Ecumenism: was it necessary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Exporter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Exporter

Guest
Was there a historical reason for Ecumenanism? Why change things that had been considered correct for many years. Why “challange” the Tridentine Mass? Why attempt to appear more Protestant?
Why did this occur? I was perfectly happy with the Church in 1965. Yes, I know it’s said the changes were to make people “feel like” they were participating at Mass. “Feel like” isn’t faith…is it?
WHo can convince me that Ecumenanism was needed?:confused:
 
Because a guy by the name of Martin Luther split the body of Christ along doctrinal lines. Granted, the Eastern Churches were separated by schism, but that is a problem mainly of authority, not of doctrine. Martin Luther reinterpreted most of Chritian theology to fit into his particular worldview, which opened the oor to the likes of Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley, Huss, and the list goes on and on even to this day. Get 2 peopleo f different denominations together and see if you can get them to agree on even what the so-called “Christian Essentials” are. Yes, ecuminism is necessary. It is necessary to get the rest of Christiandom to realize that the full deposit of Christian truth resides in and is guarded by the Catholic Church.
 
Is ecumenism just a matter of “trying to appear more Protestant”–and I question where you got that idea?

Or is it something else?

Pope John Paul II appears to believe that ecumenism is both necessary and good. Overall, I believe that real strides to unity can and should be made.

But one can’t expect it to happen overnight, and one can’t expect not to have to make certain sacrifices. Beautiful as the Mass was in 1965 (I know, though little I was there too) IN MY EXPERIENCE, the Mass of today can be and has been JUST AS BEAUTIFUL. Though I was lucky not to experience BAD Masses (or to remember if I did) prior to the vernacular N.O., and though I HAVE experienced BAD Masses since, I do not blame the MASS itself necessarily but various OTHER factors, and sometimes I blame my own self, as sometimes have been the factor that causes a perceived “bad” Mass. This is due to lack of charity on my part as well as self-righteous “blinkered” behavior where I have played the Pharisee instead of the Publican.

Pray, pray, pray. We don’t and can’t understand ALL that God wants of us, and sometimes we are tempted to think that we know better. Put the matter in HIS lap, so to speak–lay it all out and ask Him, “THY will be done”.

Peace!
 
Hello Exporter,

The Joint Lutheran Catholic Declaration on Justification quotes or references St. Paul at least ten to one over Jesus. All of Jesus many teachings to obey God to go to heaven through Him are kept out of the document.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Pope John Paul II was at the signing of the document but did not sign it. After the Lutherans signed the document it was only then that the Vatican released a statement on “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”. The Protestants were greatly upset over the undiscussed revelation of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” after just signing the document on salvation. I don’t blame them. My priest told me that the document should not be used to understand what we must do to go to heaven. He said, “it is only for ecumenical purposes.”

I think we should just keep following what Jesus taught us and not let ecumeninism drag us down the same path Satan has taken Luther.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
 
You are mixing issues that are for the greater part unrelated.

Ecumenical dialogue is necessary if we are to ever heal the divisions created over the centuries. And real ecumenical dialogue is a matter of together exploring what binds us together (Christ), and exploring what seperates us, to determine how much is really separating us and how much is simply compounded misunderstanding.

Many don’t understand the changes in the Mass, and have a very romantic idea of “how it used to be”. Some of the changes are intended to get rid of acretions which occured, often as time specific, and some without a strong, cogent reason for their continuation. We have more readings, both with the addition of the Old Testament reading, and a greater variety of readings. and I think one of the greatest blessings is the vernacular.

As to how Mass was said pre Vatican 2: been there, done that, and really don’t want to go back.
 
I’m not sure that the “idea” of Ecumenicism is “infallible” but rather an expression of people’s ecclesiology and apologetical methods, mixed up with their understanding or misunderstanding of what the Church actually teaches (dogmatic issues).

If you’re wondering why people aren’t more “orthodox” in their ecumenical beliefs, maybe it’s because many aren’t “orthodox” in their Catholic faith. Just a hypothesis, but I think many will see I’m onto something there.

If you’re a “New Age” Catholic, well, you’re not Catholic, but you probably won’t have a desire to see the body of Christ grow and be pure in Her doctrine!

I’m not Catholic, but having read St. Francis De Sales " The Catholic Controversy" I see that there are many Catholics who do take his loving attitude / firm doctrinal conviction approach to ecumenical dialogue, and there are many who are quite liberal and take a “there’s not really just one church that’s the body of Christ” approach. Like, is the Eucharist real? That’s my question for those Catholics. If I were Catholic, they’d make me sick!! But, then I’d be quickly corrected by the Spirit of Christ and memory of Francis de Sales hopefully.

Ok, I didn’t mean to go off there, but hopefully you can see how a Protestant views the Church’s Ecumenical “crisis” (if there is such a thing) from the outside.
 
No, not the kind i think you mean. Sure its alright to try to discuss things civilly with protestants and such. But…the stuff thats come out of the whole ‘change’ to suit the prots has not brought them home. In my opinion the whole thing is a disaster, well intentioned or not. And gee, I sure wish I didn’t have to sing Protestant songs at Mass, wouldn’t that be fun? If I wanted to I’d go down to the meeting with the tamborine shakin baptists heh. I haven’t been to a Tridentine Mass…there are none in the entire state I live in…but I have been to a Divine Liturgy (eastern orthodox) and there’s no comparison to the Novus Ordo. It’s just flat out better. There’s actually REVERENCE and why is that? BECAUSE ITS BUILT RIGHT INTO IT. Novel concept. Yes…I am bitter. 🙂
 
40.png
Apologia100:
Yes, ecuminism is necessary. It is necessary to get the rest of Christiandom to realize that the full deposit of Christian truth resides in and is guarded by the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
If ecuminism was necessary, as you say, to bring Chrisitans to Catholicism, then why haven’t they come? After 40 years of ecuminism shouldn’t there be some way of measuring its success? By every measure of Cathlocism’s health we can only see the numbers going south these past 40 years including the number of conversions to Catholicism.

Seems you should be able to point to some fruits of ecuminism, for by their fruits ye shall know them. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic
 
We must be careful not to confuse Ecumenism, the work to restore all into the one Body of Christ, with things done in the name of Ecumenism, which have often been bad.
 
40.png
Flounder:
We must be careful not to confuse Ecumenism, the work to restore all into the one Body of Christ, with things done in the name of Ecumenism, which have often been bad.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Among those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God, Unity is necessary. Does that mean ecumenism is necessary? If it is a tool that helps us attain something that is necessary, then it is a good thing as long as it is helping.

There is only one Church. It is made up of those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

The Bishop of Rome (Pope) has a position of singular importance in that Church. Exactly what that importance is I am not quite sure even though I have been a Catholic since the day I was born. but I know that importance is real and it is great though perhaps not as great as some would have us believe.

The effort to restore real unity is essential to remove the great scandal of division among those who believe in Jesus. Dismissing those who disregard the importance of the Bishop of Rome as “Protestants” will not help restore that unity. The effort to have dialogue among all believers is necessary. If we call that effort “ecumenism” then ecumenism is necessary.

-Jim
 
john 17:11 says: 11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name–the name you gave me–so that they may be one as we are one.

Jesus’s prayer was that we, His followers, would be one, as He and the Father are one. this, then, is the true aim of ecumenism.

certainly there were ecumenical reasons for decisions made at Vatican II, and the subsequent counsels which produced the novus ordo mass. this wasn’t the ENTIRE reason for the changes, though, as has been pointed out by others on this thread.

i think that as catholics our responsibility is to learn the reasons behind the decisions that have been made, and defend them lovingly and in kindness to noncatholics, fellow catholics, and ourselves. if there is a need for change (which, i think, we usually find more in ourselves than in the church, or world, for that matter), then we should pray.

it’s been my experience that the more i learn about the reasons behind the decisions the church has made over the years, the more i see, understand, and can readily accept, the wisdom of those decisions. Jesus knew what He was doing when He gave the keys to the first pope, and that wisdom has been passed down (through sometimes shaky individuals) to our current very wise and loving pope.
 
40.png
trogiah:
The effort to have dialogue among all believers is necessary. If we call that effort “ecumenism” then ecumenism is necessary.
Click to expand...
I disagree with you Jim.

The reason for that is any effort for unification has to come from the dialogue between the hierarchies. Nothing good has come from ecumenical dialogue between the laity. It is intrinsically fruitless and any good that can come about from understanding one another (which could be further debated) there are countless drawbacks from it. We have now modernists, under catholicized converted and Catholic fundamentals among us, who are essentially Catholic. Sure, there may be converts from the other camp(s) but there are just as many dissenters from ours to join one of the many Christian denominations. The results have been mass confusion and great injury to the faith. Now we have several lay run organizations inside the Church, whose mandate is to evangelize, but instead of evangelizing others, they are getting more and more indoctrinated with Protestantism. We have great chaos, and the body has been weakened rather than strengthened by these efforts. Efforts to reunite should have been left to the Hierarchy, rather than taken up by lay people. It was a grave mistake and nothing good will come of it.
 
40.png
Flounder:
We must be careful not to confuse Ecumenism, the work to restore all into the one Body of Christ, with things done in the name of Ecumenism, which have often been bad.
Click to expand...
How do we detect the difference between good Ecumenism and bad Ecumenism?

If things “done in the name of Ecumenism” are bad, but pure Ecumenism is good, pray tell, give us even one example of something good that’s come from the good variety of Ecumenism. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
 
A good and fair question Albert. I think things of this sort are good:
  • The Lutheran church (mostly in Europe I think) better understand what is held different and what is held the same. I think there was genuine excitement about the similarities until the topic of priestly orders came up.
  • Same thing with the Anglican church, which led to the conversion of some relatively high-profile Angilcans. I think they more clearly defined some of their beliefs as a result of the dialogue.
This is the ecumenism that works to cut through the chaff and get to solid understanding of what’s different and what’s the same. I think it applies down to our level.

Suppressing the differences and not talking about them in order to make everybody happy is not, in my opinion, ecumenism.
 
Being an unrepentant sociologist, I tend to look at ecumenism in terms of social stratification and change. Human nature being what it is, my hunch is that if the blessed day of Christian unity ever arrives, there will probably be some sort of gala planned to celebrate the event. This will undoubtedly precipitate a seething cauldron of debate over who should be in charge of the festivities, who will be on the invitation committee, as well as security policies, what sort of food will be served, seating arrangements, speakers, decorations, music, etc. etc. Who would be the emcee? Would the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, an Orthodox Patriarch, Jerry Falwell, Jack Chick and Betty Bowers be at the head table together, or would they be in the kitchen peeling potatoes and washing dishes? I say slim chance any of them would tolerate the executive downsizing and loss of CEO and VP positions that necessarily happen in the wake of any corporate merger. Will the first really be last, and the last first? Would the workload become so big that they’d have to outsource the CDF to Pakistan? The devil, as usual, is in the details.
 
40.png
Oren:
No, not the kind i think you mean. Sure its alright to try to discuss things civilly with protestants and such. But…the stuff thats come out of the whole ‘change’ to suit the prots has not brought them home. In my opinion the whole thing is a disaster, well intentioned or not. And gee, I sure wish I didn’t have to sing Protestant songs at Mass, wouldn’t that be fun? If I wanted to I’d go down to the meeting with the tamborine shakin baptists heh. I haven’t been to a Tridentine Mass…there are none in the entire state I live in…but I have been to a Divine Liturgy (eastern orthodox) and there’s no comparison to the Novus Ordo. It’s just flat out better. There’s actually REVERENCE and why is that? BECAUSE ITS BUILT RIGHT INTO IT. Novel concept. Yes…I am bitter. 🙂
Click to expand...
I thank all of you for posting about Ecumenanism, I have learned a lot. Also some new questions arose.

I do fall right in line with Oren, jeffreedy789 and albert cipriani, thanks.

But the outward sings of ecumenanism, to me, are nothing but an attempt to make our worship more Protestant-like. Sure the essential elements are still there, but if trying to bring more teen-agers to Mass with music and singing is the reason for all the fuss, then it hasn’t worked. It has not helped the older people, they dont like it.

The Bishops of the U.S.A. are not obliged to have Mass said in the vulgar language- why did the jump in with both feet and ask that English be used. It was not John Paul II’s intentiontion that all Masses be said in English…was it?

Perhaps I do not understand the fundamental reason for Vatican II. One poster said it was because of Martin Luther. Does anyone actually think the Protestants will become Catholics if we have our worship said in English?? I think not! There is such a wide division between us - and yes, some hatered, that the watering down of Catholocism will never bring Protestants to the Catholic Church. Seems to me it is the other way around- many Catholics have gone the Evangelical Protestant route. I believe to bring people to Catholocism( if that is the goal) WE SHOULD BE MORE CATHOLIC.:banghead:
 
What the Council Didn’t Say
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0540.html
by Rev. Joseph Fessio S.J.
That’s essentially what the Second Vatican Council actually said about the renewal of the liturgy. Let me tell you what it did not say. The Council did not say that tabernacles should be moved from their central location to some other location. In fact, it specifically said we should be concerned about the worthy and dignified placing of the tabernacle. The Council did not say that Mass should be celebrated facing the people. That is not in Vatican II; it is not mentioned. It is not even raised in the documents that record the formation of the Constitution on the Liturgy; it didn’t come up. Mass facing the people is a not requirement of Vatican II; it is not in the spirit of Vatican II; it is definitely not in the letter of Vatican II. It is something introduced in 1969.

And, by the way, never in the history of the Church, East or West, was there a tradition of celebrating Mass facing the people. Never, ever, until 1969. It happened occasionally in Germany, in between the wars; it was done sometimes at the castle where Romano Guardini would have his group of students meet; it was done in Austria near Vienna by Pius Parsch in a special church, in what he called a “liturgical Mass.” That’s an odd expression, a “liturgical Mass.” The Mass is the liturgy. 🙂
 
40.png
tru_dvotion:
I disagree with you Jim.

The reason for that is any effort for unification has to come from the dialogue between the hierarchies. Nothing good has come from ecumenical dialogue between the laity. It is intrinsically fruitless and any good that can come about from understanding one another (which could be further debated) there are countless drawbacks from it.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your respectful disagreement

I am wondering what is meant by different people using the word “ecumenism”

In my small town, (about 3000 people) There is a local “council of churches” that includes Catholic, Methodist, Assembly of God, Baptist, and several others I can’t remember off hand. These churches pool resources to help provide for the needy and at least once a year, (during Lent) have a series of prayer services at the various churches in the area. I believe there is very little, if any, discussion about how anyone in one of the churches should convert to one of the other churches.

This “council of churches” is far from perfect, some pastors have a great deal of enthusiasm for the cooperative effort and some do not.

I believe the poor are served better and people have a greater chance to pray with members of their community. I would say these activities are far from fruitless. This is what I consider “ecumenical dialoge.” It is engaging in activities that show we understand what Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II meant when they said “that which divides us as believers in Christ is far less than what unites us.”

I would agree that debates about if, when, and where Martin Luther was wrong or the Catholic Church was wrong would not likely be fruitful. I think there is much more to ecumenism than those types of debates.

Wouldn’t it be cool if, when the hierarchiess of all the churches finally realized that we are all part of One Church, they went to tell the laity about it and the laity said, “well duh, about time you figured that out, come join the rest of us.”

Sharing in Christs mission with anyone else who is on that mission is a fruitful endearvor. God gives some of us more opportunity to do such things than others. There is nothing to be gained by deciding before hand that we will never have that opportunity in our life.

-Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top