"Ecumenism"?

[lax16]

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

You heard me say it here:

*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]

You heard me say it here:

*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

And I’m saying that the first goal doesn’t meet the other definitions of ecumenism presented here.

I’m also saying that:

1. I serve you and don’t care that you’re a Hindu
2. I aim to convert you (a Hindu) to becoming a Catholic
   Are two conflicting goals.

 

[Genesis315]

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

It has happened with individual communities a the parish and diocesan level in recent times.

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.

In the example of the Anglicans, the buildings were owned by the larger Anglican Church. Sometimes the parish that was reconciling with the Catholic Church had to get a new building. The building is not really the issue, but rather the people and their rites and traditions.

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.

First, as I mentioned in the other thread, ecumenism from the Catholic perspective is based on a common baptism and faith in the Trinity, and so does not apply to Mormons (this is because baptism already places a non-Catholic in an imperfect unity with the Church). Second, I only have seen certain methods considered unethical. Catholics can proslytize in unethical ways too (our Church formally condemns such activity on our part). Likewise, from the Catholic perspective Mormonism is false religion so converting Catholics is obviously seen by us as a bad thing. Devoted Mormons see Mormons converting to Catholicism as a bad thing. Ecumenism is not relativism or religious indifferentism where it doesn’t matter what you believe or that all religions are equally good.

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.

I completely understand that you are not being disrespectful and I appreciate the discussion! I hope I am not coming across that way either! Let me give you another example that might make more sense. Look at how other churches, including Mormons, have changed their required doctrines over the years. What if one person didn’t agree with those changes? The Mormons excommincated those who celebrated polygamous marriages even though it was previously ok. They actually did kick people out of their church home and other people chose to leave to continue following the old doctrines. Again, what’s the alternative in situations like that?

 

[lax16]

And I’m saying that the first goal doesn’t meet the other definitions of ecumenism presented here.

I’m also saying that:

1. I serve you and don’t care that you’re a Hindu
2. I aim to convert you (a Hindu) to becoming a Catholic
   Are two conflicting goals.

Only if one says “I will only care for you if you become a Catholic” vs “I will be Jesus to all, Catholic or not.”

If that person chooses to become Catholic, thanks be to God, because that is ultimately God’s will. But it is not for US to decide or to force, it is up to God. However, we are called to be and bring Jesus to the world.

 

[Genesis315]

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

That’s correct. It has a specific meaning dealing with baptized communities who are separated. Evangelization and just plain old charity are not necessarily ecumenism, although there is overlap. Evangelization and charity is applied to everyone inside and outside the Church, with or without faith in Jesus.

 

[jane_doe]

It has happened with individual communities a the parish and diocesan level in recent times.

Color me skeptical.

In the example of the Anglicans, the buildings were owned by the larger Anglican Church. Sometimes the parish that was reconciling with the Catholic Church had to get a new building. The building is not really the issue, but rather the people and their rites and traditions.

Are beliefs not important?

First, as I mentioned in the other thread, ecumenism from the Catholic perspective is based on a common baptism and faith in the Trinity, and so does not apply to Mormons. Second, I only have seen certain methods considered unethical. Catholics can proslytize in unethical ways too (our Church formally condemns such activity on our part). Likewise, from the Catholic perspective Mormonism is false religion so converting Catholics is obviously seen by us as a bad thing. Devoted Mormons see Mormons converting to Catholicism as a bad thing. Ecumenism is not relativism or religious indifferentism where it doesn’t matter what you believe or that all religions are equally good.

Did is occur to you that from the Baptist perspective, the Catholic faith is false?
Did is occur to you that from the Methodist perspective, the Catholic faith is false?
Did is occur to you that from the Mormon perspective, the Catholic faith is false?
Did is occur to you that from the Hindu perspective, the Catholic faith is false?

*Note: I’m talking false in in total, not that there isn’t much (even >95%) good/agreed upon.

I completely understand that you are not being disrespectful

Thank you for that assurance. I’m just worried I might offend someone-- I admittedly worked up about this and failing to be politically correct.

Look at how other churches, including Mormons, have changed their required doctrines over the years. What if one person didn’t agree with those changes? The Mormons excommincated those who celebrated polygamous marriages even though it was previously ok. They actually did kick people out of their church home.

Again, what’s the alternative in situations like that?

You’re example doesn’t work at all. Mormons view changes in doctrine (like the banning of polygamy) to be revelation straight from God. What you’re talking about is the discussions of lawyers informing someone their beliefs are changed.

 

[TheologyIl]

I think it doesn’t choose to seek conversion directly. It is more of let’s have a friendly conversation, let’s work together on certain projects that we can, and then, if you want to convert, then it might be because of our example.

 

[lax16]

That’s correct. It has a specific meaning dealing with baptized communities who are separated. Evangelization and just plain old charity are not necessarily ecumenism, although there is overlap. Evangelization and charity is applied to everyone inside and outside the Church, with or without faith in Jesus.

From the CCC:

**Paragraph 3. The Church Is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
**
811 "This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic."256 These four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other,257 indicate essential features of the Church and her mission. The Church does not possess them of herself; it is Christ who, through the Holy Spirit, makes his Church one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, and it is he who calls her to realize each of these qualities.

812 Only faith can recognize that the Church possesses these properties from her divine source. But their historical manifestations are signs that also speak clearly to human reason. As the First Vatican Council noted, the "Church herself, with her marvelous propagation, eminent holiness, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in everything good, her catholic unity and invincible stability, is a great and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefutable witness of her divine mission."258

I consider being Apostolic to mean bringing Jesus to the world. When one does an act of charity, that is bringing Jesus to the world. Maybe not in word, but in deed.

Bringing our fruitfulness to the world is an irrefutable witness of the Church’s diving mission.

 

[jane_doe]

I think it doesn’t choose to seek conversion directly. It is more of let’s have a friendly conversation, let’s work together on certain projects that we can, and then, if you want to convert, then it might be because of our example.

Again, this conflicts with other definitions I’m getting here. There definitely seem to be 2 definitions floating in the Catholic realm.

 

[lax16]

Again, this conflicts with other definitions I’m getting here. There definitely seem to be 2 definitions floating in the Catholic realm.

Why not just read the Catechism on the topic of ecumenism? It’s been linked several times for you.

This way you have the Church’s teaching on the subject and can use that as a starting point for discussion.

 

[lax16]

*Thank you for that assurance. I’m just worried I might offend someone-- I admittedly worked up about this and failing to be politically correct.

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 don’t understand why you are worked up and freaking out? Mormons believe they are the one true church and expect others to convert.

 

[jane_doe]

Why not just read the Catechism on the topic of ecumenism? It’s been linked several times for you.

This way you have the Church’s teaching on the subject and can use that as a starting point for discussion.

I did read it. Honestly, it didn’t help much at all. But I also want to know what definitions Catholics (the people) apply to this word.

*Thank you for that assurance. I’m just worried I might offend someone-- I admittedly worked up about this and failing to be politically correct.

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 don’t understand why you are worked up and freaking out? Mormons believe they are the one true church and expect others to convert.

Convert, yes, and we’re honest about it. It’s also at the individual level-- you feel that this is Truth. No lawyers involved.

What’s been talked about here is… I used this analogy earlier: 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”. And all this is done under the guise of “unity”, when it’s really “assimilation”. Honestly, I find the very idea horrifying.

Couple this with the anti-prosystying stuff I guff I get from Catholic here… honestly that’s now striking me as gross hypocrisy.

Again… I mean not offense here… I’m just… it feels like my head’s exploding at this.

 

[lax16]

I did read it. Honestly, it didn’t help much at all. But I also want to know what definitions Catholics (the people) apply to this word.

If the CCC is not a help, then I am not sure what anyone else can say to help you understand.

Convert, yes, and we’re honest about it. It’s also at the individual level-- you feel that this is Truth. No lawyers involved.

So, obviously then you have no problem with people trying to bring others into their church?
Lawyers involved? You lost me there.

What’s been talked about here is… I used this analogy earlier: 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”. And all this is done under the guise of “unity”, when it’s really “assimilation”. Honestly, I find the very idea horrifying.

Couple this with the anti-prosystying stuff I guff I get from Catholic here… honestly that’s now striking me as gross hypocrisy.

Again… I mean not offense here… I’m just… it feels like my head’s exploding at this.

Jesus started a Church and he wants us, as his disciples, to bring his gospel to the world.

What exactly do you have a problem with? That Catholics believe we are to take Jesus at His word?

You know, you will have to show me where and when we have brought the good news of Jesus to someone and said “you must believe everything I do and say”.

What is your definition of proselytizing?

 

[jane_doe]

I’ll be back in a little bit, I need to calm down some.

 

[lax16]

I’ll be back in a little bit, I need to calm down some.

 

[mommakate]

I don’t know why you think the parishioners didn’t have a choice? When Anglican parishes convert it’s not at all like a king coming to a foreign land and declaring they are all Catholic now. The Catholic church can’t force anyone to become Catholics. Anyone who doesn’t want to convert has the option not to and find another Anglican parish to worship at. They’d probably have had to anyway, even if people converted as individuals. If the priest and most of the congregation left, that parish would most likely be closed.

While I don’t pretend to be an expert on the exact process of these conversions I do remember one woman who was in such a parish talking about how her priest got up and talked to them about it and then asked them to vote on who would be willing to explore becoming Catholic. Only one family in the parish didn’t vote yes. I also read about another group of Anglican parishes in the UK that had set up a group to help gauge the level of support for conversion among rank-and-file worshipers. That’s all hardly a foreign king coming in and converting people by force.

I honestly don’t know what you’re upset about? The Catholic church didn’t trick them or force them to become Catholics. She made an offer. If Anglicans want to become Catholic they can do so and retain their Anglican style of worship and traditions. There were parishes that took them up on their offer and converted. Most of these parishes from what I’ve read were conservative parishes that were unhappy with the direction the Anglican communion was going in regard to gay marriage, women priests, and other things like that.

 

[Marie5890]

Jane, no one is forcing any group of people to become Catholic. Im not sure where you are getting that from.

Take the Ordinariate of Walsingham. As the Anglican Church continued to move in a more non-traditional direction, the offer was made by the Holy See to join us. They, of their own accord, did so. They came with their own pastors, traditions etc etc. The only thing (is my understanding) not their own buildings. They accepted. They were welcomed. But also know, that their belief system was already very similar to Catholic.

Im not sure where the idea of coming in forcing people to join.

Something that many don’t understand about “Catholic” is that is it very diverse. Different traditions. It’s not monolithic.

But the Ordinariate of Walsingham is also a very rare thing. That doesn’t usually happen. It RARELY happens, and again it happened because there were groups of High Anglicans that didn’t like where their church was going.

Can you point to the posts that have triggered your reaction? Im guessing you are not understanding what was said, and it could be that the person who wrote it may not have picked up on that you are LDS.

Perhaps when we see what post(s) bothered you, and how you are interpreting that post, we can help.

 

[jane_doe]

Ok. Distilling my thoughts on the matter— again, please don’t take offense. I’m sharing my thoughts on the matter, and don’t mean to bash or anything.

1. It bothers me that people here proclaim this as “Christian unity” when it’s not. Unity would be a joining of all parties to a central ground. Rather, it’s the other person becoming Catholics and Catholics not changing at all: that’s “assimilation” not “unity”. That’s just false advertising.
2. This not following Christ’s commands to go out and make disciples. Following Christ’s commands would be Catholic people getting out of the pews to go chat with Baptist people (for example) and share Catholic beliefs with them. That’s not what’s going on.
3. Instead, this strike me a lawyer theologian debating, having the Baptist theologian cease their beliefs, and then sign a documents saying “Baptist beliefs are now abolished, we’re all Catholic now and adhere to Rome”. (Yes, this is totally exaggerated way of saying things, but it’s how I feel).
4. As to the Baptist believer: he’s who’s spent his life believe, and feels that Catholic doctrine is in error. No Catholic has gotten out of the pews to talk to him and share what they feel is so important. Instead he’s informed that his church is suddenly Catholic. And if he doesn’t like it, the response is “well too bad to be you, door’s over there-- we don’t care that devoted your life to this church and it’s beliefs”. (Again, this is also exaggerated).
5. Also, Catholics on this forum keep talking to me “style of worship and traditions”, but I seem to be the only person talking about beliefs. That bothers me.

 

[Marie5890]

Jane, perhaps it would help if you explain what ecumenism means to you.

It’s clear to me, that we are not explaining it well, or that you are misunderstanding what we are saying.

There is no coerison going on with ecumenism.

 

[jane_doe]

Jane, perhaps it would help if you explain what ecumenism means to you.

It’s clear to me, that we are not explaining it well, or that you are misunderstanding what we are saying.

There is no coerison going on.

As stated in the OP, I had to look the term up when it came up in the other thread. All I’ve learned has been in this thread.