Personally, I am unsubscribing from this thread but for the sake of completeness, in follow-up to my previous post, if you are sincerely interested in understanding “ecumenism” from the Catholic perspective, I would suggest that you be in touch with a Catholic ecumenist.I’ll be back in a little bit, I need to calm down some.
Perhaps this is part of the misunderstanding. When you say that the “Catholic church views itself as the sole heir of Saint Peter”.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.
Perhaps that is where the misunderstanding is coming from, Don, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.Personally, I am unsubscribing from this thread but for the sake of completeness, in follow-up to my previous post, if you are sincerely interested in understanding “ecumenism” from the Catholic perspective, I would suggest that you be in touch with a Catholic ecumenist.
More than anonymous people who are participating on an Internet forum, each offering their own thoughts and reflections of greater or lesser relevance, one who does ecumenism on a day to day basis, indeed as one’s life’s work, is better positioned to explain what ecumenism is from a Catholic perspective, how it is actually conducted, and how we understand its place in the efforts both for Church unity and for cooperative efforts in various initiatives and endeavours.
If your questions and interest lie more with the current state of the relations and conversations presently between Catholicism and Mormonism, this would be an issue under inter-faith dialogue rather than ecumenism, technically speaking. The inter-religious dialogue with Mormons is actually a rather unique situation given Mormonism’s own uniqueness. It is not a particularly extensive topic at the international level where I am, but certainly the Diocese of Salt Lake City, and specifically its Ecumenical Commission, is an excellent beginning resource for you.
There are, actually, real and strong bonds of cooperation at the hierarchical level between the Catholic Church and the LDS…as demonstrated by the meeting at the Vatican between Pope Francis and Henry Eyring, first counselor in the governing First Presidency, in November 2014, as well as, for example, the work Bishop Wester did before his elevation as Metropolitan Archbishop of Santa Fe, USA.
Yes, you have encountered confusion in terminology and its use – because the terminology is being employed by non-specialists.
Aspects of what you are speaking about fall simply into the category of cooperation among the Churches and ecclesial communities which is a type of practical ecumenism but is occurring at a level outside of meaningful theological dialogue.
I am truly sorry to read that you are upset. I am, however, confused by your objective. On the one hand, you assert you do not wish to talk to “church lawyers” of “far removed paper-bound theologians” but rather engage in discussion with ordinary people. But then are nonplussed when these ordinary people give you varying or imprecise answers. It takes three years of academic study to become a canon lawyer and longer to become a doctor of canon law, just as it takes years to become a doctor of theology – which is why, when you ask a question of a canon lawyer or theologian, they are speaking to you from their knowledge and their experience…not from their thoughts, feelings, or what “seems”.
I have offered my advice as best I can. A forum with many voices speaking from many backgrounds is not a particularly useful channel for meaningful dialogue. I bid you farewell and wish you well in your pursuit of the knowledge and information that you are seeking.
Not in my experience. I’ve been to ecumenical gatherings where Catholics and Protestants pray together, study some ecumenical text together, and discuss things we agree about. In my experience ecumenical talk happens at both the local and higher-up levels.I’m saying that all this discussion happens far removed from the average citizen.
I didn’t say not to ask a layman. You can ask anybody you want. Responses from lay people are important. Building on that, sometimes what forum posters say doesn’t accurately reflect what the Church says we should be doing. That’s one reason why we go back to what the Church says all the time: it helps clarify what the Church really wants out of the ecumenical movement. And that includes greater unity around things we agree about, and eventually, hopefully, conversion on things we disagree about.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.
That could be.It seems as if jane_doe feels that ecumenism ought to happen at the individual level. In other words, what’s the point of merging hierarchies if the people don’t follow behind freely? Do Eastern bishops subjugate them for the sake of unity? That’s not what Catholics hope for in ecumenical dialogue. Sure, if the Orthodox Churches are going to come into reunion with Rome, then there HAS to be a formal ecclesiastical merging; that doesn’t mean the Eastern bishops leave their people behind. That’s why ecumenism needs to happen with discernment, and that’s why bishops need to be intimate with the moods of their individual meteopoleis/eparchies. jane_doe asks how this is different from simple mass conversion: the Eastern Churches have valid holy orders, a valid Eucharist; they’ve got God and theology right. We’re not seeking to “convert them” so much as we’d like to call them our full brothers and sisters in Christ. When a family is divided, you don’t “convert” one side to the other; you welcome the lost ones home again, and in the process you learn something about each other.
There aren’t ecumenical relationships with Hindus. We participate in and host inter-religious dialogue with non Christians.And I’m saying that the first goal doesn’t meet the other definitions of ecumenism presented here.
I’m also saying that:
- I serve you and don’t care that you’re a Hindu
- I aim to convert you (a Hindu) to becoming a Catholic
Are two conflicting goals.
I feel like you’re casting this in a negative light, but I can’t tell. You’re right though: if ecumenism prevails, Protestants come back to the Catholic Church; obviously, they can’t bring doctrine with them that contradicts what they’ve allowed themselves to receive in the Catholic Church.Let’s zoom out here:
Statement (please correct me if you view any of these being wrong)- Catholics have a unique set of beliefs.
Statement- Baptists (just as my running example) have a different unique set of beliefs.
These beliefs are different.
Through “ecumenism” Catholics are asking Baptists to to abandon their Baptist beliefs and adopt Catholic beliefs instead.
Correct?
And please, don’t respond with “but they get to keep all their traditions and worship style”- aka all the stuff that does not matter one bit in the grand scheme of things. I am talking about BELIEFS.
From where I’m setting right now the word “ecumenism”… let’s just leave that word out of it for now.It seems as if jane_doe feels that ecumenism ought to happen at the individual level.
Objection to the word “merger”, because “merger” would imply Catholics change some too. What’s being talked about here is “assimilation”.In other words, what’s the point of merging hierarchies if the people don’t follow behind freely?
Again, objection the to word “reunion”.Sure, if the Orthodox Churches are going to come into reunion with Rome
Let’s switch this around: how about instead of them coming home to Rome, you ditch Rome and come home to Constantinople. Does that sound good?We’re not seeking to “convert them” so much as we’d like to call them our full brothers and sisters in Christ. When a family is divided, you don’t “convert” one side to the other; you welcome the lost ones home again, and in the process you learn something about each other.
No it’s not. Please please drop this “unity” word-- you have no interest in uniting with Baptists. Rather, your interest in abolishing Baptist belief and making those people Catholics instead. That is not unity, it’s assimilation.Ecumenism is about restoring Christian unity
You may object to the word “reunion,” but that’s what the Catholic Church is pursuing through ecumenism. Why do you object to it? What other word works?From where I’m setting right now the word “ecumenism”… let’s just leave that word out of it for now.
Do I believe that sharing the Gospel and conversion should happen on an individual level? Totally, if fact that’s the only level it can possibly happen on.
Objection to the word “merger”, because “merger” would imply Catholics change some too. What’s being talked about here is “assimilation”.
But yes, the choice should be at an individual level.
Again, objection the to word “reunion”.
Let’s switch this around: how about instead of them coming home to Rome, you ditch Rome and come home to Constantinople. Does that sound good?
As a matter of fact, we do want unity. Baptists would have to cease as an ecclesial body and belief system, however. They broke away from Mother Church, and the unruly child doesn’t set the ground rules. It just doesn’t happen any other way!No it’s not. Please please drop this “unity” word-- you have no interest in uniting with Baptists. Rather, your interest in abolishing Baptist belief and making those people Catholics instead. That is not unity, it’s assimilation.
“Assimilation” because you are wiping out the other and replacing them with yourself.You may object to the word “reunion,” but that’s what the Catholic Church is pursuing through ecumenism. Why do you object to it? What other word works?
I agree that it would be disrespectful to both traditions-- that’s part of the reason I am so aghast by this idea.And you object to “merge”; well, if we were assimilating the Eastern tradition, that would disrespect the Sacred Tradition of both sides; East and West are both unique and complete in their own way.
They are two different Traditions, two different beliefs. They are not one. (Not to say they can’t work together respecting their differences, but that’s evidently not what ecumenism is about).No one side assimilates the other; it’s two lungs working for one body.
.
The gist of the above statement is “oh yeah, let’s work alongside together-- as long as you acknowledge that I’m the boss”. Do you not see that?These two remarkable Christian traditions function together as one, but acting as distinct notes in the ecclesial symphony. That doesn’t mean Rome does not deserve primacy of power by merit of its first bishop.
Listen to yourself: you don’t want unity, you want the unruly children to fall in line! Do you think England should say “those unruly American colonies should come back to us and beg for forgiveness. We’ll teach them how to have a proper tea, abolish American football, and all will be well.”As a matter of fact, we do want unity. Baptists would have to cease as an ecclesial body and belief system, however. They broke away from Mother Church, and the unruly child doesn’t set the ground rules. It just doesn’t happen any other way!
And please stop inferring that Catholics intend to “make” anyone do anything. Once Baptists enter dialogue with the Church out of an interest to come back, then the Church will carry out its discernment.
I can see we’re getting nowhere. Listen, the Church is not a cookie-cutter institution. It’s a body of people, and these people come from different walks of life, different spiritualities, etc. Perhaps you can’t see how two traditions can believe in the same God and the same faith but have different ways of expressing it. I’m sorry if you think ecumenism is like a bloody crusade to annihilate diversity of thought. That’s not what we want as Catholics; instead, we want the world to see a visibly united body, with diverse parts and multi-faceted functions. What more is there to say? There are many good and wise Catholics who have offered you definitions and resources to help you understand this idea; I’d advise you to read them and come back with less fury.“Assimilation” because you are wiping out the other and replacing them with yourself.
I agree that it would be disrespectful to both traditions-- that’s part of the reason I am so aghast by this idea.
They are two different Traditions, two different beliefs. They are not one. (Not to say they can’t work together respecting their differences, but that’s evidently not what ecumenism is about).
The gist of the above statement is “oh yeah, let’s work alongside together-- as long as you acknowledge that I’m the boss”. Do you not see that?
This isn’t about tradition, its about Tradition.I can see we’re getting nowhere. Listen, the Church is not a cookie-cutter institution. It’s a body of people, and these people come from different walks of life, different spiritualities, etc. Perhaps you can’t see how two traditions can believe in the same God and the same faith but have different ways of expressing it. I’m sorry if you think ecumenism is like a bloody crusade to annihilate diversity of thought. That’s not what we want as Catholics; instead, we want the world to see a visibly united body, with diverse parts and multi-faceted functions. What more is there to say? There are many good and wise Catholics who have offered you definitions and resources to help you understand this idea; I’d advise you to read them and come back with less fury.
Sure. Sacred Tradition. The Church cares about preserving it in the Christian community. Through ecumenism, the ancient Tradition of the Church finds its way back into the hearts of all professing Christians, whether they be Baptist, Orthodox, or whatever. The Tradition has been more tainted in some denominations than in others, however. With the Orthodox, they’ve lost a sense of the Tradition of unity. With Protestants, it’s a wider scope. The scope can widen to the point that ecumenism becomes almost impossible, as in the case of the LDS Church.This isn’t about tradition, its about Tradition.