Ecumenism-Why the Euphoria and what is the Gain for Catholics?

[Contarini]

Exporter:

Contarini you must be getting close to the edge…take a breathe!

It is rude and insulting to comment on other people’s emotional states instead of addressing their concerns. As a matter of fact my annoyance is relatively minor (the Internet always blows things out of proportion). But if I was really losing it, then the just and charitable thing for you to do would be either stand down or address my specific concerns which I have now mentioned repeatedly. It is childish and unjust to goad someone into anger and then pretend concern for their well-being.

Now you admit that you are not one of us - You Are a Protestant, most likely a United Methodist. You were speaking as if you were a defensive Catholic - you fooled us.

Speak for yourself (no one else complains of being “fooled”). I am an Episcopalian, and I have never pretended otherwise. If you are confused it is not my fault, since I explicitly told you that I was Episcopalian in post 57, in response to your question (in post 55) if I was an “educated Protestant.” I don’t blame you for not remembering–it’s been a long thread–but I do blame you for insinuating that your lapse of memory is somehow a sinister plot on my part. This is the kind of tactic you have been using throughout (of a piece with your demand that I produce specifics when I have already done so several times). Please drop this tone.

My wife is United Methodist, and I am currently attending a Methodist as well as an Episcopal church. I don’t think I can remain Episcopalian in good conscience, and if I can’t make up my mind to become Catholic I may in fact become Methodist, since that is my family’s background as well as my wife’s affiliation. But at this point I am not UMC.

By the way, if you are so reticent to becoming Catholic it’s surprising that you own a Catholic Catechism.

I’m surprised that you’re surprised. I own a Qur’an (in English translation), but I have no intention of becoming Muslim. I own a Book of Mormon, but I’m not going to become Mormon. As a matter of fact, I have seriously considered becoming Catholic and still consider it. The Catechism was a gift years ago from a Catholic friend (Tim Gray, who does a Bible Study on EWTN) who was trying to convert me. I think it’s a wonderful compendium of Christian doctrine which all Christians should find extremely helpful.

Also you commented that CrusaderNY and Exporter FEAR Liberal Protestants.

I was probably out of line in using that word, although Crusader’s tone especially seems very fearful to me. I grew up being taught to fear and hate ecumenism (my grandfather, in an editorial in the evangelical magazine he published, called it “the hell-inspired scheme of amalgamation”). And liberal Protestants were our great bugbears, although Catholics weren’t far behind.

Tell me just one thing that I should fear, just one. You are very good in talking in generalities, try being SPECIFIC.

Liberal Protestants would like all Christians to accept homosexual behavior as fully legitimate.
Liberal Protestants generally don’t like fixed doctrinal standards of any sort.

I presume that you fear both these things in the sense that you consider them undesirable and would like to avoid them.

There, I’ve given you one very specific point and one more general one. Happy now?

 

[Contarini]

Will you answer a question honestly?

There you go again–implying that I’m dishonest. This is not the way to carry on a discussion.

Is it true that the United Methodists recite the Apostle’s Creed near the end of their Sunday Worship Service. You may not call it the Apostle’s Creed anymore but you did in the 1980s.

The UMC is still using the hymnal produced in 1989 as their main liturgical text (with the somewhat later Book of Worship as a supplemental resource). And of course they do call this the Apostle’s Creed (why wouldn’t they?). According to the liturgical guidelines in the hymnal, the proclamation of the Word is supposed to be followed by a response, which may include an affirmation of faith. The Apostle’s Creed is the most commonly used affirmation. However, Methodist churches can and often do substitute another affirmation (the Nicene Creed is an option, although unfortunately they’re more likely in my experience to use some modern statement of faith), or skip the affirmation of faith altogether. (The Methodist church I attend does not use the Apostle’s Creed very often.) When the Creed is used, it comes near the end of the Liturgy of the Word. Since most Methodist churches don’t celebrate the Eucharist weekly, that does indeed put it near the end of the liturgy as a whole. When the Eucharist is celebrated, however (once a month in the church I attend, and this seems to be the most common practice these days), the affirmation of faith comes before the Eucharist as it would in the Catholic Church.

Why does the United Methodist Church say this prayer. The reason I ask involves just two words.

Because it is an ancient affirmation of the Church’s faith. Can you think of a better reason?

Now please drop the insinuations and personal insults, and if you want to keep discussing ecumenism answer my three criticisms of Crusader:

1. He consistently confuses ecumenism with interfaith relations
2. As a result, he falsely claimed that Jews were “part” of the WCC and of the “ecumenical movement,” even though the document he cited simply spoke of the WCC having dialogue with the Jews
3. He claimed that a premise of the ecumenical movement is that all religions are equal, but he presented no evidence whatever for this assertion

Therefore, I was perfectly correct to say that Crusader gives no sign of knowing anything whatever about ecumenism. In defending him, you have taken on a lost cause, as your descent into snide personal attacks has shown.

Now I’ve not only given you specifics (as I’ve done throughout my posts), I’ve numbered them so as to give you no excuse!

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

## For those interested - two links to the WCC:

---

World Council of Churches - homepage

World Council of Churches - links ##

 

[HagiaSophia]

Contarini:

I was probably out of line in using that word, although Crusader’s tone especially seems very fearful to me.

You aren’t the only one using it…

Q: From your particular point of view, why is there still hostility toward ecumenism?

Father Puglisi: The “hostility” that we observe is more like fear. What we are dealing with at this time is a request for systemic change, [a] conversion of churches and their structures including the Catholic Church.

We know that historically the structures of the Church have evolved according to the needs, the challenge, that the world put to the Church which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, had to respond to these in each generation. This is how the Church fulfilled its role in society…"

“…As long as we maintain a rigid division and separation – and we might say opposition – between clergy and laity, then the process of secularization will continue to progress rapidly in a world which is in rapid social and cultural change. The Gospel needs to be spoken to each generation, to each culture, in terms and with symbols that can articulate its very message to each culture for the life of the world…”

From an interview w/Father James Puglisi, director of Rome’s Pro Unione Center, recalls the words of his professor, Yves Congar, on ecumenism.

Code: ZE05012503
Date: 2005-01-25
www.zenit.org

 

[TNT]

Lisa4Catholics:

Crusader NY,I am a convert and a very thankful one.I want to ask you something.How are people going to learn about the Catholic Faith if we don’t talk to them about it? If we act like snobs what kind of Christ like example is that? We are supposed to represent Jesus in our actions,so I hope that is not forgotten.There should also be an understanding that we will not change the Catholic Faith to try to "keep From Offending"non-catholics to do that is dishonest.God Bless

Dear Firend,
I remember you are converted from the COC. How great that makes me feel, as I have expressed that before during one of our insomnia episodes.
At one time the Bishops and priests (to protestants) and missionaries (to non-believers) did most of the work of conversion. Here are some sites that illustrate this:
Fr Damen (1860)
Bishop Geo Hay (1780)
Francis De sales (1600) and here.
We have always talked to each other.
The laity was not so much involved, they had no mass communication ability, except for authors who could get published:
O Brownson

Now that virtually anyone, Cath or Anti-Cath. can publish via the I-net, 1000’s of laity have become evangelists. This is, so far the main stay of conversions…still one-to-one
Witness this forum
Also, there are evangelist sites specifically focused on nearly every sect out there:
This one is typical.
“Mass ecumenism” is not really productive and it never has been. It’s an experiment that has produced great disunity inside the Faith, and next to nothing, in bringing whole sects into the Catholic Church. That type of ecumenism is not addressing one-to-one. It is a mass marketing promotion plan that is not working, and so far very harmful to the Faithful.

Today, the laity are just about the ONLY group remaining who actually do evangelising in the traditional conversion sense.

The clergy are primarily:

1. Busy redefining or “modernizing” the Catholic faith to try to promote “we are not so different than you” to protestants.
2. Having endless dialogues, which, if the prot. sect is close enough to the Cath beliefs may be productive, such as Trad Anglicanism. However, even their main impetous is the disintegration of the faith by their PC obsessed bishops, and not so much the dialoguers.

So, real conversions are still being done one-to-one by those who have the very same zeal and methods as those in the distant past.

Ecumenism, in the end is a failure, and will always be such as a mass marketing plan. It appeals mostly to the emotions or feelings just as nearly all mass advertising does. Mass advertising necessarily is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of possible purchasers.
I could give more proof on this, but out of time for now.
Mainly I wanted to assure you that the Traditional old time Catholic faith was evangelised effectively from time immemorial and we did talk about it constantly to all outside the Faith. It’s just that the practitioners have changed through the centuries.
.
I have a somewhat provacative quotation that sums up the expression of modern ecumenism.
** Ecumenism is the distruction of Internal unity in the false hope of External Unity.**

 

[CrusaderNY]

TNT

Beautifully Said, on the Money…The problem is that many here professing to be “Catholic” are really Orthodox . They claim to be "in Communion with Rome but do what they want and follow their Patriarch (that is funny…I have a Bishop…hmm). Also do they believe in the Trinity as we do…I see a string started on this subject and I will follow it closely.

TNT:

Dear Firend,
I remember you are converted from the COC. How great that makes me feel, as I have expressed that before during one of our insomnia episodes.
At one time the Bishops and priests (to protestants) and missionaries (to non-believers) did most of the work of conversion. Here are some sites that illustrate this:
Fr Damen (1860)
Bishop Geo Hay (1780)
Francis De sales (1600) and here.
We have always talked to each other.
The laity was not so much involved, they had no mass communication ability, except for authors who could get published:
O Brownson

Now that virtually anyone, Cath or Anti-Cath. can publish via the I-net, 1000’s of laity have become evangelists. This is, so far the main stay of conversions…still one-to-one
Witness this forum
Also, there are evangelist sites specifically focused on nearly every sect out there:
This one is typical.
“Mass ecumenism” is not really productive and it never has been. It’s an experiment that has produced great disunity inside the Faith, and next to nothing, in bringing whole sects into the Catholic Church. That type of ecumenism is not addressing one-to-one. It is a mass marketing promotion plan that is not working, and so far very harmful to the Faithful.

Today, the laity are just about the ONLY group remaining who actually do evangelising in the traditional conversion sense.

The clergy are primarily:

1. Busy redefining or “modernizing” the Catholic faith to try to promote “we are not so different than you” to protestants.
2. Having endless dialogues, which, if the prot. sect is close enough to the Cath beliefs may be productive, such as Trad Anglicanism. However, even their main impetous is the disintegration of the faith by their PC obsessed bishops, and not so much the dialoguers.

So, real conversions are still being done one-to-one by those who have the very same zeal and methods as those in the distant past.

Ecumenism, in the end is a failure, and will always be such as a mass marketing plan. It appeals mostly to the emotions or feelings just as nearly all mass advertising does. Mass advertising necessarily is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of possible purchasers.
I could give more proof on this, but out of time for now.
Mainly I wanted to assure you that the Traditional old time Catholic faith was evangelised effectively from time immemorial and we did talk about it constantly to all outside the Faith. It’s just that the practitioners have changed through the centuries.
.
I have a somewhat provacative quotation that sums up the expression of modern ecumenism.

Ecumenism is the distruction of Internal unity in the false hope of External Unity.

 

[Anne_Carmel]

The charity here is on a downward grade. The thread is now closed. Thank you for your participation in the discussion.