"Ecumenism"?

[jane_doe]

On another thread we were talking about ecumenism. I’m starting this thread about ecumenism in general, to expand my limited knowledge on what this means to Catholics.

When the word “ecumenism” first came up, I’ll admit I had to look it up. Upon a quick Google search, it seem to be essentially be “churches working together”, so that’s the definition I went with (I’m a huge fan of inter-faith dialogue and cooperation).

However, as the thread continued, it seemed that people were defining this as “formally merging two churches into one”. This strikes me as odd. But upon thinking about it, it seemed something I could see like a Baptist church doing when they form their convention, made possible because their belief in the Invisible Church and local church autonomy.

But how would such a concept apply to the Catholic church, which views itself as the sole heir of Saint Peter. I don’t see Catholics ever giving that up, so it would seem any attempt at ‘merger’ would be in effectively be a “come convert to Catholicism” conversation.

I feel I’m missing part of the story here and/or misunderstanding things. Anyone care to help me out?

 

[TheDoctor]

However, as the thread continued, it seemed that people were defining this as “formally merging two churches into one”. This strikes me as odd. But upon thinking about it, it seemed something I could see like a Baptist church doing when they form their convention, made possible because their belief in the Invisible Church and local church autonomy.

I do not believe this is what the Church means when she says “ecumenism”. This is taken from Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree On Ecumenism - 2nd Vatican Council) and is the way we should parse the discussion:
"The term “ecumenical movement” indicates the initiatives and activities planned and undertaken, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity.

These are: first, every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult;

then, “dialogue” between competent experts from different Churches and Communities. At these meetings, which are organized in a religious spirit, each explains the teaching of his Communion in greater depth and brings out clearly its distinctive features. In such dialogue, everyone gains a truer knowledge and more just appreciation of the teaching and religious life of both Communions. In addition, the way is prepared for cooperation between them in the duties for the common good of humanity which are demanded by every Christian conscience; and, wherever this is allowed, there is prayer in common.

Finally, all are led to examine their own faithfulness to Christ’s will for the Church and accordingly to undertake with vigor the task of renewal and reform."
As I understand it, the goal of ecumenism is that through dialogue, we may understand what others believe and why; and show them the fullness, the richness and the truth of the Catholic Church so as to lead them home to the Church Christ founded.

 

[jane_doe]

I do not believe this is what the Church means when she says “ecumenism”. This is taken from Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree On Ecumenism - 2nd Vatican Council) and is the way we should parse the discussion:
"The term “ecumenical movement” indicates the initiatives and activities planned and undertaken, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity.

These are: first, every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult;

then, “dialogue” between competent experts from different Churches and Communities. At these meetings, which are organized in a religious spirit, each explains the teaching of his Communion in greater depth and brings out clearly its distinctive features. In such dialogue, everyone gains a truer knowledge and more just appreciation of the teaching and religious life of both Communions. In addition, the way is prepared for cooperation between them in the duties for the common good of humanity which are demanded by every Christian conscience; and, wherever this is allowed, there is prayer in common.

Finally, all are led to examine their own faithfulness to Christ’s will for the Church and accordingly to undertake with vigor the task of renewal and reform."
As I understand it, the goal of ecumenism is that through dialogue, we may understand what others believe and why; and show them the fullness, the richness and the truth of the Catholic Church so as to lead them home to the Church Christ founded.

Thanks Doctor. So if I’m understanding you right, “ecumenism” entails three things:

1. to be nonjudgmental, fair, and respectful
2. to dialogue, each explaining their beliefs to gain greater appreciation of each other.
3. Cooperation for the common good of humanity (aka social issues)

Do I got it right?

 

[Genesis315]

On another thread we were talking about ecumenism. I’m starting this thread about ecumenism in general, to expand my limited knowledge on what this means to Catholics.

When the word “ecumenism” first came up, I’ll admit I had to look it up. Upon a quick Google search, it seem to be essentially be “churches working together”, so that’s the definition I went with (I’m a huge fan of inter-faith dialogue and cooperation).

However, as the thread continued, it seemed that people were defining this as “formally merging two churches into one”. This strikes me as odd. But upon thinking about it, it seemed something I could see like a Baptist church doing when they form their convention, made possible because their belief in the Invisible Church and local church autonomy.

But how would such a concept apply to the Catholic church, which views itself as the sole heir of Saint Peter. I don’t see Catholics ever giving that up, so it would seem any attempt at ‘merger’ would be in effectively be a “come convert to Catholicism” conversation.

I feel I’m missing part of the story here and/or misunderstanding things. Anyone care to help me out?

For Catholics, we believe the one Church of Christ continues to exist in all its integrity and that this is the Catholic Church. So yes, for us, ecumenism is working with other Christian communities toward true unity, which is that unity in faith and hierarchical communion in this one Church. But it’s different (but complementary) than individuals just converting to Catholicism. Corporate reunion can look different. A good example of this is the formation of the Anglican ordinariate which maintained many Anglican traditions which developed outside the Catholic Church, but that were not contrary to the faith. Cardinal Levada explained this really well here:
Cardinal Levada:

Union with the Catholic Church is the goal of ecumenism, yet the very process of moving towards union works a change in Churches and ecclesial communities that engage one another in dialogue, and actual instances of entering into communion, do indeed transform the Catholic Church by way of enrichment. Let me add right away that when I say enrichment, I am referring not to any addition of essential elements of sanctification and truth to the Catholic Church—Christ has endowed her with all the essential elements. I am referring to the addition of modes of expression of these essential elements, modes which enhance everyone’s appreciation of the inexhaustible treasures bestowed on the Church by her Divine Founder. The “new reality” of visible unity among Christians should not be thought of as the coming together of disparate elements that previously had not existed in any one community: the Second Vatican Council clearly teaches that all the elements of sanctification and truth which Christ bestowed on the Church are found in the Catholic Church.[4] What is new, then, is not the acquisition of something essential that had hitherto been absent. Instead, what is new is that perennial truths and elements of holiness already to be found in the Catholic Church are given new focus or a different stress by the way they are lived by various groups of the faithful who are called by Christ to come together in perfect communion with one another, enjoying the bonds of creed, code, cult and charity in diverse ways that blend harmoniously.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20100306_levada-ontario_en.html

 

[TheologyIl]

I feel I’m missing part of the story here and/or misunderstanding things. Anyone care to help me out?

I think ecumenism is the answer to the situation with the protestants and eastern orthodox especially. It is clear that talking isn’t going to change the situation. I think it is underestimated how important it is to think of Vatican II as a pastoral council. The term pastoral council is new. There haven’t been other pastoral councils, but the Pope said it was primarily pastoral in nature. Therefore it fits into the large category of pastoral theology, which is how Priests handle situations in Church.

 

[jane_doe]

For Catholics, we believe the one Church of Christ continues to exist in all its integrity and that this is the Catholic Church. So yes, for us, ecumenism is working with other Christian communities toward true unity, which is that unity in faith and hierarchical communion in this one Church. But it’s different (but complementary) than individuals just converting to Catholicism. Corporate reunion can look different. A good example of this is the formation of the Anglican ordinariate which maintained many Anglican traditions which developed outside the Catholic Church, but that were not contrary to the faith. Cardinal Levada explained this really well here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20100306_levada-ontario_en.html

I’m confused on how this “corporate reunion” is different than mass conversion. After all, you want them to acknowledge your authority as the one Church of Christ.

 

[Genesis315]

I’m confused on how this “corporate reunion” is different than mass conversion. After all, you want them to acknowledge your authority as the one Church of Christ.

It is a mass conversion when it comes to rejecting any errors, professing the truth, and being fully incorporated in the Church’s hierarchical structure. But when an individual converts, he simply becomes a member of his local Catholic parish as it is. In the example I gave, the Anglican communities that came over en masse were not simply received as individuals in this way. They professed the entirety of the Catholic faith, yes, but they kept much of their own liturgical tradition, customs, and charisms and their local communities centered around these traditions remained socially intact.

 

[jane_doe]

It is a mass conversion when it comes to rejecting any errors, professing the truth, and being fully incorporated in the Church’s hierarchical structure. But when an individual converts, he simply becomes a member of his local Catholic parish as it is. In the example I gave, the Anglican communities that came over en masse were not simply received as individuals in this way. They professed the entirety of the Catholic faith, yes, but they kept much of their own liturgical tradition, customs, and charisms and their local communities centered around these traditions remained socially intact.

So it IS a mass conversion?

 

[St_Francis]

I’m confused on how this “corporate reunion” is different than mass conversion. After all, you want them to acknowledge your authority as the one Church of Christ.

Yes, the desire of the Catholic Church is the same as the desire and words of Christ: that all be one, following all that He taught us. We see the fullness of God’s truth as being found only in unity with His vicar on earth (the pope), and we want to welcome people to join us.

Now, we Catholics believe this, but other ecclesial communities do not. I imagine that when Baptist theologians engage in formal ecumenism activities, that they hope to welcome others into their wonderful and beautiful beliefs, right?

 

[Genesis315]

So it IS a mass conversion?

Yes, but as I mentioned, it is different than when an individual converts, as the decree on ecumenism noted:
Vatican II:

When such actions are undertaken prudently and patiently by the Catholic faithful, with the attentive guidance of their bishops, they promote justice and truth, concord and collaboration, as well as the spirit of brotherly love and unity. This is the way that, when the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion have been gradually overcome, all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.

However, it is evident that, when individuals wish for full Catholic communion, their preparation and reconciliation is an undertaking which of its nature is distinct from ecumenical action. But there is no opposition between the two, since both proceed from the marvelous ways of God.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

 

[jane_doe]

So there’s no goal of working with someone, or coming to a central ground? It’s focused on the other person doing all the changing and joining Catholics?

 

[1ke]

Although many people use the term “convert” that term is not proper to other Christians. Those will valid baptism are already Christians. They do not convert to anything. They enter full communion when/if they become Catholics and receive any sacraments of initiation they may be missing.

Ecumenism serves the purpose of moving towards unity. Ut Unum Sint is another document on the topic.

As it pertains to non-Christians, ecumenism is not the correct term, and not what the documents on ecumenism are focused on. The Church terms this inter-religious dialog.

 

[jane_doe]

Although many people use the term “convert” that term is not proper to other Christians. Those will valid baptism are already Christians. They do not convert to anything. They enter full communion when/if they become Catholics and receive any sacraments of initiation they may be missing.

Ecumenism serves the purpose of moving towards unity. Ut Unum Sint is another document on the topic.

As it pertains to non-Christians, ecumenism is not the correct term, and not what the documents on ecumenism are focused on. The Church terms this inter-religious dialog.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by " enter full communion", and how it is different than “converting”? I’m defining converting as having a person abandon their beliefs you feel are false and to take on additional beliefs you feel are true.

 

[Genesis315]

Although many people use the term “convert” that term is not proper to other Christians. Those will valid baptism are already Christians. They do not convert to anything. They enter full communion when/if they become Catholics and receive any sacraments of initiation they may be missing.

This is a good point. The word “convert” is used differently in different contexts. We can talk about even Catholics needing to convert or needing constant conversion. Often in common parlance today and in more formally in the past the reconciliation of separated Christians was considered conversion. But, as you point out, the formal usage of the word nowadays is more narrow.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The popular term for the mass conversion you speak of is “the ecumenism of return”. Cardinal Walter Kasper, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and Pope Benedict XVI both had some interesting comments regarding the ecumenism of return, but all the sources that I could find were slanted one way or the other, so I encourage you to check them out for yourself.

 

[Genesis315]

So there’s no goal of working with someone, or coming to a central ground? It’s focused on the other person doing all the changing and joining Catholics?

We do not believe in a unity based on the lowest common denominator, but the fullness of truth, as the papal encyclical on ecumenism, Ut Unum Sint, explained (see below). But that does not mean we do not believe in working together toward common objectives. In fact, this can be means of obtaining the grace of unity as St. Thomas More explained concerning Protestants and Catholics working together in his Dialogue of Comfort: “And I trust in God that as God hath caused them to agree together in the defence of his name, so shall he graciously bring them to agree together in the truth of his faith. Therefore will I let God work, and leave off contention.”

There is also the change of heart, removing any unjust prejudices, etc. that both sides must do. Likewise, as my previous posts show, the Church accept new traditions and charisms and new ways of expressing and living that one faith. But yes, we cannot allow the faith handed down by the Church to suffer loss. That is a false unity and contrary to the very nature of God:
St. John Paul II:

Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truth to the preferences of a particular age, or suppressing certain articles of the Creed under the false pretext that they are no longer understood today. The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth? The Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae attributes to human dignity the quest for truth, “especially in what concerns God and his Church”,33 and adherence to truth’s demands. A “being together” which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html

 

[Genesis315]

The popular term for the mass conversion you speak of is “the ecumenism of return”. Cardinal Walter Kasper, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and Pope Benedict XVI both had some interesting comments regarding the ecumenism of return, but all the sources that I could find were slanted one way or the other, so I encourage you to check them out for yourself.

As I showed in an earlier post in this thread, the Anglican ordinariate is a great example of ecumenism that is not an “ecumenism of return.” They kept much of their traditions and patrimony developed after the break. They were not simply absorbed back into the Latin Church as an “ecumenism of return” would have them be.

 

[jane_doe]

Ok guys, I’m very concerned about this. The more this thread goes on, the more this term “ecumenism” and mass conversion (without consulting individuals) seems to be… it reminds me a foreign king showing up in a new land and saying “by the signing of this paper, I am hear-by your new king and you must believe everything I do and say”. (Pardon the poor analogy, I cannot think of better words to express the horror I’m feeling right now).

 

[Genesis315]

Ok guys, I’m very concerned about this. The more this thread goes on, the more this term “ecumenism” and mass conversion (without consulting individuals) seems to be… it reminds me a foreign king showing up in a new land and saying “by the signing of this paper, I am hear-by your new king and you must believe everything I do and say”. (Pardon the poor analogy, I cannot think of better words to express the horror I’m feeling right now).

Um, nobody is forced to be Catholic. Again, look at the example I provided with the Anglicans. Some individual members of those reconciling communities chose not to go along with the reunion. Everything was done out in the open–no one was fully incorporated into the Church without knowing it or against their will. The same is true of other smaller scale reunions, like a diocese of the Assyrian Church that was reconciled a while back. Your horror is misplaced.

 

[jane_doe]

Um, nobody is forced to be Catholic. Again, look at the example I provided with the Anglicans. Some members of those reconciling communities chose not to go along with the reunion. Everything was done out in the open–no one was secretly made a Catholic without knowing it. Your horror is misplaced.

So… the church you group up in and loved is now suddenly Catholic. Your options are:

1. Leave the you can leave the church you’ve grown up and loved
2. Become Catholic

This is no different than the foreign king saying “If you don’t like it, move”.

Sorry… I don’t mean to be anti-Catholic here, bash, dis-respect or anything along those likes. I’m just still really freaking out at this idea.