Ecumenism: Good or Bad?

[RNRobert]

Ever since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has been committed to ecumenism. Perhaps this can be a good thing, at least in doing away with the “cold war” mentality between Catholics and other Christians that have existed since the Reformation. But what troubles me (and which bothered me even as a non-Catholic) was the sense that all too often ecumenism led to a watering down of the faith (particularly when non-Christian religions are involved).
I recall reading in Scott Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home how as a Presbyterian minister he approached one Catholic priest about converting. He was informed that “it wouldn’t be ecumenical” and that he would do more good remaining where he was. When Scott Hahn told the priest he didn’t need his arm twisted and that he wanted to convert, he was told “you won’t get any help from me.” I recall hearing a similar story from Protestant minister Ravi Zacharias. He told of his uncle (who I believe was Hindu) who wished to convert to the Catholic faith and was given a similar “it isn’t ecumenical” response. Now, these may be isolated incidents, but it seems to me to be one of the fruits of the ecumenical movement.

Christians of all stripes agree that the division in the Body of Christ is a crying scandal and flies in the face of Jesus’ prayer that all his followers be one (John 17:21). However, how is this to be achieved? As Pope Pius XI pointed out in his encyclical Mortalium Animos:

For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? For example, those who affirm, and those who deny that sacred Tradition is a true fount of divine Revelation; those who hold that an ecclesiastical hierarchy, made up of bishops, priests and ministers, has been divinely constituted, and those who assert that it has been brought in little by little in accordance with the conditions of the time; those who adore Christ really present in the Most Holy Eucharist through that marvelous conversion of the bread and wine, which is called transubstantiation, and those who affirm that Christ is present only by faith or by the signification and virtue of the Sacrament; those who in the Eucharist recognize the nature both of a sacrament and of a sacrifice, and those who say that it is nothing more than the memorial or commemoration of the Lord’s Supper; those who believe it to be good and useful to invoke by prayer the Saints reigning with Christ, especially Mary the Mother of God, and to venerate their images, and those who urge that such a veneration is not to be made use of, for it is contrary to the honor due to Jesus Christ, “the one mediator of God and men.” How so great a variety of opinions can make the way clear to effect the unity of the Church We know not; that unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians. Mortalium Animos, 9]

Even Pope John Paul II said the same thing in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint:

If they wish truly and effectively to oppose the world’s tendency to reduce to powerlessness the Mystery of Redemption, they must *profess together the same truth about the Cross *Ut Unum Sint, 1]

Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truth to the preferences of a particular age, or suppressing certain articles of the *Creed *under the false pretext that they are no longer understood today. The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, “the way, and the truth, and the life” (*Jn *14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth? The Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom *Dignitatis Humanae *attributes to human dignity the quest for truth, “especially in what concerns God and his Church”,and adherence to truth’s demands. A “being together” which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart. Ut Unum Sint, 18]

Full communion of course will have to come about through the acceptance of the whole truth into which the Holy Spirit guides Christ’s disciples. Hence all forms of reductionism or facile “agreement” must be absolutely avoided. Ut Unum Sint, 36]

The Catholic Church, both in her *praxis *and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is—in God’s plan—an essential requisite of full and visible communion. Indeed full communion, of which the Eucharist is the highest sacramental manifestation, needs to be visibly expressed in a ministry in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith. The first part of the Acts of the Apostles presents Peter as the one who speaks in the name of the apostolic group and who serves the unity of the community—all the while respecting the authority of James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem. This function of Peter must continue in the Church so that under her sole Head, who is Jesus Christ, she may be visibly present in the world as the communion of all his disciples. Ut Unum Sint, 97]

I’d like to know the thoughts of other Catholics on this forum regarding ecumenism…

 

[JeanneH]

Ever since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has been committed to ecumenism. Perhaps this can be a good thing, at least in doing away with the “cold war” mentality between Catholics and other Christians that have existed since the Reformation. But what troubles me (and which bothered me even as a non-Catholic) was the sense that all too often ecumenism led to a watering down of the faith (particularly when non-Christian religions are involved).
I recall reading in Scott Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home how as a Presbyterian minister he approached one Catholic priest about converting. He was informed that “it wouldn’t be ecumenical” and that he would do more good remaining where he was. When Scott Hahn told the priest he didn’t need his arm twisted and that he wanted to convert, he was told “you won’t get any help from me.” I recall hearing a similar story from Protestant minister Ravi Zacharias. He told of his uncle (who I believe was Hindu) who wished to convert to the Catholic faith and was given a similar “it isn’t ecumenical” response. Now, these may be isolated incidents, but it seems to me to be one of the fruits of the ecumenical movement.

Christians of all stripes agree that the division in the Body of Christ is a crying scandal and flies in the face of Jesus’ prayer that all his followers be one (John 17:21). However, how is this to be achieved? As Pope Pius XI pointed out in his encyclical Mortalium Animos:
Even Pope John Paul II said the same thing in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint:

I’d like to know the thoughts of other Catholics on this forum regarding ecumenism…

I am probably the only Catholic who thinks this way but here goes—
I was raised in the Catholic school system and was taught that only catholics went to heaven. I was told to stay out of Protestant churches under pain of sin. Old habits are hard to break. I was surprised to read in the CCC that all people can get to heaven no matter what they believe. What I read there seemed to me anyway, that there were all kinds of loop holes for non catholics to get into heaven. I am told now that it is “easier” for catholics to get into heaven. Christ wanted one church and to me it is the Catholic church.

Just my thoughts for what they are worth.
Jeanne

 

[Robbinson]

I'd like to know the thoughts of other Catholics on this forum regarding ecumenism...

I’m not Catholic, but I believe that ecumenism is a good thing, with the caveat that we (on either side of the debate) should not compromise the “gospel” in that endeavor.

Jesus prayed for “unity” in the body of Christ - although not “uniformity”. The core doctrines of the Christian faith are shared (at least on a macro level) by the Catholic Church and most protestant denonminations.

We, as collective members of the invisible Church (body of Christ) spend too much time fighting (sometimes tragically to the death) over what divides us on collateral issues of doctrine (which are not salvation issues) when we should be focusing on the core doctrines which unite us. This doesn’t mean we should stop debate, attempt at correction and teaching - but this should be done with love and with patience and with the spirit of Christians talking with Christians.

I am not a member of the Catholic Church - but respect the Church’s doctrines (although I do not agree with all of them) - I’m happy to call “true believers” within the Catholic Church “Christians” and brothers/sisters in Christ, as I do to “true believers” within any Protestant denomination. Sadly, but realistically, a large majority of people nominally within each denomination (Catholic or otherwise) are not believers, buth christian (lowercase c) by birth.

We don’t find salvation through ritual alone - it starts with faith. Fortunately, that is a doctrine and belief shared by the Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[RNRobert]

I am probably the only Catholic who thinks this way but here goes—
I was raised in the Catholic school system and was taught that only catholics went to heaven. I was told to stay out of Protestant churches under pain of sin. Old habits are hard to break. I was surprised to read in the CCC that all people can get to heaven no matter what they believe. What I read there seemed to me anyway, that there were all kinds of loop holes for non catholics to get into heaven. I am told now that it is “easier” for catholics to get into heaven. Christ wanted one church and to me it is the Catholic church.

Just my thoughts for what they are worth.
Jeanne

C.S. Lewis (an Anglican, not Catholic) said that just because he believed Christianity to be true didn’t mean other religions were completely false- he would think Christianity odd if that were the case.

I agree with Lewis in that all religions contain some form of truth, and that non-Christians who sincerely seek God and do what is right can be saved. But I don’t agree that all religions are equal.

 

[Brooklyn]

I am probably the only Catholic who thinks this way but here goes—
I was raised in the Catholic school system and was taught that only catholics went to heaven. I was told to stay out of Protestant churches under pain of sin. Old habits are hard to break. I was surprised to read in the CCC that all people can get to heaven no matter what they believe. What I read there seemed to me anyway, that there were all kinds of loop holes for non catholics to get into heaven. I am told now that it is “easier” for catholics to get into heaven. Christ wanted one church and to me it is the Catholic church.

Just my thoughts for what they are worth.
Jeanne

This is a fascinating subject, and I hope a lot of people respond because I would love to hear different opinions on this subject.

Before I give my opinion, though, I would like to respond to Jeanne’s post. I remember being taught also as a child that only Catholics go to heaven. I don’t know if that was the official church teaching then, but I believe that Saint Faustina and the teaching of Divine Mercy has taught us so much more than that. I do believe with my whole heart that the complete teaching of Christ is contained in the Catholic Church, and it is not to be found anywhere else. All other Christian churches have only partial truth at best. But we also know that our God is a God of love and mercy, and that He calls to all. Saint Faustina taught us that his mercy is available to all, and in fact, his mercy goes first to the greatest sinner.

HOWEVER, that does not mean that everyone gets to heaven no matter what they believe. The Apostle Paul says emphatically that it is only through Christ that we are saved. To “get to heaven” we must profess Christ. Not everyone has the same knowledge of Christ, so everyone’s profession will not be the same. But in some way or another, we must profess Christ. And because we have free will, we can refuse to do this, and there will be those who have and will refuse. You can’t believe in witchcraft or paganism, and refuse Christ, and think you will be saved. It just doesn’t work that way.

As far as Ecumenism is concerned, if that means reaching out to those outside of our Church, that can only be a good thing. We see the life of Christ and how he constantly reached out to non-believers. In fact, that was all there was in his time. But I don’t understand how a priest could have told Scott Hahn to stay where he was - not come into the Church that has the Blessed Sacrament?!! It only makes sense that we would want all to become part of the Catholic Church because we have the full truth of the Gospel. From one who was away from the Church most of my life, spending years in Protestant land, it is like coming in from the cold. It’s like I’ve been eating crumbs all my life, and now there is a 12 course meal in front of me. The richness of the Catholic Church is overwhelming at times.

A priest I know who recently celebrated 40 years in his vocation told us that he saw many priests who were ashamed of the Catholic Church and wanted to make their Chuches more Protestant like, hence getting rid of communion rails, statues, etc. If that is what Ecumenism is, then I have no use for it.

We can certainly never condemn other Christian churches for their belief, but we should never let go of the beauty of the Catholic Church. It is such a wonderful gift from God.

Mary

 

[RNRobert]

I’m not Catholic, but I believe that ecumenism is a good thing, with the caveat that we (on either side of the debate) should not compromise the “gospel” in that endeavor.

Jesus prayed for “unity” in the body of Christ - although not “uniformity”. The core doctrines of the Christian faith are shared (at least on a macro level) by the Catholic Church and most protestant denonminations.

We, as collective members of the invisible Church (body of Christ) spend too much time fighting (sometimes tragically to the death) over what divides us on collateral issues of doctrine (which are not salvation issues) when we should be focusing on the core doctrines which unite us. This doesn’t mean we should stop debate, attempt at correction and teaching - but this should be done with love and with patience and with the spirit of Christians talking with Christians.

I am not a member of the Catholic Church - but respect the Church’s doctrines (although I do not agree with all of them) - I’m happy to call “true believers” within the Catholic Church “Christians” and brothers/sisters in Christ, as I do to “true believers” within any Protestant denomination. Sadly, but realistically, a large majority of people nominally within each denomination (Catholic or otherwise) are not believers, buth christian (lowercase c) by birth.

We don’t find salvation through ritual alone - it starts with faith. Fortunately, that is a doctrine and belief shared by the Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations.

Blessings,

Brian

Brian,

The problem is, we are not to be an “invisible body” but a “city on a hill.” How can we witness to an unbelieving world when we cannot agree on what the faith should teach?

Some will say, “We disagree on the non-essentials but agree on the essentials.” But what is “essential” and what is “non-essential?” Does baptism provide real grace or is it merely a symbol? Is Jesus really present and the Eucharist or is it a mere memorial supper?

As Frank Duff wrote concerning Catholic doctrine:

It is, that if you meddle with one thing in it, you find you are interfering with nearly everything. I quote a little verse, here particularly apt:

Pluck one thread and the web ye mar;

Break but one of a thousand keys and the paining jar

Through all will run.

If you distort the system at one point, you throw the whole lot out of line.

This is what the Protestant “Reformers” did- Cherry-pick the Faith to suit their preferences, which is why Protestantism fractured from the outset and why it continues to unravel to this day.

In the book Surprised by Truth, Al Kresta writes how he and some others founded a non-denominational church based on C.S. Lewis’s ‘Mere Christianity’ but realized that this only takes you so far (I don’t have the book at hand presently so I can’t give you the whole quote).

 

[Sword_Brethren]

I think ecumenism is bad and that it has really hurt the Catholic Church.

 

[RNRobert]

Hi Mary!

You make some good points. I came to believe in Christ before I became a Catholic. I felt that the church Jesus and his apostles founded must still be around, but which one? There were so many sects out there teaching opposing things- which one is correct? In dealing with one’s eternal salvation, you do not want to take half-measures or be led astray. I became Catholic because it is the Church Christ founded and contains the fullness of the faith.
And it breaks my heart when I see Catholic leaders watering down the faith or trying to be more Protestant.

 

[Brooklyn]

Hi Mary!

You make some good points. I came to believe in Christ before I became a Catholic. I felt that the church Jesus and his apostles founded must still be around, but which one? There were so many sects out there teaching opposing things- which one is correct? In dealing with one’s eternal salvation, you do not want to take half-measures or be led astray. I became Catholic because it is the Church Christ founded and contains the fullness of the faith.
And it breaks my heart when I see Catholic leaders watering down the faith or trying to be more Protestant.

I agree with you. Ecumenism is a great thing if it means sharing our beautiful religion, but like so many things after Vatican II, it hasn’t always worked out that way. For those Catholics who are trying to be more Protestant, I find that to be like having the Hope Diamond and trading it in for a beautiful piece of cut glass. I don’t mean to put down any Protestants, because I know from personal experience that there are many devout Protestants who truly love Our Lord. But we have the Blessed Sacrament, and there is nothing in the universe worth more than that. We have 2000 years of history, some bad, yes, but we also have spiritual giants who have given us so much down through the centuries.

It’s hard to tell Protestants how beautiful our religion is, though, when so many Catholics don’t even know it.

Mary

 

[JonNC]

I'd like to know the thoughts of other Catholics on this forum regarding ecumenism...

RNRobert,
I’ll not post a comment, as you asked the question of Catholics, but I am quite curious about what individual Catholics think of ecumenism, so I appreciate the thread.

Carry on,
Jon

 

[Robbinson]

Brian,

The problem is, we are not to be an “invisible body” but a “city on a hill.” How can we witness to an unbelieving world when we cannot agree on what the faith should teach?

Some will say, “We disagree on the non-essentials but agree on the essentials.” But what is “essential” and what is “non-essential?” Does baptism provide real grace or is it merely a symbol? Is Jesus really present and the Eucharist or is it a mere memorial supper?

As Frank Duff wrote concerning Catholic doctrine:

This is what the Protestant “Reformers” did- Cherry-pick the Faith to suit their preferences, which is why Protestantism fractured from the outset and why it continues to unravel to this day.

In the book Surprised by Truth, Al Kresta writes how he and some others founded a non-denominational church based on C.S. Lewis’s ‘Mere Christianity’ but realized that this only takes you so far (I don’t have the book at hand presently so I can’t give you the whole quote).

Thanks RNR:

I recognize this is a Catholic forum - but the key is your “starting point”. If the Catholic Church is the “Church” (the city on the Hill), then you are correct. But there are two significant difficulties with this assertion:

1. The original church (as described in the gospels and in Acts) is one that celebrated its Jewish roots (Jesus and all 12 apostles -and Paul were all Jews who came to faith and in the earliest years of the Church, they even continued to attend synagogue). Indeed, the early Church was so attached to its “Jewish roots” that there was a debate (recorded in Acts) as to whehter Gentile believers would have to become Jews to be Christian. That was resolved with a “no” - but you get the idea.

Now what evolved into the “Catholic Church” (which Church history shows us, in fact, was a bit of a battle among doctrines with even several acknowledeged early Church Fathers ultimately falling away and being disavowed), ultimately became more and more “pagen” like (I’m not saying pagen - but pagen like) with such a divorce from the Jewish roots of the faith that it became outright “antisemtic” over time. If you read the writings of some of the greatest “early Church fathers” regarding the Jews - you just have to cringe. This can’t be the “Church” that Jesus spoke of - the Jews (while supernaturally blinded - untilt the full alotment of Gentiles comes in) are Jesus bretheren - Paul prayed for them. The Catholic Church is getting better on this issue since Vatican II (thank God) - but there has been almost 2,000 years of apostacy on this significant issue.

1. The History of the Catholic Church (including at the highest levels (including many popes) has been one of terrible persecution of those viewed as heretical. The crucades, popes disintering bodies of prior popes, burning Protestants at the stake. I know the Protestant’s haven’t been much better - but this shows us that no one “denomination” is the “Church”, but rather it is the remnant of believers. Just as it was and is with Israel - there has always been a “remnant”. That is why Jesus says broad is the path to destruction, and narrow is the gate. This is also why there are 7 churches in the book of revelation - all different (not one Catholic Church) - yet there were “believers” in each (with varying numbers/percentages of apostosay among them).

I almost became Catholic - I want to believe in apostolic succession and authority - it would be “easier” - but the doctrine and behavior of the Church does not support it.

That being said, I have tremendous admiration for the believers within the Catholic Church and the power of the liturgy.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[RNRobert]

Brian,

I agree that Catholics have not always lived the Gospel fully (but I disagree that the Church apostasized- Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church- plus it seems that those sects who claim to be “the faithful remnant” usually have some bizarre doctrines).
However, if you read the NT, you can see that false teaching is condemned severely. Now, it is ludicrous to call something false unless you have an idea of what is true. If the Catholic Church is THE Church (and I believe it is), then it has the right and duty to protect its flock from the ravening wolves. This is why apostolic succession is necessary- if there is a debate on doctrine, there has to be an ultimate arbiter- in Protestantism, you can find one sect using Scripture to teach one doctrine and another sect will use the same Bible to teach the exact opposite. They can’t both be right- or doesn’t doctrine matter? If it doesn’t, then we might as well throw away the Bible and just hold hands and sing ‘kumbayah’ (which it seems many churches these days seem to have devolved into).

 

[RNRobert]

RNRobert,
I’ll not post a comment, as you asked the question of Catholics, but I am quite curious about what individual Catholics think of ecumenism, so I appreciate the thread.

Carry on,
Jon

Just curious, what is your opinion of the ecumenical movement?

 

[Robbinson]

Brian,

I agree that Catholics have not always lived the Gospel fully (but I disagree that the Church apostasized- Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church- plus it seems that those sects who claim to be “the faithful remnant” usually have some bizarre doctrines).
However, if you read the NT, you can see that false teaching is condemned severely. Now, it is ludicrous to call something false unless you have an idea of what is true. If the Catholic Church is THE Church (and I believe it is), then it has the right and duty to protect its flock from the ravening wolves. This is why apostolic succession is necessary- if there is a debate on doctrine, there has to be an ultimate arbiter- in Protestantism, you can find one sect using Scripture to teach one doctrine and another sect will use the same Bible to teach the exact opposite. They can’t both be right- or doesn’t doctrine matter? If it doesn’t, then we might as well throw away the Bible and just hold hands and sing ‘kumbayah’ (which it seems many churches these days seem to have devolved into).

RNR

I appreciate that - but if one takes the view that the “Church” referred to in scripture as withstanding the gates of hell is an “institution” - then that institution must live up to the teachings of the gospel and I don’t think we can say that, and then ignore or dismiss what has clearly been significant straying from the teachings of the gospel and the NT at the highest levels of the “Church” as irrelevant.

As to the teaching - is it not plausable to you that the barometer against which we are to test teaching is scripture (the teachings of the apostles who were given authority by Christ) rather than the Church as an institution? Its interesting that in Acts 17:11, the Bereans were noted and complimented for their testing of Paul’s teaching against the scriptures (not for testing his teachings against the traditions or teachings of Peter or the “church”). ***“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”) ***

That being said, I agree with you re: the dangers of everyone claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit, yet reaching different conclusions on doctrine. But perhaps it is significant that even among Protestant denominations - there seems to be commonality around the “core doctrines of faith” (e.g., agreement with the principles of the nicene and apostles creeds) - the “fighting” about doctrine of rapture, infant v. adult baptism, etc are interesting - but not defining.

For the record - I do believe in the real presence of the Eucharist because I believe it is taught in scripture. I believe that baptism is a sign of obedience to Christ (his commanded it) and that all her are “saved” will desire it.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[RNRobert]

RNR

I appreciate that - but if one takes the view that the “Church” referred to in scripture as withstanding the gates of hell is an “institution” - then that institution must live up to the teachings of the gospel and I don’t think we can say that, and then ignore or dismiss what has clearly been significant straying from the teachings of the gospel and the NT at the highest levels of the “Church” as irrelevant.

As to the teaching - is it not plausable to you that the barometer against which we are to test teaching is scripture (the teachings of the apostles who were given authority by Christ) rather than the Church as an institution? Its interesting that in Acts 17:11, the Bereans were noted and complimented for their testing of Paul’s teaching against the scriptures (not for testing his teachings against the traditions or teachings of Peter or the “church”). ***“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”) ***

That being said, I agree with you re: the dangers of everyone claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit, yet reaching different conclusions on doctrine. But perhaps it is significant that even among Protestant denominations - there seems to be commonality around the “core doctrines of faith” (e.g., agreement with the principles of the nicene and apostles creeds) - the “fighting” about doctrine of rapture, infant v. adult baptism, etc are interesting - but not defining.

For the record - I do believe in the real presence of the Eucharist because I believe it is taught in scripture. I believe that baptism is a sign of obedience to Christ (his commanded it) and that all her are “saved” will desire it.

Blessings,

Brian

If I was to pick a church solely on which one never failed to live up to the Gospel, I’d probably have remained an agnostic because ALL have fallen short at one time or another (and I do not believe the Catholic Church strayed in doctrine.
Regarding the Bereans, they were simply seeing if Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies as Paul claimed. Keep in mind that when the the Church was born there was no NT, and the Church was in business for at least a decade before any of the NT waas written, several decades before the last of it was written, and a couple centuries before the NT canon was settled. The Bible can’t interpret itself, it needs a living interpreter.

 

[JonNC]

Just curious, what is your opinion of the ecumenical movement?

Happy you asked.
I am a strong believer in ecumenism, because I believe the best use of energy for unity is in corporate reconciliation. I believe Pope John Paul II expressed similar feelings.
I give thanks to God for the leadership of the Catholic Church in this area since Vatican II.

I believe it is quite possible for dialogue, guided by the Holy Spirit, to bring us to expressions of the truth that we can agree on. I also trust our leaders and yours to dialogue in such a way as to defend and preserve truth, not water it down for unity’s sake (a false ecumenism), but to find true convergence.

Christ calls us to be one, and as a reformationist, I believe the Reformation is incomplete without reconciliation, answering His call.

Jon

 

[John_Larocque]

There can be no ecumenism unless there is a unity of faith. Talks with churches of the Reformation are largely a waste of time. Anglican Holy orders are not valid. A false ecumenism (aligning the Church liturgy to Protestantism) resulted in the demolition of the ancient and venerable Latin rite of the church.

Here is the future Pope Benedict XVI wishing the mass reformers had never abandonned celebrating “ad orientem”.

adoremus.org/0500-Ratzinger.html

And here is an article of the impact on relations with the Eastern Orthodox churches.
renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/060629

catholicism.org/latin-mass-orthodox.html

“We strongly adhere to tradition,” Patriarch Alexei said in an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Giornale. “The recovery and honoring of an ancient liturgical tradition is a development that we can welcome.”

 

[JeanneH]

HOWEVER, that does not mean that everyone gets to heaven no matter what they believe. The Apostle Paul says emphatically that it is only through Christ that we are saved. To “get to heaven” we must profess Christ. Not everyone has the same knowledge of Christ, so everyone’s profession will not be the same. But in some way or another, we must profess Christ. And because we have free will, we can refuse to do this, and there will be those who have and will refuse. You can’t believe in witchcraft or paganism, and refuse Christ, and think you will be saved. It just doesn’t work that way.

I think it does mean that everyone can get to heaven no matter what they believe in as long as it is not the devil.

I think the CCC provides loop holes. Open your CCC and start reading from Paragraph 846. It may be easier for Catholics to get into heaven because of the sacraments but every one has a chance. At least that is how I read this.
Jeanne

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Ever since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has been committed to ecumenism. Perhaps this can be a good thing, at least in doing away with the “cold war” mentality between Catholics and other Christians that have existed since the Reformation. But what troubles me (and which bothered me even as a non-Catholic) was the sense that all too often ecumenism led to a watering down of the faith (particularly when non-Christian religions are involved).
I recall reading in Scott Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home how as a Presbyterian minister he approached one Catholic priest about converting. He was informed that “it wouldn’t be ecumenical” and that he would do more good remaining where he was. When Scott Hahn told the priest he didn’t need his arm twisted and that he wanted to convert, he was told “you won’t get any help from me.” I recall hearing a similar story from Protestant minister Ravi Zacharias. He told of his uncle (who I believe was Hindu) who wished to convert to the Catholic faith and was given a similar “it isn’t ecumenical” response. Now, these may be isolated incidents, but it seems to me to be one of the fruits of the ecumenical movement.

Christians of all stripes agree that the division in the Body of Christ is a crying scandal and flies in the face of Jesus’ prayer that all his followers be one (John 17:21). However, how is this to be achieved? As Pope Pius XI pointed out in his encyclical Mortalium Animos:
Even Pope John Paul II said the same thing in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint:

I’d like to know the thoughts of other Catholics on this forum regarding ecumenism…

JP2 could hardly complain of indifferentism - he was the Pope who​

• convened that ghastly Assisi abomination in 1986
• claimed that the Orthodox are [the] “other lung” of the Church
• arranged the Balamand Declaration
• brought an end to evangelising the Jews

And he complained of indifferentism With him to confuse people as to what was Catholic & what not, of course people were - and are ! - confused. When the shepherd is useless, the flock will be unhealthy: what else is to be expected ???

 

[StrawberryJam]

What is the Assisi abomination?

I have to look all this stuff up because it sounds very frieghtening.