Ecumenism: Good or Bad?

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

“The equal toleration of all religions is the same thing as atheism”(Pope Leo X111).

“Catholics use their political influence to prevent Protestants from practicing birth control, and yet they must hold that the great majority of Protestant children whom their political action causes to exist will endure eternal torments in the next world” (Bertrand Russell).

 

[JonNC]

=JKing;5608744]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.

Interesting point of view, Jeff.

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.

Reconciliation is the goal. Why would names need to be dropped, or added or changed? Are there not eastern rite churches in communion with Rome? Why could there not be a “Lutheran Rite Church” in communion with Rome, or, “Evangelical Catholic Church”(the true name of Lutheranism)?
“Roman” is not an official name, and it only applies to the Latin Rite, anyway. Correct?

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.

So what if they did? Are you saying that every member of both communions would have to agree? Perhaps we differ on the importance of corporate reconciliation.

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.

You are welcome to your opinion. The position of your Church over the last 60 years has been different. I think you sell the Holy Spirit short.

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.

I agree with this, except to remind you that most Protestants never were part of the Catholic Church, were born into their current Church. The statement could be true if you are taling about various Protestant communions.

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 I pray you are blessed by it.

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.)

Gosh, I hope you didn’t mean this the way it sounds - uncharitable.

Jon

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Interesting point of view, Jeff.

Reconciliation is the goal. Why would names need to be dropped, or added or changed? Are there not eastern rite churches in communion with Rome? Why could there not be a “Lutheran Rite Church” in communion with Rome, or, “Evangelical Catholic Church”(the true name of Lutheranism)?
“Roman” is not an official name, and it only applies to the Latin Rite, anyway. Correct?

So what if they did? Are you saying that every member of both communions would have to agree? Perhaps we differ on the importance of corporate reconciliation.

You are welcome to your opinion. The position of your Church over the last 60 years has been different. I think you sell the Holy Spirit short.

**John XXIII began by speaking of the “return” of Protestants to Rome (an odd idea BTW - how can people return to a body they were never members of to begin with ?); then he dropped that idea. My source for this is the autobiography of Cardinal Heenan, who was Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster from 1963 to 1976. **​

**The notion of “return” is outmoded - the Church has given up thinking in that way. It goes back to a time when the CC saw religious value only in the CC, & not in any of the Protestant Churches. It now thinks of them in a far more favourable way, and even allows for the possibility that atheists can be saved; which is a marked shift from what it used to teach; for it formerly required an explicit act of faith for salvation. Not now. **

I agree with this, except to remind you that most Protestants never were part of the Catholic Church, were born into their current Church. The statement could be true if you are taling about various Protestant communions.

And I pray you are blessed by it.

Gosh, I hope you didn’t mean this the way it sounds - uncharitable.

Jon

 

[JKing]

Interesting point of view, Jeff.

Reconciliation is the goal. Why would names need to be dropped, or added or changed? Are there not eastern rite churches in communion with Rome? Why could there not be a “Lutheran Rite Church” in communion with Rome, or, “Evangelical Catholic Church”(the true name of Lutheranism)?
“Roman” is not an official name, and it only applies to the Latin Rite, anyway. Correct?

Good point. You remind me of the Anglican Use Catholics. I guess names are really not all that important, are they?

So what if they did? Are you saying that every member of both communions would have to agree? Perhaps we differ on the importance of corporate reconciliation.

I’m just saying that trying to reconcile with protestantism is like trying to nail jello to the wall. We might spend years coming to agreement with a certain ecclesial community and rejoice that they are finally reconciled with the CC, only to find that in the end only a few percent of the members of that community are carried along into full communion. The rest reject it and go off to other denoms or start their own. Meanwhile, the same amount of effort spent in one-on-one evangelization by the rank-and-file members of the CC could have resulted in more conversions.

You are welcome to your opinion. The position of your Church over the last 60 years has been different. I think you sell the Holy Spirit short.

I agree with this, except to remind you that most Protestants never were part of the Catholic Church, were born into their current Church. The statement could be true if you are taling about various Protestant communions.

Then why are they still protesting? I remember listening to a protestant apologist exhorting the flock to study and to discover why it is they are separated. Not just to blindly accept the faith they were born into. He wanted them to understand the issues that separated them. Of course he was convinced that this would confirm them in their protestantism. I believe the same thing because I’m convinced that if a person knew the history of his denom, (however many splits he is from the original reformers) that this would open him up to discovering the truth.

And I pray you are blessed by it.

Gosh, I hope you didn’t mean this the way it sounds - uncharitable.

Jon

Sorry, was that uncharitable? I didn’t think it was. I thought the point I was making was that if a person knew the truth and ignored it, I would consider them to be stupid, but that I’d never met anyone who was.