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

[TNT]

katherine2:

Of course, the theology of the Mystical Body of Christ was very controversial in the early 20th century and unwelcome by the conservative elements of the Church. It was a development of the liturgical renewal and stridently denounced by the conservative Archbishop Conrad Graber of Freiburg in part of his overall condemnation of the liturgical reform movement.

Say what?? **
Trying to REDEFINE it** was the “very controversial” such as:
“we think Protestants and Orthodox are implicitly part of the Mystical Body and the Catholic Church.”
1896, Leo XIII:

SATIS COGNITUM, on the UNITY of the Church
It is assuredly as impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life. As Christ, the Head and Exemplar, is not wholly in His visible human nature, which Photinians and Nestorians assert, nor wholly in the invisible divine nature, as the Monophysites hold, but is one, from and in both natures, visible and invisible; so the** Mystical Body of Christ is the true Church**, only because its visible parts draw life and power from the supernatural gifts and other things whence spring their very nature and essence. But since the Church is such by divine will and constitution, such it must uniformly remain to the end of time.
…
Furthermore, the eminence of the Church arises from its unity, as the principle of its constitution - a unity surpassing all else, and having nothing like unto it or equal to it" (S. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stronmatum lib. viii., c. 17). For this reason Christ, speaking of the mystical edifice, mentions only one Church, which he calls His own - "I will build my church; " any other Church except this one, since it has not been founded by Christ, cannot be the true Church.
5. Furthermore, the Son of God decreed that the Church should be His Mystical Body, with which He should be united as the Head, after the manner of the human body which He assumed, to which the natural head is physiologically united. As He took to Himself a mortal body, which He gave to suffering and death in order to pay the price of man’s redemption, so also He has one mystical body in which and through which He renders men partakers of holiness and of eternal salvation. God “hath made Him (Christ) head over all the Church, which is His body” (Eph. i., 22-23). Scattered and separated members cannot possibly cohere with the head so as to make one body. But St. Paul says: “All members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ” (I Cor. xii., 12). Wherefore this Mystical Body, he declares, is “compacted and fitly jointed together. The head, Christ: from whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly jointed together, by what every joint supplieth according to the operation in the measure of every part” (Eph. iv., 15-16). And so dispersed members, separated one from the other, cannot be united with one and the same head. “There is one God, and one Christ; and His Church is one and the faith is one; and one the people, joined together in the solid unity of the body in the bond of concord. This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts” (S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitateccl. Unitate, n. 23). And to set forth more clearly the unity of the Church, he makes use of the illustration of a living body, the members of which cannot possibly live unless united to the head and drawing from it their vital force. Separated from the head they must of necessity die.

 

[Exporter]

One more thought, please. In my area (Diocese) there was a televised “Ecumenical Council” question and answer session about three years ago.

Off the top of my head there were Ministers of the Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Evangelical, Presbyterian, Jewish and a represibtative from the Diocese (the Bishop’s man).

Questions were asked and the Protestants were quick to answer. The priest had nothing to say until a qs. was directed to him. He answered in maybe 10 words. You see when it gets down to thw nitty-gritty there are big problems. The up on the clouds, smiley faced ideas sound good. But it has to come down to earth some time.

 

[katherine2]

first, to JKirkLVNV, I appreciate the comment on Mother Drexel. I hope everyone gave as generous as they could to last Sunday’s collection for the Black and Indian Missions.

Exporter:

From other threads I think Deacon Ed and some others have shown themselves to be enlightened Catholics. But I get the uncomfortable feeling from this thread they are drumbeaters for a "Smiley-Faced Church

Heck, we’ve always been the fun church. “Where ere the Catholic sun doth shine, there has always been music and laughter and good red wine.”

You want a frowny-faced church? Try the dour Presbyterians.

Like the saying goes, some people confuse being uncomfortable wit being religious.

I joy in the risen Christ.

 

[TNT]

Exporter:

…Although my ancestors wore the Gray in the 1860s and were treated miserably by the Carpetbaggers, I will sit in **CrusaderNY’s **corner …

Texas joins NY!!!
NOTHING LEFT IS SACRED! NOTHING !

 

[TNT]

Exporter:

…Although my ancestors wore the Gray in the 1860s and were treated miserably by the Carpetbaggers, I will sit in **CrusaderNY’s **corner …

Texas joins NY!!!
THIS IS WHERE ECUMENISM HATH DRAGGED US.
NOTHING LEFT IS SACRED! NOTHING !
Once again as St Paul says in Romans: “Y’ALL HAVE SINNED”

 

[Deacon_Ed]

CrusaderNY:

My source is Pope Pius XI and every Pope before him. Vatican II once again redefined church dogma, which is a no-no for a council to do and hence the reason why people dont feel obliged to, well lets say obey it as it is vague and teaches false doctrine that is leading people away from salvation and not towards it.

If, indeed, this were a change of dogma you would be absolutely correct. The problem is that you appear to have mistaken a discipline for a dogma. Dogmas and, to a lesser extent, doctrines come from divine revelation, that is, the deposit of faith. While there are certainly issues of ecumenism that would fall into that category (relativism being the most common) this is not a general statement regarding ecumenism.

Pio Nono’s most famous work with regard to ecuminsm is *Mortalium Animos *(which literally translates to “death of the soul.”) We can sum up this encyclical with the following thoughts: 1) Christ established one Church under one head with one baptism and one faith and we are obliged to seek out this Church and to join it; 2) the Catholic faith is not just “another faith.” With those two points, the pope goes on to say: “8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.” Note, here, that the pope uses the term “lawful” as opposed to “morally wrong.” That is, he prohibited participation under the right of the Holy See to regulate the activities of Catholics. This is not a dogmatic issue, but an issue of discipline.

Since the purpose of Catholic ecumenism is specifically to meet the stated goal of *Mortalium Animos, *that is, to work “for the union of Christians… promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it…” there would be notihing here that prevents us from moving forward. At the same time, it’s important to realize that the pope was, primarily, thinking of those who, “in the past …have unhappily left [the Church].” We must recognize that, as Vatican II points out, those born in separation are in a different class than those who actively left the Church. Since this refers to the vast majority of non-Catholics, the thinking of Pope Pius IX no longer represents the status of the world.

Thus, the Second Vatican Council, a validly called and ratified council, decided that the disciplines that were in force needed to be modified, and did that. That is, of course, the right of the Church.

Exporter:

I respect Deacon Ed’s vast knowledge of the Church, but here he just tinkered with technicalities. CrusaderNY, I believe, thinks like I do. We would prefer the Church to be the Roman Catholic Church, and that means to observe all that has been promulgated.

I don’t believe I have tinkered with anything. As a deacon I am called to teach what the Church teaches and to do so as clearly as possible. This is what I try to do. I do not allow my feelings or wishes about the Church to color what I write.

Deacon Ed

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Exporter:

Please, All of you, CONTENUE!

We will all learn something if all of you contenue posting. Please don’t be so afraid to state your state of mind, but color it with a few facts. (sarcasm)

From other threads I think Deacon Ed and some others have shown themselves to be enlightened Catholics. But I get the uncomfortable feeling from this thread they are drumbeaters for a "Smiley-Faced Church " that will accept partial Doctrine when it is conveniant.

Although my ancestors wore the Gray in the 1860s and were treated miserably by the Carpetbaggers, I will sit in CrusaderNY’s
corner on this topic.

Just one more thought. If ecumenism is so good, why didn’t the Early Fathers practice it? Think, what did they do when faced with a “New” Doctrine from another sect?

I respect Deacon Ed’s vast knowledge of the Church, but here he just tinkered with technicalities. CrusaderNY, I believe, thinks like I do. We would prefer the Church to be the Roman Catholic Church, and that means to observe all that has been promulgated.
The last sentance is not well written, but it will suffice. :yup:

I personally cannot speak for anyone else, but I would say that you have misconstrued my intent. I’m not a drumbeater for a “Smiley-Faced Church.” One of the touchstones of my life is that God’s idea of happiness and my idea of happiness are not always the same. I just want Church teaching presented clearly. The deacon does just that in his posts on this thread. He seems to do it with a view to obedience to the Church, in the persons of the Pope and the Magisterium. Others, however, seem to wish to push another agenda, ie., belittling the Council, the Catechism, etc. No one has said that we should diminish or water down the Truth as the Church has proclaimed it. The authority of the Church, however, to clarify its teaching did not die with Saint Pius X or Pope Pius XII. Some posters are as bad as some liberal Catholics (yes, I used the term this time) bemoaning that Blessed John XXIII no longer sits in Peter’s Chair, that John Paul II is just not of the same caliber, etc. I’m going to obey the one with the mandate and charism to lead, esp. when he is prevented by the Holy Spirit from leading us into error. The Church has spoken about Herself and about Her relationship with our seperated brethren. Check out what the Pope and the Magisterium have to say through the Catechism and other documents. There is no danger of relativism or indifferentianism on their part or on the part of us “liberals” who have posted here. It is facetious to say otherwise, esp. of the deacon’s posts.

 

[Contarini]

The question is asked, what does the Catholic Church gain by continuing on this dangerous path of Ecumenism?

All Religions on the Same Footing

The great danger of ecumenism is that it places all religions on the same footing. Modern ecumenism would have us believe that all men of whatever religious persuasion are equally “on their way to God.” They are merely taking different means to get there… so if you re a Protestant, be a GOOD Protestant, if you’re a Jew, be a GOOD Jew, if you’re a Moslem, be a GOOD MOSLEM, if you’re a Hindu, be a GOOD Hindu. God is portrayed as being at the summit of a mountain, and there are many roads and paths up that mountain that lead to Him.

You don’t even begin to understand ecumenism. First of all, ecumenism is not about relations among different religions. That’s something completely different–interfaith dialogue. So ecumenism certainly does not say that all religions are on the same footing. It purely relates to unity among Christians. The basic premise of ecumenism is that what Christians have in common is more important than what separates them. You may disagree with that, but if so then deal with that premise instead of making up something completely different. Ecumenism does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that all Christian churches are equally right. Certainly that can be a danger–and that’s exactly why dogmatic traditions like Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and for that matter confessional Lutheranism need to be involved in ecumenical dialogue, to remind the rest of us that any real Christian unity will have to grapple seriously with questions of truth and falsehood rather than simply being a matter of patting each other on the back and affirming all views as correct.

Whether or not Catholicism needs ecumenism (I think it does, but you no doubt disagree) it’s clear that ecumenism badly needs Catholicism.

If you want to attack ecumenism, read some real ecumenical theologians–people like Lesslie Newbigin (Household of Faith, for instance) or Geoffrey Wainwright so you’ll actually know what you’re talking about.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Exporter]

I cannot read past post#19. I am using this post to try to get to the last post. I know of no other way.

 

[Fogny]

Hello,

If you read most subjects on this forum, one thing is clear there is a great

Confusion

present in the Church today. One of many reasons for this is the modernization and greater libralism taught.

My question, is how can the church be more christian then Christ.

I said more not less.

Fogny

 

[TNT]

Contarini:

 You don't even begin to understand ecumenism. The basic premise of ecumenism is that what Christians have in common is ***more important than what separates them***. You may disagree with that, but if so then deal with _that_ premise instead of making up something completely different.
 Edwin According to the above "premise":
 The Real Presence dogma is less important than ______________
 Infant baptism dogma is less important than ______________
 The Sacrament of confession dogma is less important than ______________
 
 The Mass as a Sacrifice dogma is less important than ______________
 The Primacy of Peter dogma is less important than ______________

Papal Infallibility dogma is less important than ______________
The infallibility of Cath dogma is less important than______________
The Filioque Dogma is less important than ______________
Sacred Oral Tradition dogma is less important than ______________
Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament dogma is less important than ______________
The Sacraments ACTUALLY give grace dogma is less important than ______________
And last but not least:
The ENTIRE Deposit of Faith is found ONLY in the Catholic Faith dogma is less important than ______________

 Would you simply fill in the blanks?
 Thank you.

 

[HagiaSophia]

At his weekly public audience on Wednesday, January 19, Pope John Paul II reminded his listeners that the Church is observing the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. He said that the “days of reflection and prayer appropriately remind all Christians that the task of regaining full unity, according to Jesus’ will, involves all of the baptized, both pastors and faithful.”

Speaking to about 7,000 people in the Paul VI auditorium, the Pope remarked that the annual Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, which began on January 18, follows shortly after the 40th anniversary of the Vatican II decree Unitatis Redintegratio (doc) , “a key text that firmly and irrevocably placed the Catholic Church within the ecumenical movement.”

There has been significant progress toward the restoration of Church unity, the Pontiff said. But new initiatives are needed, and the task will require the prayerful support of all the faithful. “Prayer,” he continued, “must be accompanied by the purification of the spirit, sentiments, and memory.” Without an “interior conversion,” he said, “there is no real ecumenism.”…“Saying that he will be “spiritually present” at the event, he asked all Christians to join in prayer “that, as quickly as possible, the entire family of the faithful may gain the full communion that Christ desired.” .”

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=34742

 

[Exporter]

HagiaSophia,

I recognise you as a competent poster. You are “level-headed” and honest. I will ask you to help this thread.

This was posted," Its goal is to achieve unity by proclaiming the full truth to those Christians who are not in union with the Church, and removing or ameliorating barriers to unity that are the products of politics, ethnicity, misuse of language, superstition and misinformation. It does not include changing or watering down doctrine."

“The GOAL is to achieve unity by proclaiming the full truth to those Christians who are not in union with the Church”.(That means Baptists and jews)

HagiaSophia, what do you think this means?
What is meant by “achieving unity”? In mathematics unity means ONE. In Chemistry unity means ONE. In terms of ecumenism, what does it mean*,"The Goal is to achieve “unity”.* What is the result of that unity?

I have addressed HagiaSophia but if another poster can offer an answer…please answer.

(An extra credit question: You are the director of the first ecumenical meeting in your Diocese. You will set the agenda. This will be a meeting of a Roman Catholic, a Jew, and a Baptist. All you have to do is to set two goals to be met. WHAT WILL YOU DO? What are your GOALS?

 

[HagiaSophia]

Exporter:

WHAT WILL YOU DO? What are your GOALS?:

Since I’ve been involved with actual instances in a couple of ways I’ll answer this part of your post first and get back to the initial part later:

1. In our community the various Christian groups didn’t know one another well except in a couple of neighborhoods - services were often overlapping and in poor neighborhods, limited budgets and needs exceeding donors were pretty much the rule.

The local Black Church (can’t recall the denomination now), Roman Catholic and Baptists sent representatives to a meeting to examine what services were being provided, what was needed and how to use all three budgets and volunteer workers to better advantage.

We ended up with the following which expanded largely the number of people who could be served over what we had been able to do as individual parishes Food, clothing, social services.

One location was to run the clothing bank - this provides good, used clothing and replaced three poorly organized and functioning locations.

The second one took over the food bank. All donations of food, all fund raising and donations of foodstuffs were brought into this location. (Again this replaced three locations, three mimimum food distribution points)

The third had the social service office with volunteers (often experienced seniors whho had held some very good jobs); need a hospital visit and didn’t have money? Didn’t understand how to get your meds? Need Meals on Wheels?Lost your mate - spiritually lost?

These three parishes once they got organized, serviced many more people, efficiently, no overlap, and provided services desperately needed in just one small area of our city. It worked so well, other faith communities took note , pretty soon the local AME church, the Lutherans, the Methodists copied the programs in their areas and joined up and now in many places parishes of different faiths provide needed services. It varies with the ethnic, social and economic base in the community.

Missions Work: Our Propagation for the Faith office had in stock all used vestments from “olden days” which they sold to mainly foreign bishops to raise money and at the same time provide vestments abroad. The Anglican bishop in an African nation was the first indigenous citizen of that country to make bishop - but with a poor congregation had not vestments. We got donations, bought from the Propagation offices, sent the vestments to the Anglicans - they were thrilled and in return as they were in the city, they got more food donations than the Catholic priests in the more rural areas. Father would come to the city, pick up some food from the Anglicans, leave off some of the medicine he got and so there is again a lack of duplication, a source for the needs and both groups work jointly in finding homes and orphanage placements for the orphans of AIDS victims who are simply abandoned. The disease is so feared and in this nation, people do not “adopt” ordinarily so the children are tended between two different faith groups, but Christians all. (This is big news among the population as this is a place where the local witch doctor has opened offfices in the downtown capital.) Often some that come in with a need, end up volunteering for others.

Again, people have gotten to know one another and in their errands of mercy for each other, no longer fear or dislike one another, they are united in taking care of those who need it. They find new wys of interacting in their political and social needs as well.

Third example: Bejing and Cairo Conferences where the UN sponsored women’s meetings from every country in the globe; one of the main agendas was to push abortion,as a means of “family planning” into law in many nations - the pope quietly rounded up the Muslims from many nations and together with the Christians they turned the Cairo Conference on its ear much to the chagrin of those who came equipped to get these laws passed through the women of the nations. Same thing at the Bejing Conference.Many ultra left feminists still are ranting and raving about how the Pope in Rome managed the entire “coup” of their program. This would have not been possible if the Muslim leaders were not accessible nor friendly with the Pope. He continues to insist that we find commonalities within our cultural beliefs, our faith beliefs and our desire to have “life” for all people as the stones upon which we build the future.

We used to also have a radio program which had reps from Catholic, Protestant and Jewish and Orthodox clergy every Sunday. Callers phoned the station, spoke to the cleric of their choice and asked questions - and those that followed it, said over and over again, “I never knew that, I never understood that, how much we all have in common”… We are all “People of God”.

 

[Exporter]

HagiaSophia,

First I thank you for your last post. I salute those who got the cooperation of the three Churches to make the aid to those who are poverty stricken to more effeciently recieve food, clothing and services. It was a great thing to help some in Africa too. I think doing is better than talking in most situations.

But what does UNITY mean? "“The GOAL is to achieve unity by proclaiming the full truth to those Christians who are not in union with the Church”.(That means Baptists and jews)

This is a QUESTION:HagiaSophia, what do you think this means?
What is meant by “achieving unity”? In mathematics unity means ONE. In Chemistry unity means ONE. In terms of ecumenism, what does it mean*,"The Goal is to achieve “unity”.* What is the result of that unity?

I have addressed HagiaSophia but if another poster can offer an answer…please answer.

(An extra credit question: You are the director of the first ecumenical meeting in your Diocese. You will set the agenda. This will be a meeting of a Roman Catholic, a Jew, and a Baptist. All you have to do is to set two goals to be met. WHAT WILL YOU DO? What are your GOALS?

 

[HagiaSophia]

]
HagiaSophia, what do you think this means?

I thank you for your most kind words - I will keep this answer as simple as I can, being neither theologian nor canon lawyer and because forums lend themselves to briefer communications than written dissertations:

The pope as I understand him believes with St. Francis; lead by example and when necessary use words. What is our work in the world? To preach and teach God that all may know Him.

We have to get to “know” one another; that means we need to talk. You can’t talk to someone if you hold them beneath your notice, defer because they are so far above you, or are totally indifferent because after all you are right and everyone else is wrong. (Y’know the old God is an Englishman approach). Faith in God and life lived to that end is not some private club from which we seek to EXCLUDE people; the object is to INCLUDE them as people of God.

The pope speaks over and over and over about culture, ethnicity, and shared commonalities socially. These are the building blocks. The facts are, as he put it, the world is a much smaller place than it was for any of his predecessors. Technology, modern travel and in his lifetime he tells us that the world has seen the greatest mass migration of peoples from one place to another than has ever been elsewhere recorded. John Paul II has said that this era of history is headed into the “confrontation between the forces for God and forces against Him.” So that is the ISSUE.

As we look at the forces for God we find a variety of generals, arrayed in different uniforms who all have a battle plan. It’s all about “them” - we need a battle plan all about “us” or as good old Ben Franklin put it, “we will all hang separately”.How do we meld that group into a force on this earth with a focus, a strategy with a loud voice insisting that man is more than his body, more than his mind, more than what he can produce - how to we care for the souls of men?

If believers in God join together in a coalition of focus and force we can push this ever growing secular and nihilistic world into one in which the souls of men, their spiritual growth as well as their material needs are met. Details with each group will vary - so this is why what appears to be endless councils and committees work toward “relations” with each other. We start with the commonalities of our cultural, social and faith driven understandings. From there we branch out, and perhaps on some theological issues we shall never agree, but we can exist in our own communities with our own individual identities if on the common points of life, freedoms and respect we offer one another, we can meet and hold.

So I believe that the unity of which the pope speaks is not that we all sit in the same pew, in the same church and have the identical liturgy on the same day. It is a unity of “coalition” that as believers we can work together out of our individual expressions. Out of this over time, grows respect, mutual action and conversions of all sorts will happen as we get to know one another. Some being inspired by us will come into our church, others will not receive the light of our individual faith but know we are "family: - I also think the pope has great faith that God is working within us all to some great purpose, as yet unnamed, unseen and not wholly known. Thus he casts his net “out into the deep” - Peter’s net, not to entrap, but to contain.

He trusts that if we do what we are supposed to do, that God will make His wishes known, His way known and he places a childlike and total trust that it will unveil itself. Through this pontificate he has referred on several occasions to “points of history” being reached, events in history being upon us. We shall not and cannot survive unless we cling together - I believe that what is to come will take everything we have and everyone we have. Miserere nobis.

IMO we are hearing a man a century ahead of his time - we are all people of our own time - trying to catch up with Karol Woytla, one needs 7 league boots. When he speaks of purification of memory, of our relationships with each other isn’t it really an echo of " and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" - isn’t it the parable of Solomon and the two mothers? of the good Samaritan and his stranger in the ditch? It is breathtaking to think that these parables are about not just the people of His time but about US - all of us.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

HagiaSophia:

Thus he casts his net “out into the deep” - Peter’s net, not to entrap, but to contain.

Hagia Sophia: What a truly profound and beautiful image, both of the Petrine office and the current occupant. Magnificent!

 

[HagiaSophia]

JKirkLVNV:

Hagia Sophia: What a truly profound and beautiful image, both of the Petrine office and the current occupant. Magnificent!

I have loved that “duc in altum” (cast into deep water) phrase since the pope first used it in one of his encyclicals - its imagery is so powerful and he is absolutely correct; we are in uncharted water, on an unknown sea - we in Peter’s barque have not travelled this way before - but we have Peter’s net with us - so as John Paul II said, “Be not afraid…”​

Note on the phrase: duc in altum:The Holy Father, in his letter “At the beginning of the new millennium,” has called each of us, just as our Lord called Simon Peter, to “Put out into the deep,” or “Duc in altum.” This is a call to “go forward in hope!” — to live a life in Christ boldly and without fear, to love Him more deeply, to witness to Him and serve Him with charity, to “contemplate the face of Christ.”

 

[Deacon_Ed]

As you noted, the phrase “duc in altum” is fascinating. The word “duc” is from “duco” meaning “to lead, conduct, guide, direct, draw, bring, fetch, escort” – it’s in the 2nd person singular present, imperative, active voice. It’s a command for each of us, singularly and together, to “go into the deep”. The deep is a fearful place – we might drown. But God is with us, we go in faith. Like Peter we call to the Lord, and like Peter our faith might falter – but God is there to support us, to carry us, to “hold us in the palm of His hand.”

This is the reason for ecumenism – to bring the Good News to everyone. The very word Apostle comes from the Greek *apostolos *which means “messenger, envoy.” We who follow in their footsteps are also called to be messenger. We are to be evangelists (Greek *euangelistês) *which means “to bring the Good News.”

Deacon Ed

 

[Exporter]

{note: I wrote and attempted to post this statement twice & failed. Perhaps this one will be posted.}

HagiaSophia, The tone and the underlying theme of your post that addressed my questions to you was maybe the very best effort to express an idea that I have seen on Catholic Answers Forum! It was a wonderful essay. You are to be commended. Thank You.

You answered by giving a possible objective of John Paul II for promoting Ecumenism. May I give my summation here? Thanks. In simple language it seems to me that you said the Pope wants to build a Christian Army (my words) that will be a bulwark against the expected Evil Forces. And you tried to say that Ecumenism was the way to build that bulwark. It is interesting to note that you, HagiaSophia did not actuall take sides, but you did express that you hold the Pope in high esteem.

But you did not answer my question! I will copy & paste them again. I have sat in too many seminars and participated for years in organizational meetings to not recognise that you didn’t answer my question(s). I asked SPECIFIC questions so we would have a real answer. I remind you that your essay far exceeded all expectations. But the questions were not answered. If you can’t answer or if you don’t feel comfortable in answering…just say so. I can tell from your essay that you are able to set forth an abstract idea. I thank you again. Here is the question(s).
"But what does UNITY mean? "“The GOAL is to achieve unity by proclaiming the full truth to those Christians who are not in union with the Church”.(That means Baptists and jews) This question was answered!

This is a QUESTION:HagiaSophia, what do you think this means?
What is meant by “achieving unity”? In mathematics unity means ONE. In Chemistry unity means ONE. In terms of ecumenism, what does it mean*,"The Goal is to achieve “unity”.* What is the result of that unity? This was Fuzzy.

I have addressed HagiaSophia but if another poster can offer an answer…please answer.

(An extra credit question: **You are the director of the first ecumenical meeting in your Diocese. You will set the agenda. This will be a meeting of a Roman Catholic, a Jew, and a Baptist. All you have to do is to set two goals to be met. WHAT WILL YOU DO?What would your agenda be? What are your GOALS? Here I am trying to learn how ecumenism in action starts in real life. I am very interested in this extra credit qs.