Ecumenism: Good or Bad?

[Filioque]

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.

Brian:

I don’t blame all the Germans for what the Nazis did to some of my family during the Second World War. I don’t blame the Spanish people for what happened in 1492. I don’t blame the Catholic Church for what some Catholics have done in history. Nor do I hold Lutherans, Baptists or other Protestant Churches for the abuse that members of the various groups have done to Jews over the years. I do however understand that the culture of anti-semetism which has existed from the pre-chrisitan era, while that culture has influenced Christians of all stripes. As a Jew who converted to the Catholic Church, I can also find those who have showed great love and compassion to Jews, not just during the Second World War, (some of my family would not have escaped Europe without the help of Catholic prelates who supplied forged documents to them) Others died, at the hands of people who may have claimed to be Catholics, Protestants and National Socialists. So I find it offensive to brand the Catholic Church with the burden of ill treatment to Jews, and ignore the Anti-Semetic culture that has existed for generations prior to Christianity, and among non-Catholics.

I would suggest that you find copies of “The Bridge”, just one example of Catholic-Jewish dialogue done in the 1920’s to the 1940’s (prior to Vatican II), In reading the four volumes you will see examples throughout the history of the Church of Catholic philosophers and theologians, Popes and Saints who have encouraged the inheritance of Catholic Belief and Practice that is derived from our Forefathers.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What is the Assisi abomination?

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

There was a get-together in 1986, of lots of different religions.​

---

From the Vatican website:

• **To the Representatives of the Christian Churches and Ecclesial Communities and of the World Religions for the World Day of Prayer in Assisi (October 27, 1986)
  **English, Italian]
• Ecumenical Prayer with the Representatives of other Christian Churches and Ecclesial Communities at the Cathedral of St Rufino in Assisi (October 27, 1986)
  English, Italian]
• **To the Representatives of the Christian Churches and Ecclesial Communities and of the World Religions for the World Day of Prayer at the Basilica of St Francis in Assisi (October 27, 1986)
  **English, Italian]

** From**

• [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/travels/sub_index1986/trav_perugia-assisi.htm (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/travels/sub_index1986/trav_perugia-assisi.htm)

From the Sant’Egidio site:

• [http://www.santegidio.org/it/ecumenismo/uer/1986/papa.htm (http://www.santegidio.org/it/ecumenismo/uer/1986/papa.htm)

And there was this in November:

• [http://www.zenit.org/article-18214?l=english (http://www.zenit.org/article-18214?l=english)

And:

Vittori Messori, a writer who interviewed John Paul II and edited a book based on that contact, told the Italian newspaper La Stampa recently that Benedict was settling scores with the Franciscans over a “carnival-like” interfaith meeting they hosted in 1986. Voodoo priests, American Indian dancers and African animists took part.

The event “cannot be the model” for ecumenical dialogue, the future pope said at the time. He was then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican office in charge of defending orthodoxy.

• [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/28/AR2005112801707_2.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/28/AR2005112801707_2.html)

To read the last item, one would never guess that JP2 had been responsible for it I remember it

As the event pre-dated the age of computing, finding contemporary reports of it at short notice is difficult. It was truly frightful The SSPX have a good report on it which does not ignore the doctrinal vandalism in the name of a mushy lovey-doveyness (which is what too many “official” reports indulge in ) - so, some mush:

• [CR Meyer Manpower Planner (CR Meyer Manpower Planner)

Read also:

• [Against The Grain (Against The Grain)

It wasn’t frightening - merely an unbelievable **scandal. Mgr. Lefebvre was ten times the Catholic JP2 was. I’ve often thought he did the right thing to cut loose from Rome. I hate even thinking of it. When I think of how the English Martyrs were tortured, burned alive, hanged & disembowelled alive, hanged, decapitated, imprisoned, exiled, all because they would not be persuaded to adopt the Christianity of Protestants, no matter how great the inducements - when I think of what they went through, when all they had to do was find a form of words to give the impression that they were not changing what they believed so as to avoid trouble; & when I remember that the Protestants showed similar courage, when they could have saved their lives - then one sees how appalling this papal betrayal was He as good as spat on their graves. Elizabeth & her Catholic sister were at least both Christians: but the animists at Assisi were not Christians, any more than Buddhists or others present at it. **

---

**Why should anyone care for Papal authority, when JP2 destroyed the basis for it ? Papal authority is not given so that Popes may scandalise the faithful, spit on the Faith, sow indifferentism, & dishonour the Martyrs **

 

[StrawberryJam]

Oh wow. Thanks for all the information Gottle of Geer.

Yes, it does make me wonder about the martyrs. I think the bible even says they keep crying out to God for it to all be done. I can see why they do now.

I’ll have to go over these links without distractions.

Confusing stuff going on and mixed messages it sounds like. Sad.

 

[Peter_J]

I am probably the only Catholic who thinks this way

I’m not sure what you mean by that.

There’s definitely a much higher concentration of “Traditionalist Catholics” on CAF than in the Catholic Church overall; still “Traditionalist Catholics” don’t by any means account for 100% of the Catholic posters here.

 

[Peter_J]

A little off topic, but all this talk of the Assisi gathering makes me think of this cartoon.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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

i take this is a surprise to me coming from you. if you know the history of the Jews, you well compare with the CC. there were times that jews obey the Lord and there were times jews went away from God. did many things to dishoner God. take David for instance. a man after God’s own heart, ended up commiting a horrible crime. Solomon is another example. and so many others more. the CC is a continuation of judaism and that is why we have all the rituals. Jesus gave us all the Tradition for a reason. it separates us from the world. a city on the Hill. a light to the world. for 2000 years keeping the Truth alive and well according to the promise of Christ Himself. if anyone goes out of her, he no longer have security of the Truth. for the promise was only for the Church that begin preaching the Gospel. out of her no one has authority. anyone can pick up a Bible and preach whatever they wish. they can make themselves bishops, pastors, and so forth. judge for yourself, if you are a jew you know really well that is not like this in judaism. just because martin luther left the Church with the Bible, it does not mean he has any authority whatsoever. he formed his own religion, it is called easy to all. Read and claim. in no where in hte Bible Jesus intended such a thing. not then, and not today. the teachings of Jesus in His Church are protected by Christ Himself. it would be ridiculous and presumptious to think that no one in the Church would not commit any wrong or sin along the way. guilty are those who condemned those who commits sins and leave to form their own religions assuming they are much better.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

A little off topic, but all this talk of the Assisi gathering makes me think of this cartoon.

Very appropriate - and quite likely.​

 

[Robbinson]

i take this is a surprise to me coming from you. if you know the history of the Jews, you well compare with the CC. there were times that jews obey the Lord and there were times jews went away from God. did many things to dishoner God. take David for instance. a man after God’s own heart, ended up commiting a horrible crime. Solomon is another example. and so many others more. the CC is a continuation of judaism and that is why we have all the rituals. Jesus gave us all the Tradition for a reason. it separates us from the world. a city on the Hill. a light to the world. for 2000 years keeping the Truth alive and well according to the promise of Christ Himself. if anyone goes out of her, he no longer have security of the Truth. for the promise was only for the Church that begin preaching the Gospel. out of her no one has authority. anyone can pick up a Bible and preach whatever they wish. they can make themselves bishops, pastors, and so forth. judge for yourself, if you are a jew you know really well that is not like this in judaism. just because martin luther left the Church with the Bible, it does not mean he has any authority whatsoever. he formed his own religion, it is called easy to all. Read and claim. in no where in hte Bible Jesus intended such a thing. not then, and not today. the teachings of Jesus in His Church are protected by Christ Himself. it would be ridiculous and presumptious to think that no one in the Church would not commit any wrong or sin along the way. guilty are those who condemned those who commits sins and leave to form their own religions assuming they are much better.

This is an interesting perspective - thanks for the post.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[thirdn6]

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

Hi Jon,

It’s me again…
Question: What is this ‘true converging’ you are speaking of:newidea:? Would you care to elaborate?
I believe we are called to ‘unite’ and NOT to ‘converge(?)’.

For, to me, to unite is that all parties shall bring everything out in the open and discard what is not acceptable.
To converge, is like… there’s something left hidden. It’s like we shall only be working on what is currently presented on the table. It’s like… it’s not important to you who we are and who you are to us as long as we agree on something NOT everything. I don’t know…

If that’s the case, we’re like two tangent lines always going around a circle only intersecting (converging) at some point and not really achieving a common endpoint where we can be joined together.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Hi Jon,

It’s me again…
Question: What is this ‘true converging’ you are speaking of:newidea:? Would you care to elaborate?
I believe we are called to ‘unite’ and NOT to ‘converge(?)’.

For, to me, to unite is that all parties shall bring everything out in the open and discard what is not acceptable.
To converge, is like… there’s something left hidden. It’s like we shall only be working on what is currently presented on the table. It’s like… it’s not important to you who we are and who you are to us as long as we agree on something NOT everything. I don’t know…

If that’s the case, we’re like two tangent lines always going around a circle only intersecting (converging) at some point and not really achieving a common endpoint where we can be joined together.

It seems there is a lot of hope if you look at the actual big guys talking together.
If you look at exchanges here, it’s no wonder you would worry about that.

I think theologians would have it together by now if there were not so much financial and political pressures for them to consider.

Not everyone is an Athanasius.

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is an interesting perspective - thanks for the post.

Blessings,

Brian

The time is coming," declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” (Jer 31:31)

and Jesus came and established His Covenant with His people, it is the Church, the new Israel, at the Last Supper.

Jesus said: " and you are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."

God has never abandoned His people. He has never broken His Covenant. the Church is here and she will be untill the ends of time. this is not about people who left the Church to follow their own theological believes. it does not matter who leaves, the Church is always intacted and free from stain despite of some people sins. it is important to stay in the Church Jesus found.

St Paul says: “if any man wants to leave, let him. for who knows if he will ever be saved.”

:byzsoc:

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

It’s me again…
Question: What is this ‘true converging’ you are speaking of:newidea:? Would you care to elaborate?
I believe we are called to ‘unite’ and NOT to ‘converge(?)’.

Hi, you again!!
How can we unite without first coming together?

converge:

1. meet: to reach the same point coming from different directions
   the place where the roads converge
2. become the same: to become gradually less different and eventually the same
   rapidly converging political parties

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

That’s what I mean by converge.

For, to me, to unite is that all parties shall bring everything out in the open and discard what is not acceptable.
To converge, is like… there’s something left hidden. It’s like we shall only be working on what is currently presented on the table. It’s like… it’s not important to you who we are and who you are to us as long as we agree on something NOT everything. I don’t know…

Unity will follow a coming together - agreeing on those divergent points that are Church dividing. My understanding of convergence is nothing like you state here. We cannot unite without completely knowing each other, in mutual respect and charity.

Jon

 

[Robbinson]

The time is coming," declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” (Jer 31:31)

and Jesus came and established His Covenant with His people, it is the Church, the new Israel, at the Last Supper.

Jesus said: " and you are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."

God has never abandoned His people. He has never broken His Covenant. the Church is here and she will be untill the ends of time. this is not about people who left the Church to follow their own theological believes. it does not matter who leaves, the Church is always intacted and free from stain despite of some people sins. it is important to stay in the Church Jesus found.

St Paul says: “if any man wants to leave, let him. for who knows if he will ever be saved.”

:byzsoc:

Thank you. My intellectually honest response to this must be that I am “unsure”. I’ll have to continue to pray about it and study the scriptures (and catechism).

I’m remain troubled by the “replacement theology” elements of the Catholic doctrine of “new Israel” as scripture suggests the covenants with Abraham (and the Jews, as a collectively, not individually) are unconditional. Paul talks about the ultimate return of the Jews to faith in Christ after the full allotment of Gentiles comes in - Zechariah suggests the same thing. “Israel”, when referred to in scripture, never refers to the “Church” - but refers to the nation of israel (jews) so the theological conclusion that the Church is the “new Israel” is an argument of “tradition” more than “scripture”. This led to the Church failing to recognize the existance of Israel as a nation until 1994 (that was sad) - even though its rebirth in a day was clearly a fulfillment of prophecy in Isaiah and part of God’s salvation plan.

Jesus said he would not return until the leadership of Israel (the nation of Israel as a people) call upon him and say blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.

So - something was awry in the Church’s thinking and doctrine (at least pre-Vatican II - and the vestige through 1994 before reluctantly recognizing Israel). While the Church’s current teaching is much more scriptural on the role of Israel (thank God), that “straying” gives me pause regarding the doctrine of infallibililty (one Church, etc).

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Peter_J]

wisdomseeker and Robbinson,

So that we are all on the same page before proceeding, what are the chapter and verse numbers for “if any man wants to leave, let him. for who knows if he will ever be saved”?

 

[Robbinson]

wisdomseeker and Robbinson,

So that we are all on the same page before proceeding, what are the chapter and verse numbers for “if any man wants to leave, let him. for who knows if he will ever be saved”?

I guess that is really a question for wisdomseeker as that quote was in widsomseeker’s reply to me. I can’t think of a verse that says that (or anything like that), though it wasn’t relevant to the issue we were exchanging on so I did not comment on it.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Newbie2]

I am probably the only Catholic who thinks this way but here goes—
I was surprised to read in the CCC that all people can get to heaven no matter what they believe.
Jeanne

I’d be surprised to read that too, since that’s not what it says.

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

Sure, everyone has a chance, but if they believe something contrary to the Gospel message, and although the Almighty is the authority on this question, it would seem they’ll have an awful tough time.

What the CCC is addressing is that there are some people who have been misinformed or not informed at all about God and his plan of salvation through Jesus Christ, and through no fault of their own, have not received proper catechesis. Call it a “loophole” if you want, but the Catholic Church has come to explain how non-Catholics can achieve salvation…but it certainly isn’t “no matter what they believe”.

 

[Newbie2]

In terms of ecumenism, I think whether it’s “good” or “bad” depends on how it’s defined and applied, sort of like the political term “bipartisan”. Some would have it mean, as long as you agree with my side, bipartisanship and ecumenism are good things. If you disagree, it’s a bad thing. That’s not the proper understanding of ecumenism.

Properly defined and applied, I think it’s fine and good, when we all try to understand the Lord as he intended, free from error.

 

[Peter_J]

I guess that is really a question for wisdomseeker as that quote was in widsomseeker’s reply to me.

Good point.

 

[thirdn6]

Hi, you again!!
How can we unite without first coming together?

That’s what I mean by converge.

Unity will follow a coming together - agreeing on those divergent points that are Church dividing. My understanding of convergence is nothing like you state here. We cannot unite without completely knowing each other, in mutual respect and charity.

Jon

Ok. Maybe we see it differently but I’m quite certain that unity will not occur from mere convergence. It cannot be seen as unity or oneness of our faiths. That is, the doctrines of the Catholic Church mixed up with protestant doctrines in your church is impossible. I still hold to what I have stated before… your ‘convergence’ may bring us to knowing each other’s teachings better but the fruit of that dialogue should and must only result to one thing- either refusal or conversion.

You know fully well what the Catholic Church teaches, “…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… “. Of ‘ecclesial communities’… and the exception to that saying- which is, the big “invincible ignorance”.

I remember you were having second thoughts before about your faith. Actually, that was not too long ago. I was saddened to learn you have decided to remain as Lutheran.

(Analogy You didn’t climb aboard when you knew there was that old dilapidated bus came by to give you a lift. Yes, she may look too old and dilapidated but surely and slowly, like the energizer bunny, she keeps on going and going and going. You probably think you can still catch up when your bus route converge with hers somewhere down the road. But again, they may or they may not. And if they do converge there is only one thing you can really do- that is, to transfer and be on board. You know fully well where then that bus takes you.
You know fully well where the Catholic Church takes you.

I know you have good intentions but your seeming resistance only sends confusing (and may even be wrong) signals to your fellow Lutherans and other Christians. How about them? The children? How about those people in your community? Will you be the cause for them to be deprived of the true Eucharist? Or will you be the cause for them to be brought in and we’ll be all ONE big Catholic family professing ONE faith?

I believe many among my fellow Catholics pray that may it never be too late for every brother or a sister to come home… I pray that you’ll be one among them, soon…:hug1:
:console::hug3:

 

[JonNC]

Ok. Maybe we see it differently but I’m quite certain that unity will not occur from mere convergence. It cannot be seen as unity or oneness of our faiths. That is, the doctrines of the Catholic Church mixed up with protestant doctrines in your church is impossible. I still hold to what I have stated before… your ‘convergence’ may bring us to knowing each other’s teachings better but the fruit of that dialogue should and must only result to one thing- either refusal or conversion.

You know fully well what the Catholic Church teaches, “…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… “. Of ‘ecclesial communities’… and the exception to that saying- which is, the big “invincible ignorance”.

I remember you were having second thoughts before about your faith. Actually, that was not too long ago. I was saddened to learn you have decided to remain as Lutheran.

(Analogy You didn’t climb aboard when you knew there was that old dilapidated bus came by to give you a lift. Yes, she may look too old and dilapidated but surely and slowly, like the energizer bunny, she keeps on going and going and going. You probably think you can still catch up when your bus route converge with hers somewhere down the road. But again, they may or they may not. And if they do converge there is only one thing you can really do- that is, to transfer and be on board. You know fully well where then that bus takes you.
You know fully well where the Catholic Church takes you.

I know you have good intentions but your seeming resistance only sends confusing (and may even be wrong) signals to your fellow Lutherans and other Christians. How about them? The children? How about those people in your community? Will you be the cause for them to be deprived of the true Eucharist? Or will you be the cause for them to be brought in and we’ll be all ONE big Catholic family professing ONE faith?

I believe many among my fellow Catholics pray that may it never be too late for every brother or a sister to come home… I pray that you’ll be one among them, soon…:hug1:
:console::hug3:

I appreciate your thoughts, concerns, and prayers.

Jon