Ecumenism: Good or Bad?

[wisdomseeker]

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

what is your background on history of Christianity? the reason i am asking is because if one does not take the history in consideration, we will be here arguing back and forth and get nowhere and never understand each other.

Church, this is very important to understand. if you read Mathew, you will see Jesus making statements about the Church. Jesus calls my Church.

One Church, one Spirit, One Lord. you can read all this.
Last Supper, talks about the new Covenant, the Kingdom, keys of the Kingdom.

all this was done among Jews. Jesus sends them out, first Jerusalem, then to others parts around Israel then to the gentiles. the Covenant was made with the house of Israel. through them gentiles were brought in. Jews must believe in Jesus to be saved. they must become Christians as i understand because the Apostles believed so must all jews believe also.

you must also understand the persecution of the Christians for these 2000 years. the Church remains the same. it does not matter how many has left the Church, she remains the One Church found by Christ. we have this assurance because Jesus said: “I will be with you until the end of time.” the gates of hell will not prevail against it."

Jesus when here on Earth, many did not agree with Him, many left Him because of His teachings. yet, He remained as Lord. it has happened the same with His Church. many has left found new religions, but the Church is still here safeguarding the Truth from generation to generation.

Peace.

 

[Peter_J]

Ecumenism: Good or Bad?

How people answer that will very much depend on how you mean “ecumenism”.

For example …

 

[RNRobert]

How people answer that will very much depend on how you mean “ecumenism”.

For example …

I like that!

 

[Peter_J]

That’s what you call “ecumenism of return”.

 

[RNRobert]

That’s what you call “ecumenism of return”.

Works for me!

 

[Robbinson]

what is your background on history of Christianity?

This is an excellent question. I have spent (and spend) a fair amount of time studying Church history and the writings of the early Church fathers. You are correct that the historical record with point us towards Catholicism at least in the sense that it is clear that the core doctrines of the faith which most Christians agree on (not all, of course) were preserved and evolved through the “Church” and efforts of the early Church fathers, culminating with the Nicene Creed in the late 4th century.

I acknowledge this, and struggle with it - because I continue to wrestle with the role of the Church in history with respect to the Jews and with some of the doctrines of the Church.

That being said, some important/helpful points on this issue have been raised on this thread that I intend to reflect upon as I continue to study it out. I went through RCIA last year but couldn’t get there over these issues and family issues (wife and children). I’m meeting with a priest friend of mine again later this summer to discuss some of these issues in more depth.

In any event, I’m a believer in ecumenism to the extent its goal is unity in the body of Christ and I can testify that I see “real believers” in all denominations, recognizing that perhaps (perhaps) the Church may hold a fuller expression of the faith of the apostles.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is an excellent question. I have spent (and spend) a fair amount of time studying Church history and the writings of the early Church fathers. You are correct that the historical record with point us towards Catholicism at least in the sense that it is clear that the core doctrines of the faith which most Christians agree on (not all, of course) were preserved and evolved through the “Church” and efforts of the early Church fathers, culminating with the Nicene Creed in the late 4th century.

I acknowledge this, and struggle with it - because I continue to wrestle with the role of the Church in history with respect to the Jews and with some of the doctrines of the Church.

That being said, some important/helpful points on this issue have been raised on this thread that I intend to reflect upon as I continue to study it out. I went through RCIA last year but couldn’t get there over these issues and family issues (wife and children). I’m meeting with a priest friend of mine again later this summer to discuss some of these issues in more depth.

In any event, I’m a believer in ecumenism to the extent its goal is unity in the body of Christ and I can testify that I see “real believers” in all denominations, recognizing that perhaps (perhaps) the Church may hold a fuller expression of the faith of the apostles.

Blessings,

Brian

bless you.

you know, i believe that was GK Chesterton who said, that many takes what they like from the CC and leave what they dont like. i have seen many people with this mind set. they say: “i agree with the CC in this issue but not on this issue.” if you know what i mean.

we can see in Sacred Scriptures that many like some of the Teachings of Jesus. and we can see that many left Him because they could not accept some of His Teachings. we see this very thing happened with the CC. some of her teachings are hard for many to bear. this is the dangerous of many to fall into deceit. because they cannot accept what they dont understand.

take for instance the Eucharist. this is very difficult for Non Catholics to accept. the same happened with Jesus.
non Catholics take the Bible literaly but when it comes to the Body and Blood of Christ, they say is symbolic. but there is nowhere in the Bible that says it is symbolic.
Jesus says: this is my Body, this is my Blood. He never said: this is the symbol of my Body …"

bless you.

 

[Peter_J]

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”?

 

[RNRobert]

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 ???

I don’t know what to make of JPII. On the one hand he has written great encyclicals like Evangelium Vitae and was resolute in opposing the “culture of death,” but on the other there are things like you mentioned, plus kissing the Koran (how many Christians would have rather embraced a martyr’s death rather than do that?).

 

[JKing]

Ecumenism is a great good if you pronounce it:

“You-come-in-ism”

In other words I disagree with any and all attempts at compromising doctrine or fudging terminology so that two sides can both agree with a statement without actually agreeing with each other.

Christ founded one Church. There is only one visible church in the world today that can even lay claim to valid apostolic succession. Outside of this Church there is no salvation. Put another way, all who are saved are only saved through the power and authority Christ gave to the Church (whether they know it or not).

Jesus told us to go into the world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing (Trinitarian formula) and teaching all (not just that which was written down) that he taught the apostles. Somehow I don’t think this meant meeting with people and trying to compose a statement of beliefs that both can agree with.

Jeff

PS: I’m very uncomfortable with the extremely uncharitable tone taken by Gottle of Geer who bashed the heck of the John Paul the Great. While I’m not exactly extatic about some of the bizarre things that occured during his papacy, I’m more inclined to try to understand it in the best possible way. Was there a message that he was trying to communicate that got distorted in the execution? Is there perhaps something in me that needs to be corrected so that I’m not as uncomfortable with what I’ve witnessed? In other words, I am more inclined to trust the judgment of the pope than my own ill-informed opinions.

One example that comes to mind was the liturgical shenanigans during the World-Youth-Day-Denver events. I learned later that this event was basically hijacked by the most liberal mid-level ligurgists who were trying to make a statement to the Holy Father about “how we do it in the USA”. The pope never approved a woman playing the part of Christ in the Stations of the Cross or the liturgical dancers (or any of the abuses he had to endure). He never knew it was going to happen until it was happening.

Another example is the statement that basically said we don’t need to evangelize the Jews anymore. This was put out by a committee of the USCCB and the press over-represented the authority of it. The USCCB never approved it in a general assembly, and it certainly was never adopted by the Vatican as authoritative for the whole church. The Catechism clearly urges us to evengelize the Jews and everyone else for that matter.

Anyway, I hope you can try to understand that sometimes these circumstances are beyond His Holiness’ control and not be so scandalized by them.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi JKing. I appreciate your participation on the forum, but I’d appreciate it even more if you would check things out before you make statements like:

There is only one visible church in the world today that can even lay claim to valid apostolic succession.

The Eastern Orthodox Church’s apostolic succession is recognized by the Catholic Church. To me that carries more weight than somebody I’ve never heard of (that I can recall – it’s possible that I’ve met you before but just don’t remember) shooting his mouth off on an internet discussion forum.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Ecumenism is a great good if you pronounce it:

“You-come-in-ism”

In other words I disagree with any and all attempts at compromising doctrine or fudging terminology so that two sides can both agree with a statement without actually agreeing with each other.

One example that comes to mind was the liturgical shenanigans during the World-Youth-Day-Denver events. I learned later that this event was basically hijacked by the most liberal mid-level ligurgists who were trying to make a statement to the Holy Father about “how we do it in the USA”. The pope never approved a woman playing the part of Christ in the Stations of the Cross or the liturgical dancers (or any of the abuses he had to endure). He never knew it was going to happen until it was happening.

Another example is the statement that basically said we don’t need to evangelize the Jews anymore. This was put out by a committee of the USCCB and the press over-represented the authority of it. The USCCB never approved it in a general assembly, and it certainly was never adopted by the Vatican as authoritative for the whole church. The Catechism clearly urges us to evengelize the Jews and everyone else for that matter.

Anyway, I hope you can try to understand that sometimes these circumstances are beyond His Holiness’ control and not be so scandalized by them.

Ecumenism. so much confusion has resulted from this.

some say that protestants are ok where they are. they are Christians and are brothers and they have some Truths. then i read statements like they must be evangelized. contradicting statements. which is it. must they be evangelized by the CC or should we just leave them alone because they are fine where they are.

very confusion times for Catholics. this is what has paralyzed the Church for so long and i see it still continues to this day. not much has changed.

personally i think is dangerous for our faith tha way it has been done. we can not even recognize the Catholic Faith anymore. we have let other faiths infiltrate in ours that has caused much harm to ours. take the Liturgy, it is unrecognizable.

 

[RNRobert]

Ecumenism. so much confusion has resulted from this.

some say that protestants are ok where they are. they are Christians and are brothers and they have some Truths. then i read statements like they must be evangelized. contradicting statements. which is it. must they be evangelized by the CC or should we just leave them alone because they are fine where they are.

very confusion times for Catholics. this is what has paralyzed the Church for so long and i see it still continues to this day. not much has changed.

personally i think is dangerous for our faith tha way it has been done. we can not even recognize the Catholic Faith anymore. we have let other faiths infiltrate in ours that has caused much harm to ours. take the Liturgy, it is unrecognizable.

Protestants who have received valid trinitarian baptisms are considered to be Christians and our brothers and sisters in Christ. However, it is important to remember that whatever truths Protestantism they have received from us. As G.K. Chesterton wrote:

“Catholicism necessarily feels for Protestantism not the superiority a man feels over sticks and straws, but that he feels over clippings of his hair and nails. She feels Protestantism not merely as something insufficient, but something that would never have been even that but for herself.”

While the above quote may seem harsh (or politically incorrect, or “unecumenical”) It is true. When the Reformers broke from the Church, they took a few things like the Scriptures (which even Luther admits they would know nothing about if not for the Catholic Church) and Baptism, and it is these Catholic things that sustains whatever spiritual life is in the them.

 

[RNRobert]

Ecumenism is a great good if you pronounce it:

“You-come-in-ism”

I love it!

 

[JonNC]

=JKing;5606047]Ecumenism is a great good if you pronounce it:

“You-come-in-ism”

Clever, Jeff.

In other words I disagree with any and all attempts at compromising doctrine or fudging terminology so that two sides can both agree with a statement without actually agreeing with each other.

I absolutely agree. Question: are you really that distrustful of your leadership’s dedication to doctrine? DO you really think that Pope Benedict and the Magisterium will sell out Catholic belief simply so they can agree (without really agreeing) with Lutherans about something? Does this really worry you?

I’m not concerned that either side would do that.

Christ founded one Church. There is only one visible church in the world today that can even lay claim to valid apostolic succession. Outside of this Church there is no salvation. Put another way, all who are saved are only saved through the power and authority Christ gave to the Church (whether they know it or not).

You are correct - one true Church.

Jesus told us to go into the world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing (Trinitarian formula) and teaching all (not just that which was written down) that he taught the apostles. Somehow I don’t think this meant meeting with people and trying to compose a statement of beliefs that both can agree with.

Why not? If the Holy Spirit guides your leaders and my leaders to a statement of faith that is true and we both agree, why would that be a bad thing?

Jon

 

[JKing]

Hi JKing. I appreciate your participation on the forum, but I’d appreciate it even more if you would check things out before you make statements like:

The Eastern Orthodox Church’s apostolic succession is recognized by the Catholic Church. To me that carries more weight than somebody I’ve never heard of (that I can recall – it’s possible that I’ve met you before but just don’t remember) shooting his mouth off on an internet discussion forum.

Thank you for your very constructive correction. It was a poor choice of words. Of course, orthodox orders are valid because of apostolic succession. I wonder, though, which one of the Churches you are referring to is the ONE that Christ founded. Russian? Ukranian? Greek?

I apologize for shooting my mouth off, I hope no one was severely injured!

 

[JKing]

Clever, Jeff.

I absolutely agree. Question: are you really that distrustful of your leadership’s dedication to doctrine? DO you really think that Pope Benedict and the Magisterium will sell out Catholic belief simply so they can agree (without really agreeing) with Lutherans about something? Does this really worry you?

I’m not concerned that either side would do that.

You are correct - one true Church.

Why not? If the Holy Spirit guides your leaders and my leaders to a statement of faith that is true and we both agree, why would that be a bad thing?

Jon

Yes, I absolutely distrust the mid-level “leadership” of the Catholic Church (at least in the USA). Overall, the bishops are pretty good but, of course, there are some lousy ones and there are a few exceptional ones. However in the chanceries around this country there are highly educated chairs of sub-committees and other worker-bee types that do things with the bishops’ implicit approval that scandalize the faithful again and again. Some of these mid-level bureaucrats are on ecumenical committees and working groups and such and they do more harm than good. Every once in a while a work is published by such a committee that has to be explained or nuanced by the authorities. This harms the ecumenical process by giving the non-Catholics a false sense of accomplishment and it confuses the faithful because it contradicts what they were taught. This sort of thing happens because the bishops are too busy dealing with lawsuits or raising money for this or that or any of the other stops on the rubber-chicken circuit. They entrust these matters to people who seem orthodox on their resume but turn out to be not-so orthodox when the bishop isn’t watching.

I have a question for you. What is the goal of ecuminism? Is the idea, eventually, that the two bodies would join together? (or am I misguided here) If the goal was achieved, does that mean that each group would drop their old name and then both bodies would adopt a new name that carries a part of the two old names? Would we then have the Roman/Methodist Catholic Church? I don’t think so, because that might imply that the Catholic Church had changed some doctrine, which clearly it cannot. And since (in this example) the Methodists are the separated body, they would just have to drop that which had separated them and join the Church.

Another question: If the Catholic Church and one of the denominations decide they agree on EVERY POINT of doctrine, why do they not then just join the Church? What would happen if they did? Would all the followers come in with the leadership? No way! They would carry on in the separated church (or start a new one), because they don’t agree with their own leadership. In most denoms, there is no unified set of beliefs among the membership.

If the goal is to try to come up with a statement of belief that both can agree with, I say it’s a waste of time. The reformation began 500 years ago and it will continue until all Protestants are once again rejoined to the Church they left. If that means the Church has finally reformed enough so the reformers can come home, I pray it comes soon. If that means that the Protestants realize that the reformers (or their successors) were mistaken on key issues of difference and therefore there is no reason to remain separate, then I say so be it.

My role, as I see it, is to live the faith and to explain the faith whenever it is questioned. I readily acknowledge all the sins of her members (and beg forgiveness for mine) but choose to live and die in this One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ.

And anyone who doesn’t is either ignorant, misinformed, misguided, or just plain stupid. (I haven’t met anyone yet in my lifetime that I would consider stupid.)

 

[jfallaw]

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

I think you have been reading your Catechism incorrectly. Nowhere in it does it say that ‘you can be saved no matter what you believe’. What it DOES say is that only God, who knows our hearts, is the ultimate judge of who goes to heaven. We may think someone a saint and be sure that they went to heaven, but God might know that they secretly worshiped the devil their whole lives. In the same way, we may think someone an abominable sinner who is surely hellbound, but God might know differently. Though, the main theme of the Catechism on this point is that some people of other religions may go to heaven, because they might, through no fault of their own, be ignorant of the Truth that is the Catholic Church, and God might know that, if they did, they would gladly convert and do as required. But in the meantime, they honestly believe in Jesus and want to do His will.

I think it makes sense- for instance, what if someone might have joined the Church but they didn’t because of all the priestly abuses? They had a legitimate right to think that there was evil in the Church, but mistakenly thought that such presence implied the Church Herself was evil. Otherwise, they live a good Christian life as, say, Lutherans or Anglicans, and are better Christians than many Catholics. Surely God would not condemn them to hell because they could not accept His Church as they saw it?

 

[Peter_J]

I wonder, though, which one of the Churches you are referring to is the ONE that Christ founded.

The one that Christ founded is the Catholic Church (i.e. all of us who are in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI), without prejudice to the fact that we recognize the validity of Eastern Orthodox orders.

Curious that you would wonder about that, considering that you yourself are Catholic (according to your profile, anyhow).

 

[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…

It can be good, and often is - it can be bad, and often is.​