Is ecumenism contrary to the dignity of the human person?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Genesis315
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Genesis315

Guest
A recent thread got me thinking again about a conversation I had a while back with a non-Catholic woman about ecumenism. She was very offended by the concept of “corporate reunion” and the means that are currently taken to achieve it (the Church defines ecumenism as those means taken to reconcile separated Christians as corporate bodies and explicitly distinguishes it from means taken to reconcile Christians as individuals). The more I think about it, the more I see her point which I find difficult to answer.

She objected to the fact that high up leaders of her community were entering into discussions and making joint statements and declarations of agreement on behalf of her community. No one in the pews was consulted. Since the Catholic Church has stated we cannot compromise our dogmas, unity would require her community to embrace those dogmas. She didn’t want to. She didn’t want to be Catholic–if she did, she would be. She didn’t want these leaders making such decisions for her–nor could they. Even if she changed her mind later, that would be her decision, not theirs. I noted that of course each individual would have to consent. She noted many people at her church would be equally taken aback if their pastor one day said they were going to were now going to agree with the Catholic Church on certain dogmas, even if others would go along with it. Everyone would make their own individual decision. I agreed that’s how it should be.

But at that point, though, it is not ecumenism anymore–it is the reconciling of individuals which Vatican II says is “an undertaking which of its nature is distinct from ecumenical action.” (see the Anglican ordinariate as an example in the next post below).

Her point is well supported by Catholic doctrine on human dignity and its relation to faith. Ultimately, the act of faith by which one believes all that God has revealed is a personal act and it must be free–it cannot be made and imposed by others. Even if a non-Catholic in bad faith refuses to believe, they cannot be coerced.

On top of this, this faith by which we adhere to all of revealed truth handed on by the Church is a grace. And while all are offered the grace of faith and conversion, Jesus teaches in the parable of the laborers in the vineyard that He does not offer it at the same time to each person. He calls different people at different times. The Holy Spirit blows where He wills. People convert at all different ages and at all different times. The Bible is full of examples of God’s call coming at different times according to His plan and many Saints have written about this (and warned of rejecting the call when it is made). We see it every day in our own communities. Even if God did make the call to all at once, He does not override free will. Some will accept, others sadly would not (As He tells us, “many are called, few are chosen.”)

So in light of the freedom inherent in human dignity, how can ecumenism actually be justified in practice (I think it can in theory, certainly)?
 
Just to add add some historical evidence, the history of what we would call ecumenical efforts bears out the overriding importance of personal choice and conscience. For example, after the reunion Council of Florence, the Greek bishops were treated as traitors when they returned home–they couldn’t extend the unity they agreed to to persons who didn’t freely want it at that time. The closest example of a corporate reunion we have in modern times is the Anglican Ordinariate, where only a small group of Anglicans accepted reunion and each individual was given the opportunity to make a personal choice one way or the other. Because of this, on the Catholic side, this was carried out without even notifying the Catholic officials and persons responsible for ecumenism–such a reunion wasn’t even considered relevant to ecumenism with Anglicans. Even things like the Joint Statement with the Lutherans are not accepted by all Lutherans (see here, for example ) nor can it be imposed on them. Not to mention that for every joint statement of agreement on one topic, those same signatories or others in their communities move farther away on others of their own will.
 
Last edited:
The issue here is “corporate bodies.” Is someone a member of a corporate body if they do not accept and endorse what the leaders say? Your friend does not believe in such behavior, does not believe in corporate bodies, does not believe in corporate reunification=ecumenism.

This is somewhat reflected in the Catholic Protestant divide, with some Protestants edging toward individually deciding what to believe. Catholics on the other hand have an idea of faith as a gift and a relationship. They trust God and the leaders of the Church, and address individual dogmas within that trust. The extreme form is fideism, adhering to every dogma but not trying to incorporate them into their relationships and life. See Fides et Ratio from JP2.

The way we address it practically is to value faith. It is not just the intellectual appropriation of some dogmas, it is also a trust in God and in the Church.
 
When ever terms and conditions become more important than the greatest commandments, then any attempt at unity or ecumenism will fail.

We have an amazing sense of unity in our town, churches meet together, pray together; and we pray for each other. There are so many things we can do better together, than we can do on our own. We started up an inter denominational Street Pastor scheme, a basics food bank, two homes for the homeless, a debt counselling scheme, addiction help, good neighbours, etc. We have good relations with the town council and the police, they come to us for support.

We strive to put the greatest commandments first, and we bring people together, and forge relationships joyfully. We know we have different styles of worship, and we have our differences in belief, but we have seen God work wonders in our town.
 
Genesis315 said:
on the Catholic side, this was carried out without even notifying the Catholic officials and persons responsible for ecumenism–such a reunion wasn’t even considered relevant to ecumenism with Anglicans.
Click to expand...
That was the claim made on the Catholic said, but many Anglicans disagreed. “An insensitive act,” “a slightly predatory feel,” “damaging to relations between the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches,” “the way it was done doesn’t sit easily with all of the talk about working towards better relations," were some of the reactions back in 2011. From Wikipedia:

Anglican responses [edit]

Some senior Church of England leaders have been reported as considering the establishment of the ordinariate to be damaging to relations between the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches.

The Bishop of Lincoln, John Saxbee, said that “I can’t judge the motives behind it [the offer], but the way it was done doesn’t sit easily with all of the talk about working towards better relations” and that “Fence mending will need to be done to set conversations back on track.”[12]

Roman Catholic clergy who were present at an ecumenical service at Westminster Cathedral for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity were reported as being “dismayed” by the sermon by Canon Giles Fraser, then Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral, which included comments that the ordinariate had a “slightly predatory feel” and that “In corporate terms, [it is] a little like a takeover bid in some broader power play of church politics.”[12]

Bishop Christopher Hill, the chairman of the Church of England’s Council for Christian Unity, later described the erection of the ordinariate as an “insensitive act”.[12]

 
Last edited:
Yeah, those are some good points. I guess it goes to another question as to whether a certain level of shared ecclesiology is necessary to even begin a movement toward re-establishing communal unity. Ultimately, the whole point of authority is to be at the service of unity as you note.

I am reminded of when the late Deacon Alex Jones, who had been a Pentecostal preacher, converted and brought some of his flock with him. This was probably the closest thing to a Protestant corporate reunion, but only about 40 of his original 200 member flock came with him, the rest did not (many of the 200 had left even before he converted when he was starting to incorporate more Catholic things into the service and preaching). Of course, his conversion and those of his flock was treated as a group of individuals converting through the local parish. It doesn’t seem the Archdiocese’s office of ecumenical dialogue was involved at all.

 
Last edited:
Yeah, this was my point. It wasn’t considered ecumenical–in fact, as you show, the ecumenists saw it as contrary to ecumenism.
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
I guess it goes to another question as to whether a certain level of shared ecclesiology is necessary to even begin a movement toward re-establishing communal unity.
Click to expand...
Ecclesiology is obviously central to ecumenism, since the whole discussion is about who is the Church, how do we relate as churches or ecclesial commmunities, etc.

After the Anglican Roman Catholic dialogue addressed the initial issues (baptism, Eucharist, ministry and salvation) they discussed The Church as Communion. That is an example of how important ecclesiology issues can become, and of what people discover together in dialogue.

That said, it is baptism that builds the Church, and baptism that is the beginning of ecumenism. That, rather than ecclesiology, is the foundation. The goal of corporate reunion may be a long way off, but we can still discuss how God is acting in their community.
 
Genesis315 said:
Yeah, this was my point. It wasn’t considered ecumenical–in fact, as you show, the ecumenists saw it as contrary to ecumenism.
Click to expand...
The problem is that, from the Anglican side the Ordinariates were schismatics. They severed the ties that bound them to the Anglican Church in order to associate with Catholics. Schism is the antithesis of ecumenism. By cutting themselves off from their original community, the ecclesial nature of the groups was set adrift, and their place in Catholicism is still a little awkward. The same is true for the Byzantine and other Catholic rites with respect to their original Churches. They are a blessing to us, but can easily become a stumbling block in ecumenical efforts.
 
I know that there was some ill feelings with an Anglican acquaintance. She felt that it had them feel of a corporate takeover (her words). It’s one thing for individuals to convert, another for a whole faction to pick up stakes.
 
BartholomewB said:
Some senior Church of England leaders have been reported as considering the establishment of the ordinariate to be damaging to relations between the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches.
Click to expand...
As an Anglican, I really don’t care what what senior CoE officials think. Frankly, if someone in England were coming into Christianity and didn’t know what church to join, I’d absolutely encourage him to join the Catholic Church. The CoE would be pretty far down my list. They have made it clear they’re utterly unconcerned with Christian orthodoxy, so they have no grounds to whine about a church that is concerned extending a hand to its members who are concerned.
 
Dovekin said:
The problem is that, from the Anglican side the Ordinariates were schismatics. They severed the ties that bound them to the Anglican Church in order to associate with Catholics. Schism is the antithesis of ecumenism. By cutting themselves off from their original community, the ecclesial nature of the groups was set adrift, and their place in Catholicism is still a little awkward. The same is true for the Byzantine and other Catholic rites with respect to their original Churches. They are a blessing to us, but can easily become a stumbling block in ecumenical efforts.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there is a problem when each side has a different vision for what Christian unity is. The concept of it as understood by Catholics and as understood by Anglicans is very different. The topic is getting a bit broader than my original post, but this seems to be yet another problem with ecumenism–it is not possible without a common objective. Working together toward different ends is a contradiction.
 
Last edited:
She could always leave her church if she doesn’t agree with what the leaders are doing
 
Here is an interesting article now stating (in a way that makes sense) that ecumenism actually started in the East, and accelerated in the 19th-20th centuries because of Constantinople’s need to be friends with the Anglicans during the British Empire in the East, to help them get back Istanbul. It was also greatly encouraged by Tzar Peter who was copying many things from England as sign of modernization of Russia.
Quite the opposite from what the Orthodox blogsphere usually blasts about that ecumenism was invented by the Pope who wanted more power.
Now the Russians aren’t happy with Constantinople lately and apparently they haven’t been happy in a while so they might exaggerate certain things but I don’t think they would downright lie on a site held by their church.
So maybe your friend needs to worry about becoming Orthodox while she didn’t want to because of ecumenism?


Funniest thing in the article is that the article says the Russians now have the old calendar because the new one was Catholic, no protestants wanted it because of it, England included. And now the Anglicans have a new calendar and the Russians stay old style.
All these decisions the article talks about were done without consulting anyone, especially in those times and centuries. Was human dignity infringed because a new type of calendar was introduced and not all people were consulted? And some that were consulted did not agree with it and later on they did.
I think human dignity is about options regarding your own physical and psychical integrity. Like someone harming you indirectly through certain measures they impose on you until you adopt their point of view that you are worth as much as those in charge of you decide. Not discussing church measures with all laity and clerics is more like a very modern and refined type of taking offense and thus your dignity may be scratched. But not contrary, more like a scratch.
 
I think this lady’s issue points up a big problem with schisms in general. We know the Catholic Church is going to persist because it is God’s chosen Church. Once you leave the mothership, and throw your lot in with any number of other schismatic churches, then there’s no guarantee that the church you left and joined will persist in its current form. It might fragment further, disappear, or realign with/ merge back with the Catholic Church. You’re building your house on sand. Since the reason you left the Catholic Church, or stayed out of it, was so you could have your way on something you disagreed with the Church about, presumably, you could very well end up marooned if your church decides to do something next that you don’t agree with. Especially since you probably have the kind of personality that’s all about getting your own way rather than loyalty to a church.

The Protestant churches don’t seem to have persisted as unified bodies over the centuries. They all seem to have gone through changes and created sub-churches of themselves, whether those sub-churches are in some coalition with the whole or are each now on their own as a new church.

The human person still has “dignity” because they get to choose whether they are going to still be part of their church or not when it makes some decision they don’t like, whether that’s joining up with the Catholics, or ordaining female clergy, or any number of other ideas. it’s not the fault of the Catholic Church if the leaders of a different church decide that ecumenical relations are the best way overall to go. The Pope doesn’t force these leaders into that decision. And the leaders don’t force this lady to stay in their church.

If she wanted an enduring Church, she should just be a Catholic.
 
Last edited:
I do think that ecumenical dialogue between leaders and/or doctrine-defining bodies (to the extent they exist) is important and has achieved amazing practical results in our lifetimes. (We have intercommunion, if not corporate reunion, with some Eastern churches that split off even before the Catholic/Orthodox split, because we talked about the issue on which we’ve considered each other heretical for more than a thousand years and concluded that both churches were trying to defend the same truth but insisting on different words that seemed incompatible.)

It does seem unlikely that we will ever have every Christian individual united on every point of doctrine — the New Testament confirms that we didn’t have that even in the days of the apostles and their first successors. But it is still valuable to look at our similarities and differences and see if we can do something to reinforce that whole “one body” thing.

I do agree that the ecumenical goal of respecting everyone’s differences and approaching them as legitimate communities with their own valid heritage can clash with the ecumenical goal of eventually having those communities reunite. I had thought of the Anglican Ordinariate as an example of doing it right — letting individuals/congregations choose to become Catholic while retaining much of their Anglican patrimony — but as we see in this thread, even that has caused harm to other ecumenical efforts.
 
Last edited:
Joint statements are not generally a version of: OK, you were right and we were wrong.

Joint statements are more like: Well, if we talk about this narrow point and word it in this way, we actually agree about this much, and in light of our historical debates, that is no small thing.

This is done by those with teaching authority, so no, they shouldn’t be taking a poll in the pews. They ought to be educating those in the pews about how the things that they used to think made them different weren’t really the differences they thought.

This is how ecumenism is done, when it is done honestly: that is, the emphasis is on finding points of agreement rather than obsessing about points of disagreement, in the interest of (for example) joint Christian action that we all believe we are commanded to do or avoiding the dissension we ought to utterly avoid once we confirm the dissension was based on imaginary differences.

Those who have the office of forming consciences and instilling theological understanding in their various churches do not do it by taking polls of those in the pews. It is no offense against those in the pews when they make statements about what they have to say from their office of authority to teach and speak on behalf of the their churches.
 
Last edited:
Usagi said:
I had thought of the Anglican Ordinariate as an example of doing it right — letting individuals/congregations choose to become Catholic while retaining much of their Anglican patrimony — but as we see in this thread, even that has caused harm to other ecumenical efforts.
Click to expand...
I think that example is a classic example of you can’t please all of the people all of the time.
Regardless of how the Church goes about things, some people will always have a problem with it.
No one was forced to be part of the Ordinariate, and those who are in it make a free choice and seem to be happy with it. If someone chooses to not be a part of it, then I don’t really see how it’s any of that person’s business.
 
Usagi said:
It does seem unlikely that we will ever have every Christian individual united on every point of doctrine —
Click to expand...
Jesus did not say that the greatest commandments are to agree on doctrine. So why is everyone obsessed about trying to unite on doctrine. The commandments to love God and neighbour are far more important, but so far these commandments do not get a mention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top