"Hyper Ecumenism"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sean.McKenzie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sean.McKenzie

Guest
In case there are those who do not understand what i mean by “Hyper Ecumenism”, it refers to the school of thoght that differences between, non-Catholics, particularly the Protestant communitiy’s doctrines and their teachings are not something that should be discussed, but rather our similarities are the topics should be highlighted. Also an extreme focus on non-Catholic Christian doctines, and being overly accepting of those outside the True Church.

!!!DIsclaimer!!!

I want to make this clear, non-Catholics Christians are a gift to the Church, (for in fact they are part of the Church) and many of their charisms are also a gift to the Chruch. There are beautiful Christians outside Roman Catholicism that are more faithful than many Catholics. We must love them and treat them with the same repsect and love we treat those of the fold.

That being said, because of Hyper Ecumenism, one starts to notice that, those who adopt this frame of reasoning, lose pride and zeal in being Catholic. There is something beautiful and righteous about having that pride and appreciation in being one with Gods true singular Church. ONE HOLY AND APOSTOLIC.
 
40.png
Sean.McKenzie:
I want to make this clear, non-Catholics Christians are a gift to the Church, (for in fact they are part of the Church) …
Click to expand...
Can you site a magisterial document to support this claim?

I think you may be confusing the issue of salvation,

catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

with the issue of membership in the Church. The members of the Church are those who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism and who are not separated from the unity of the confession of the Faith, and from the unity of the lawful communion of the Church (i.e. excommunicated).
 
40.png
Sean.McKenzie:
In case there are those who do not understand what i mean by “Hyper Ecumenism”, it refers to the school of thoght that differences between, non-Catholics, particularly the Protestant communitiy’s doctrines and their teachings are not something that should be discussed, but rather our similarities are the topics should be highlighted. Also an extreme focus on non-Catholic Christian doctines, and being overly accepting of those outside the True Church.

!!!DIsclaimer!!!

I want to make this clear, non-Catholics Christians are a gift to the Church, (for in fact they are part of the Church) and many of their charisms are also a gift to the Chruch. There are beautiful Christians outside Roman Catholicism that are more faithful than many Catholics. We must love them and treat them with the same repsect and love we treat those of the fold.

That being said, because of Hyper Ecumenism, one starts to notice that, those who adopt this frame of reasoning, lose pride and zeal in being Catholic. There is something beautiful and righteous about having that pride and appreciation in being one with Gods true singular Church. ONE HOLY AND APOSTOLIC.
Click to expand...
This is interesting. The feeling I have been getting in my readings here is that generally non-Catholics are not regarded as a gift, but more or less denigrated and looked upon as “lesser” beings, regardless of how good a Christian they may be.

It’s nice to see an alternative point of view that attempts to be inclusive of all of Christianity.
 
40.png
DeFide:
Can you site a magisterial document to support this claim?

I think you may be confusing the issue of salvation,

catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

with the issue of membership in the Church. The members of the Church are those who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism and who are not separated from the unity of the confession of the Faith, and from the unity of the lawful communion of the Church (i.e. excommunicated).
Click to expand...
Sure look at the decree on Ecumenism from Vatican II.
 
40.png
Sean.McKenzie:
In case there are those who do not understand what i mean by “Hyper Ecumenism”, it refers to the school of thoght that differences between, non-Catholics, particularly the Protestant communitiy’s doctrines and their teachings are not something that should be discussed, but rather our similarities are the topics should be highlighted. Also an extreme focus on non-Catholic Christian doctines, and being overly accepting of those outside the True Church.

!!!DIsclaimer!!!

I want to make this clear, non-Catholics Christians are a gift to the Church, (for in fact they are part of the Church) and many of their charisms are also a gift to the Chruch. There are beautiful Christians outside Roman Catholicism that are more faithful than many Catholics. We must love them and treat them with the same repsect and love we treat those of the fold.

That being said, because of Hyper Ecumenism, one starts to notice that, those who adopt this frame of reasoning, lose pride and zeal in being Catholic. There is something beautiful and righteous about having that pride and appreciation in being one with Gods true singular Church. ONE HOLY AND APOSTOLIC.
Click to expand...
What you describe as “Hyper Ecumenism” is also known as False Ecumenism.
 
40.png
DeFide:
Can you site a magisterial document to support this claim?

I think you may be confusing the issue of salvation,

catholic.com/library/Sal…_the_Church.asp

with the issue of membership in the Church. The members of the Church are those who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism and who are not separated from the unity of the confession of the Faith, and from the unity of the lawful communion of the Church (i.e. excommunicated)
Click to expand...
It is important to note that Protestants do not enjoy the fullest extent of the church because they have seperated themselves, but they are infact part of the Church seperated, i will try to get you some magesterial documentation, to back this claim up.
 
40.png
Sean.McKenzie:
It is important to note that Protestants do not enjoy the fullest extent of the church because they have seperated themselves, but they are infact part of the Church seperated, i will try to get you some magesterial documentation, to back this claim up.
Click to expand...
See, that’s what I thought, but I’ve been attacked and berated here for making such an assertion. I’m glad to know I wasn’t such a “heretic” after all! LOL
 
40.png
ReformedCatholic:
See, that’s what I thought, but I’ve been attacked and berated here for making such an assertion. I’m glad to know I wasn’t such a “heretic” after all! LOL
Click to expand...
Not quite. What you have been proposing is that we should give up our identity to accomidate that, which is hyper ecumenism. It’s the equivelant, in simplistic terms, of saying to a woman that she needs to change fundamentally who she is and be more of a man, and a man needs to change fundamentally who he is and be more of a woman to be acceptable. Or a person of color needs to whiten up and a caucasion needs to darken up to be acceptable. Neither is acceptable.

In theologic terms you have been saying we need to water down apostolic doctrine to accomidate the new world. And for this we are attacked (even by you) constantly. Somehow we are thought of as “being lesser” because we won’t accomidate the world.

What is God calling us to be out of in scripture?

You are automatically brought into the catholic faith through baptism no matter who administers it (if it’s trinitarian) but with sin you seperate yourself.

Another worthy read close to this subject is “heterodoxy”. (meaning the subject of heresy)

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
40.png
Sean.McKenzie:
It is important to note that Protestants do not enjoy the fullest extent of the church because they have seperated themselves, but they are infact part of the Church seperated, i will try to get you some magesterial documentation, to back this claim up.
Click to expand...
They’re either separate from the Church or part of the Church. They can’t be both. I think you’re reading too much into the polite language of ecumenism terms like “related to”, or “imperfect communion” (i.e. not in communion).

This ambiguous language is one of the inherent dangers of ecumenical dialog, unfortunately.
 
40.png
DeFide:
Here’s the document:

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

Point out where it says that non-Catholics are part of the Church. I can’t find it.
Click to expand...
Read the CC paragraphs 836-848.

Specifically, 838: Those who believe in Christ and are properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

Thematically, think of it this way: We are all made in God’s image with a call to holiness. By sin, we are all separated by God to some degree. But all are Catholic in our call and by choice we separate ourselves but only in the most grievous (ala Hitler) is the separation complete.
 
40.png
Orionthehunter:
Read the CC paragraphs 836-848.

Specifically, 838: Those who believe in Christ and are properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

Thematically, think of it this way: We are all made in God’s image with a call to holiness. By sin, we are all separated by God to some degree. But all are Catholic in our call and by choice we separate ourselves but only in the most grievous (ala Hitler) is the separation complete.
Click to expand...
Not all non-Catholics can be considered members of the Church, as originally stated, if for no other reason, because not all have been baptised.

We can go further:

From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 311:

Among the members of the Church are not to be counted:
…
b) Open apostates and heretics. Public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material hertics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is to the legal commonwealth of the Church. However, this does not prevent them from belonging spiritually to the Church by their desire to belong to the Church (votum Ecclesiae) and through this, achieveing justificaiton and salvation.

It says something similar for schismatics in part c.

In conclusion, we can see a number of cases where non-Catholics are either not formal members of the Church or not even in an “imperfect” communion of the Church, contrary to the original claim in question.
 
40.png
DeFide:
Here’s the document:

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

Point out where it says that non-Catholics are part of the Church. I can’t find it.
Click to expand...
Paragraph 3

…The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)
 
40.png
DeFide:
Not all non-Catholics can be considered members of the Church, as originally stated, if for no other reason, because not all have been baptised.
Click to expand...
The original poster is speaking of “Ecumenism”. Ecumenism only has to do with Baptized Christians. So when I speak of Ecumenism I am only speaking of Baptized Christians.
 
Br. Rich SFO:
Paragraph 3

…The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)
Click to expand...
I agree that the baptised who have not made a formal act of defection are Catholic, despite the denomination of their parents.

Let’s look at this quote:

But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

So, people become members of the Church through Baptism, but that does not imply they will always **remain **members of the Church, as alluded to in my response to OriontheHunter as I noted people who are not to be counted members of the Church from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. This is why ecumenical language can be troublesome.😦

Again from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, this time p. 309:

The members of the Church are those who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism and who are not separated from the unity of the confession of the Faith, and from the unity of the lawful communion of the Church. (Sent. certa.)

In the Encyclical “Mystici Corporis”, Pius XII declared: "Only those are to be accounted really members of the church who have been regenerated in the waters of Baptism and profess the true faith, and have not cut themselves off from the structure of the Body by their own unhappy act or been severed therefrom, for very grave crimes, by the legitimate authority (D2286).

All non-Catholic Christians are our separated brothers, but they are separated nonetheless.
 
40.png
DeFide:
I agree that the baptised who have not made a formal act of defection are Catholic, despite the denomination of their parents.

Let’s look at this quote:

But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

So, people become members of the Church through Baptism, but that does not imply they will always **remain **members of the Church, as alluded to in my response to OriontheHunter as I noted people who are not to be counted members of the Church from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. This is why ecumenical language can be troublesome.😦

Again from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, this time p. 309:

The members of the Church are those who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism and who are not separated from the unity of the confession of the Faith, and from the unity of the lawful communion of the Church. (Sent. certa.)

In the Encyclical “Mystici Corporis”, Pius XII declared: "Only those are to be accounted really members of the church who have been regenerated in the waters of Baptism and profess the true faith, and have not cut themselves off from the structure of the Body by their own unhappy act or been severed therefrom, for very grave crimes, by the legitimate authority (D2286).

All non-Catholic Christians are our separated brothers, but they are separated nonetheless.
Click to expand...
This is really a “is the glass half empty or half full” discussion with nobody really being right or wrong. I think everyone is saying pretty much the same thing.

For me, I look at it under the family analogy. Upon baptism, we all are in the same family. While some might choose to separate themselves from the family either in part or in total, they never cease to be a member of our family. Usually the separation is caused by a angry misguided parent who saw “harm” where no existed in fact and sometimes the cause of the separation has faded such nobody even remembers why the separation exists. But the myth of the harm is all the children were taught. It is delicate for such a relative to return without feeling pangs of guilt for “dissing” their parent.

When I have cause/opportunity to engage a separated member of the family, I focus on what binds us as the first steps to a reconciliation (all one family called to love each other and live by the “family rules”-at least what is universally understood). I know that the cause of the separation needs to be dealt with but I leave it to the head of the family (Christ/Holy Spirit) to deal with the cause of the separation. I’m just a lowly cousin wanting everyone to be reunited. I pray for my separated relatives that the cause of separation is removed and we ultimately come together at the big family reunion.
 
40.png
Orionthehunter:
This is really a “is the glass half empty or half full” discussion with nobody really being right or wrong. I think everyone is saying pretty much the same thing.
Click to expand...
I don’t think your “family example” is clear enough. The Church is One, and whoever rejects a dogma is out.

”Hence, if anyone shall dare -which God forbid!- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart."
Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854
 
40.png
doomhammer:
I don’t think your “family example” is clear enough. The Church is One, and whoever rejects a dogma is out.

”Hence, if anyone shall dare -which God forbid!- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart."
Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854
Click to expand...
This is not a thread about orthodoxy or worthiness to recieve the Eucharist (the context of your quote above). It is about how best to effectively communicate and dialogue in an ecumenical situation without watering down the faith.

Regarding rejecting a dogma: While it is a conscious act of separation, it never negates the eternal grace one gets from Baptism. Once in the family, always part of the family regardless how distantly separated. As Catholics, we hold firmly to the Truth that Baptism is not symbolic.

The application of the above quote by the Pope in this context is in direct conflict to the Catechism in areas addressing our relationship with our separated breathren (especially paragraphs 817-822 and 836-838).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top