"Ecumenism"?

[Genesis315]

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.

If the rest of your community is convinced in conscience to join the Catholic Church, but you’re not, what other option is there than for that separation to occur? Sometimes our belief in the truth makes us have to make hard decisions like that. Jesus says we even have to “hate” our own families and that following Him would cause divisions among families. How many converts wound the feelings of their families when they convert? There can be a lot of feelings of betrayal and abandonment. I know many who have suffered through both sides of this. It’s just a sad reality of fallen human nature.

 

[jane_doe]

If the rest of your community is convinced in conscience to join the Catholic Church, but you’re not, what other option is there than for that separation to occur?

Except it’s not consulting your community of laymen, it’s consulting far removed paper-bound theologians. Like politicians deciding things for all the citizens.

Sometimes our belief in the truth makes us have to make hard decisions like that.

No offense, but this sounds like a band-aide platitude.

It’s just a sad reality of fallen human nature.

But this isn’t human nature doing this-- it’s your Church.

 

[lax16]

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?

In the words of the Catholic Church:

But the Lord of Ages wisely and patiently follows out the plan of grace on our behalf, sinners that we are. In recent times more than ever before, He has been rousing divided Christians to remorse over their divisions and to a longing for unity. Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. This movement toward unity is called “ecumenical.” Those belong to it who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, doing this not merely as individuals but also as corporate bodies. For almost everyone regards the body in which he has heard the Gospel as his Church and indeed, God’s Church. All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God.

Read more here:

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

 

[dmar198]

Except it’s not consulting your community of laymen, it’s consulting far removed paper-bound theologians. Like politicians deciding things for all the citizens.

Could you clarify that? I don’t think you mean what I interpret you to mean – that they incorporated the lay people without consulting them. Do you mean that?

 

[lax16]

And definitely read about ecumenism in the Catechism:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

 

[jane_doe]

Could you clarify that? I don’t think you mean what I interpret you to mean – that they incorporated the lay people without consulting them. Do you mean that?

Just like politicians “consult” citizens.

 

[Genesis315]

Except it’s not consulting your community of laymen, it’s consulting far removed paper-bound theologians. Like politicians deciding things for all the citizens.

True ecumenism should happen at all levels. It is also a Catholic truth that no one can be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters–the act of faith must be free. Other than a parent for an infant (due to that special relationship), no one can make that decision for someone else. Each individual must give his free consent too.

No offense, but this sounds like a band-aide platitude.

---

But this isn’t human nature doing this-- it’s your Church.

You’re a Mormon, right? When you guys go on missions and try and convert Catholics or what not, what would you all do if a whole Catholic parish wanted to become Mormon except one person? Would you tell the rest of them to stay Catholic for that one person? Do you accept the rest of a family if one member refuses?

Jesus told His Church to go out and teach all nations to observe what He taught. But he also noted what would sadly happen:

Jesus:

Luke 12:[51] Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation. [52] For there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three. [53] The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against his father, the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother, the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Which is why He had to say:

Jesus:

Luke 14:[26] If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Jesus is not the cause of division–human sin and fallenness are. In a perfect world, all would be united with Him. Many inherit through no fault of their own divisions caused by their forefathers. But this does not negate Christ’s command to call all people to be one in truth and charity.

What alternative do you see?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

I would really urge you to seek the answer not on a forum like this but with those of us who actually work in the field of ecumenism. Dialogue is first and foremost the work of theologians who are trained in the field.

An excellent place to begin to read would be a writing of Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint.
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html

Also, to look at the work of His Eminence, Kurt Cardinal Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. This pontifical council is the office of the Holy See that is entrusted with ecumenical dialogue and the work of national and diocesan institutions occurs under its supervision.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_pro_20051996_chrstuni_pro_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/index.htm

An excellent paradigm of ecumenical dialogue and how it promotes Christian unity may be found in the work of the Joint Commission of Catholics and Lutherans, which was carried out under the Pontifical Council on the Catholic side of the dialogue. The latest accords include “From Conflict to Communion” and, just recently, the publication of the service of common prayer which will be used jointly by Catholic and Lutheran Co-Presiders at ceremonies to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Reformation.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/lutheran-fed-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html

Skimming this last document would help you understand better what ecumenical dialogue is and looks like at the level of theologians.

The work of ARCIC (The Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission) would be another excellent example of ecumenical dialogue.

 

[dmar198]

Just like politicians “consult” citizens.

I hope I am misunderstanding you, but I have to ask: if you are saying the Church acted politically, in what way? I hope you do research before saying what happened.

 

[Genesis315]

I would really urge you to seek the answer not on a forum like this but with those of us who actually work in the field of ecumenism. Dialogue is first and foremost the work of theologians who are trained in the field.

But as jane_doe rightly points out, it can’t only be an ivory tower thing since corporate reunion affects more than just theologians–they can’t make decisions for everyone. That is an important part–to help clarify what the issues really are–but ultimaltey everyone must be involved. As the the encyclical you linked to and the decree from Vatican II note, it is a work of the whole Church. Contacts and an openness to the grace of unity must be cultivated at every level because true unity includes every level.

 

[lax16]

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?

I would think there are at least two goals of ecumenism:

1. to be work together for the common good (feeding the hungry, for example)
2. to try and bring others to the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ so that we could all be one, as He wants us to be

 

[jane_doe]

True ecumenism should happen at all levels. It is also a Catholic truth that no one can be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters–the act of faith must be free. Other than a parent for an infant (due to that special relationship), no one can make that decision for someone else. Each individual must give his free consent too.

I’m HIGHLY skeptical that EVERY person in a denomination agrees with this idea. Logistics alone would make it impossible.

You’re a Mormon, right? When you guys go on missions and try and convert Catholics or what not, what would you all do if a whole Catholic parish wanted to become Mormon except one person? Would you tell the rest of them to stay Catholic for that one person? Do you accept the rest of a family if one member refuses?

If 300 individuals in a congregation want to join the Mormon church, then 300 individuals join. The Catholic congregation does not join, nor does the building, nor is this in anyways viewed as a “merger”. Individuals uninterested in converting can stay at their church doing the things they always do/believe.

And I hear Catholics on CAF say all the time how Mormon missionary work is unethical and how zero verbal sharing of the Gospel should be done. Which flies directly contrary to the ecumenism idea.

Jesus is not the cause of division–human sin and fallenness. In a perfect world, all would be united with Him. Many inherit through no fault of their own divisions caused by their forefathers. But this does not negate Christ’s command to call all people to be one in truth and charity.

Where in this does i justify kicking someone out of their church home?

Again, I want to say I’m not trying to bash or be disrespectful or anything like that. I’m just really freaked out by this idea.

 

[dmar198]

An excellent paradigm of ecumenical dialogue and how it promotes Christian unity may be found in the work of the Joint Commission of Catholics and Lutherans, which was carried out under the Pontifical Council on the Catholic side of the dialogue. The latest accords include “From Conflict to Communion” and, just recently, the publication of the service of common prayer which will be used jointly by Catholic and Lutheran Co-Presiders at ceremonies to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Reformation.

The service of common prayer can be accessed and read in English here: web.archive.org/web/20160202163303/https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/dtpw-lrc-liturgy-2016_en.pdf

 

[lax16]

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).

Are you comparing the new king to Jesus Christ?

These are not words made up by Catholics, they are the words of Jesus. Except he doesn’t force anyone to believe.

 

[Genesis315]

I would think there are at least two goals of ecumenism:

1. to be work together for the common good (feeding the hungry, for example)
2. to try and bring others to the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ so that we could all be one, as He wants us to be

I would just note that both of these are interrelated since the grace of unity which ends in the second goal you mention can be fostered by the first goal.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Except it’s not consulting your community of laymen, it’s consulting far removed paper-bound theologians. Like politicians deciding things for all the citizens.

First, I would just say that I am not a “far removed paper-bound theologian”…I am not sure how to understand that phrase.

To use your analogy, the work of ecumenism divorced from theology and training in the field is as problematic as non-politicians, untrained in the field, unilaterally drafting legislation. If they do not know what they are doing, and the implications of the language that they use, it can create unintended and very undesirable consequences.

 

[jane_doe]

I hope I am misunderstanding you, but I have to ask: if you are saying the Church acted politically, in what way? I hope you do research before saying what happened.

I’m saying that all this discussion happens far removed from the average citizen. The fact while I ask about this, you effectively respond " don’t ask a laymen, ask a church lawyer" further makes me think that this is completely removed from the average church goer.

 

[jane_doe]

I would think there are at least two goals of ecumenism:

1. to be work together for the common good (feeding the hungry, for example)
2. to try and bring others to the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ so that we could all be one, as He wants us to be

These are two fundamentally conflicting goals.

1. Work together as two individuals
2. Make you become me.

 

[lax16]

These are two fundamentally conflicting goals.

1. Work together as two individuals
2. Make you become me.

Apparently not. Catholics do it all the time.

Mother Theresa took care of the poor and destitute in India. They are not Catholic.

St. Vincent de Paul kitchens across the country, including here in Salt Lake City, serve meals to thousands of people a day regardless of religion.

 

[jane_doe]

Apparently not. Catholics do it all the time.

Mother Theresa took care of the poor and destitute in India. They are not Catholic.

St. Vincent de Paul kitchens across the country, including here in Salt Lake City, serve meals to thousands of people a day regardless of religion.

Are those called “ecumenism”? Not according to the definitions I’ve been hearing here.