about staying away from what they believe would offend God.

In this regard, good Protestants and good Jews are very similar to good Catholics. Slinging about terms like heretic and heresy only offends rather than help. And it’s incorrect to do so, because we’re applying a code of law that applies only to one segment of the Catholic Church, not even to all Catholics.

Because the use of the terms heresy and heretic is so complex, it is better to rely on the Magisterium and follow its lead. The papacy and the Curia know how and when to use these terms appropriately.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10292812&postcount=95
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10252195&postcount=248
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9167521&postcount=165

Lableing non-Catholics as heretics, schismatics, divisive, etc… is not only out of line with Church teaching, but is uncharitable and unproductive.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi clem. What you’re saying about heresy, in general, makes sense; but I think you misunderstand our separated brothers and sisters.

The words heresy and schism are not very meaningful to separated brothers and sisters
…

That’s not really accurate. In fact, if anything, protestants and Orthodox are more likely to apply the term “heresy” to Catholics than the other way around.

 

[clem456]

Hi clem. What you’re saying about heresy, in general, makes sense; but I think you misunderstand our separated brothers and sisters.

What I wrote about heretics etc…is not my sense, it is what the Church says, so yes it makes sense, not because I make sense, but because it is what it is. The posts I referenced above explain it better than I can.

That’s not really accurate. In fact, if anything, protestants and Orthodox are more likely to apply the term “heresy” to Catholics than the other way around.

And so, If I were to be called a heretic by a protestant, it would mean nothing to me. That’s the point. Not whether the word has a meaning, but whether it has meaning to an individual who is labeled as one. The word has no value if it is not used in a truthful -and charitable- context. I would have trouble thinking of a protestant I know who would benefit from me labeling them heretic. It’s an instant dialogue stopper.

 

[Peter_J]

And so, If I were to be called a heretic by a protestant, it would mean nothing to me. That’s the point. Not whether the word has a meaning, but whether it has meaning to an individual who is labeled as one. The word has no value if it is not used in a truthful -and charitable- context. I would have trouble thinking of a protestant I know who would benefit from me labeling them heretic. It’s an instant dialogue stopper.

I take it you aren’t too keen on dialogue. When a protestant (or, more likely, an Orthodox) says that I’m a heretic, I disagree but I don’t decide that the statement doesn’t mean anything to me.

 

[clem456]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is such a wonderful gift. Following are two passages that are relevant to this discussion, and there is so much more here. It is a good starting point for basic Catholic knowledge. Heresy is discussed briefly in this section also, but no sense in beating a dead horse.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm#817

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

 

[clem456]

I take it you aren’t too keen on dialogue. When a protestant (or, more likely, an Orthodox) says that I’m a heretic, I disagree but I don’t decide that the statement doesn’t mean anything to me.

Dialogue is wonderful. Words mean things and part of dialogue is using them truthfully, charitably, in proper context. Sometimes we suck the meaning out of them when we use them out of context or in less than truthful ways. That is not dialogue.

Just to keep us on track, the issue was labelling non-Catholics as heretics, schismatics, and unworthy of heaven, and whatever else was said erroneously, not having an academic discussion with the Orthodox. Not my area of expertise.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

nonsense

1.there’s alot of ex Catholics who populate Protestant organizations. They are now Protestant, not Catholics. And Yes they are heretics and schismatics.

**2089 ***Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Re: Outside the Church, this goes for every non Catholic
846 Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, ***knowing ***that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

Please show me just one credible Church source that says it’s okay to be a Protestant, with no necessity what so ever, to be Catholic, or that their is absolutely no problem for a Catholic to leave the Catholic Church and become Protestant…

Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Augsburg Confession [the guiding document of Martin Luther] is a “Catholic” creed.

 

[Peter_J]

When a protestant (or, more likely, an Orthodox) says that I’m a heretic, I disagree but I don’t decide that the statement doesn’t mean anything to me.

I started to edit ^^ this, but then realized that there have already been responses, so I decided to make a new post.

What I said above is somewhat beside the point, namely, whether or not you can justify the statement you made on behalf of our separate brethren:

Originally Posted by clem456
The words heresy and schism are not very meaningful to separated brothers and sisters

 

[Peter_J]

Dialogue is wonderful. Words mean things and part of dialogue is using them truthfully, charitably, in proper context. Sometimes we suck the meaning out of them when we use them out of context or in less than truthful ways. That is not dialogue.

And yet, we have dialogue because we **disagree **on what statements are true.

(It’s getting pretty late where I am, but I’ll check for replies in the morning.)

 

[clem456]

I started to edit ^^ this, but then realized that there have already been responses, so I decided to make a new post.

What I said above is somewhat beside the point, namely, whether or not you can justify the statement you made on behalf of our separate brethren:

I understand what you are saying.
By “meaning” in this context, I am talking about dialogue that people can accept, and will bring people together.
The people I know who are Protestant, if labeled with the term heretic, would simply scoff, be offended, and never talk to me about the faith again. The word is meaningless to them in any usefull context. They reject it, just as I would reject it coming from them. It doesn’t apply. Orthodox? I don’t know enough to specifically address that.

 

[SteveVH]

Martin Luther as well as the rest of the early “Reformers” were all heretics because they rejected the Apostolic faith. One cannot say the same about Protestants today. Most of them have grown up with their particular faith tradition and have never known the truth present in the Catholic Church, therefore it is impossible for them to fall into heresy.

This is not to say that they may believe in heretical doctrines. But they cannot be properly called heretics. So referring to Protestants as heretics is not only divisive but erroneous.

 

[JonNC]

Hi clem. What you’re saying about heresy, in general, makes sense; but I think you misunderstand our separated brothers and sisters.

That’s not really accurate. In fact, if anything, protestants and Orthodox are more likely to apply the term “heresy” to Catholics than the other way around.

And those that do should be admonished similarly. A good Catholic believes and practices the faith taught to him/her. They see no reason to consider other communions/denominations, and in fact might consider doing so in violation of God’s will. Their hearts are in the right place.

True ecumenism must start from a premise of mutual respect, a willingness to see the Holy spirit in the eyes and hearts of the dialogue partner. Dialogue goes no where if the opening comments include, “you guys are heretics”, and “your papal office is antiChrist”.

Jon

 

[clem456]

And those that do should be admonished similarly. A good Catholic believes and practices the faith taught to him/her. They see no reason to consider other communions/denominations, and in fact might consider doing so in violation of God’s will. Their hearts are in the right place.

True ecumenism must start from a premise of mutual respect, a willingness to see the Holy spirit in the eyes and hearts of the dialogue partner. Dialogue goes no where if the opening comments include, “you guys are heretics”, and “your papal office is antiChrist”.

Jon

well said