Questions on Ecumenism

[paramedicgirl]

So why then is ecumenism such a failure? It hasn’t been implemented as intended, that is, to achieve conversions and unity with the one holy catholic and apostolic church. It has been a pacifier to other religions, an olive branch that extends love but is hollow inside. Empty and devoid of the truths that we are to spread in order to gain souls for the kingdom of heaven.

 

[rider]

I think that ecumenism has failed because not enough Catholics have a firm foundation in their faith- how can you bring someone to your faith if you don’t fully understand it yourself? We need strong leadership, more emphasis on following the Magisterium, and more education for those who are teaching the faith, especially RCIA and Catechism teachers- let’s start by being the best Catholic that we personally can be, and lead by example.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I think that ecumenism has failed because not enough Catholics have a firm foundation in their faith- how can you bring someone to your faith if you don’t fully understand it yourself? We need strong leadership, more emphasis on following the Magisterium, and more education for those who are teaching the faith, especially RCIA and Catechism teachers- let’s start by being the best Catholic that we personally can be, and lead by example.

While what you say is true about Catholics being poorly informed in their faith, I think ecumenism has failed from the top down. I think there is too much pandering going aimed at not offending other religions. If our leaders in the hierarchy were to lead by example, then the laity would follow.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

So why then is ecumenism such a failure?

Because the current ecumenical movement has placed “unity” ahead of truth. Faith is the foundation of the supernatural life, of which charity is the summit. Thus, there can be no supernatural unity without each professing the same faith.

Pope Leo XIII: “The true union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a unity of faith and a unity of government.” (The Reunion of Christendom, 1894)

Yet the ecumaniacs are so desirous of “unity” that they are willing to compromise to truth (the faith) in order to accomplish it.

This type of false ecumenism may bring about some sort of human unity, but only to their destruction:

Pope Pius XII: “But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent ‘eirenism’ (ecumenism) seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principals given by Christ… which are the defense and support of the integrity of the Faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.” (Pius XII, On Certain False Opinions, 1950).

This is why Pope Pius XI said that false ecumenism, which has spread through the Church like a cancer, is subversive to the foundation of the Catholic Faith:

Pope Pius XI: “[W]hen there is a question of fostering unity among Christians it is easy for many to be misled by the apparent excellence of the object to be achieved. ‘Is it not right’, they ask, ‘is it not the obvious duty of all who invoke the name of Christ to refrain from mutual reproaches and at last to be united in charity? Dare anyone say that he loves Christ and yet not strive with all his might to accomplish the desire of Him who asked His Father that His disciples might be ‘one’? [Ut Unam Sint]. …If only Christians were ‘one’ it is contended, then they might do so much more to drive out the danger of irreligion which, with its insidious and far-reaching advance, is threatening to sap the strength of the Gospel.’ These and similar arguments, are constantly on the lips of the ‘pan-Christians’… The energy with which this scheme is being promoted has won for it many adherents, and even many Catholics are attracted by it, since it holds out hope of a union apparently constant with the wishes of Holy Mother Church… In reality, however these fair and alluring words cloak a most grave error, subversive to the foundations of the Catholic Faith.” (Mortalium Animos).

Thank heavens we have the writings of the clear thinking Popes to guide us through this day of mist, error, and confusion.

 

[East_and_West]

Wait, I may have to further restrict that:
http://www.seattleu.edu/lemlib/web_archives/Kasper/Kasperweb.jpg

“campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.”

Statements like this that are contrary to the Catholic Faith are not theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Statements like this that are contrary to the Catholic Faith are not theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.

And this man is president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. When the leaders of our Church make statements like that, it’s no wonder we are in such chaos.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Because the current ecumenical movement has placed “unity” ahead of truth. Faith is the foundation of the supernatural life, of which charity is the summit. Thus, there can be no supernatural unity without each professing the same faith.

Yet the ecumaniacs are so desirous of “unity” that they are willing to compromise to truth (the faith) in order to accomplish it.

This type of false ecumenism may bring about some sort of human unity, but only to their destruction:

This is why Pope Pius XI said that false ecumenism, which has spread through the Church like a cancer, is subversive to the foundation of the Catholic Faith:

Thank heavens we have the writings of the clear thinking Popes to guide us through this day of mist, error, and confusion.

Well said!

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

How, in your opinion has post-conciliar ecumenism affected the Catholic Church? Does it seem that, to please other religions, there is pressure on Catholics to deny the past teachings of the Church? Has our Catholic faith been watered down to hide the Truths that the Church has constantly defended and upheld over the centuries?

We used to strive for conversions to the Catholic faith, but it seems now the focus has changed to love, rather than conversion, for our separated brethren. If conversion is not the goal of ecumenism, then what is? Are we to co-exist happily with non-Catholic religions and respect each other’s practices and faith? Is that the end goal?

I think that every concession that can be made to Protestants has been made. Maybe even some that really shouldn’t have been made. However in a negotiation you can’t expect your negotiator to always get everything one hundred percent right.

I think Vatican II will actually prove to have succeeded where Trent failed, but not in the way that most people expect. The Protestant centre has collapsed. Now there are fundamentalists, with no intellectual credibility, and liberals, who are losing credibility by the day. The “middle way” type Anglican has disappeared. Pretty soon there will be no men of any philosophical standing left in the Protestant camp, and where men of thought lead the masses, inevitably but slowly, will follow.

The goal is conversion but we don’t have to call it that. Instead of saying “Fred abandoned his former wrong ideas” you can say “Fred and Benny came to a consensus and are now happy to work together, acknowledging that both had made mistakes in the past. Benny will be leader of the newly reunited organisation.”

 

[Genesis315]

‘eirenism’ (ecumenism)

The thing in quotations is not the same as the thing in parentheses. While there is a lot of eirenism abounding today even in very high-up prelates, the authoritative magistirium including the Second Vatican Council and subsequent popes have condemned it at least verbally (as TNT said above, sometimes you have to do what they say, and not what they do).

There has always been a temptation for the Church to compromise with the world because it must be in the world–and a force in it at that. In times past this compromise took the form of political cronyism and desire for wealth and illicit pleasure. Certain dogmas of the faith were taught with force often times because they were politically expedient in order to bring in as many loyal subjects as possible. (not all, of course, compromised with the world, but those who did, did it in this fashion–and those who did, did it to varying degrees).

Nowadays, that compromise takes the form of an eirenism. After the Second World War the world became wary of those who claimed a superiority and who were dogmatic (as the horrible regimes of the 20th century did). Here is the Church, however, who has a divine right to be superior to all other religions and who also has the divine mandate to be dogmatic. But, the temptation to compromise is often too strong for the weakened flesh. Our Lady at Akita predicted this.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I think that every concession that can be made to Protestants has been made. Maybe even some that really shouldn’t have been made. However in a negotiation you can’t expect your negotiator to always get everything one hundred percent right.

I think Vatican II will actually prove to have succeeded where Trent failed, but not in the way that most people expect. **The Protestant centre has collapsed. Now there are fundamentalists, with no intellectual credibility, and liberals, who are losing credibility by the day. The “middle way” type Anglican has disappeared. Pretty soon there will be no men of any philosophical standing left in the Protestant camp, and where men of thought lead the masses, inevitably but slowly, will follow. **

The goal is conversion but we don’t have to call it that. Instead of saying “Fred abandoned his former wrong ideas” you can say “Fred and Benny came to a consensus and are now happy to work together, acknowledging that both had made mistakes in the past. Benny will be leader of the newly reunited organisation.”

Malcolm, what reference do you have for your above statement, the part I bolded? I find it interesting, and wonder where you got that info.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I also wonder about how ecumenism, the way it is being practiced today, compares to heresies of the past, like the Arian heresy, for example:

The priest Arius denied the central doctrine of Catholicism: the divinity of Christ. He claimed that Jesus Christ was like God, but was not really God. He thus fashioned a Christ who would be acceptable to the non-Catholic world, who would be acceptable to both the Jewish people and the pagans. Thus, Arianism was the first “ecumenical” religion.

Aren’t we seeing some of this today, watering down our faith to make it more acceptable to non-Catholics?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I also wonder about how ecumenism, the way it is being practiced today, compares to heresies of the past, like the Arian heresy, for example:

Aren’t we seeing some of this today, watering down our faith to make it more acceptable to non-Catholics?

Can you give specific examples of how the faith is watered down?

 

[BobP123]

I think Vatican II will actually prove to have succeeded where Trent failed…"

And where exactly did Trent fail?

Be careful if you say it omitted something.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Can you give specific examples of how the faith is watered down?

If you look at how few people believe in the Real Presence (isn’t it something like 30%?), and also at how few Catholics really know and understand their faith today, then you can see that we are failing in our responsibility to teach Catholicism to Catholics.

And there are many poor homilies that fail to instruct the faithful in faith and morals. Every weak homily is a wasted opportunity to pass on the living legacy of the Catholic faith.

Now, I know that you attend a good parish, and this may not be your experience, but you are aware that this happens routinely around the world. Weak priests, poorly formed in the seminaries translates into weak faith for their parishioners.

Add to that, the way we seem to close our eyes to the more difficult and harder truths of our faith, (like no salvation outside the Church, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption of Mary) when we are dealing with ecumenism, and you can see what I mean when I say we have watered down our faith.

 

[BobP123]

If you look at how few people believe in the Real Presence (isn’t it something like 30%?), and also at how few Catholics really know and understand their faith today, then you can see that we are failing in our responsibility to teach Catholicism to Catholics.

When I once stood in line for confession in my pre-Vatican II days, I remember reading “examination of conscience” guidelines in my prayer book. One of the points was “did you ever question any of the doctrines of the Church?” Yes, this was grounds for mortal sin.

Then, lo and behold, came a decree from Rome stating that the Index of Forbidden Books was removed. (Yes, you now could not only question doctrine but you were seemingly encouraged to find arguments to support your (heretical) position if you held one.) If this didn’t lead the same Pope later to admit that the “smoke of Satan” entered the Church, I don’t know what did.

 

[Genesis315]

And where exactly did Trent fail?

Protestantism is still around, despite the efforts of the Council Fathers at Trent, who not only invited the Protestants to observe, but also to come and participate by raising topics for discussion and participating in debate.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If you look at how few people believe in the Real Presence (isn’t it something like 30%?), and also at how few Catholics really know and understand their faith today, then you can see that we are failing in our responsibility to teach Catholicism to Catholics. **I agree, but that’s not a “watering down” of doctrine so much as it is a failure to communicate the doctrine accurately. The Church has never varied from the true teaching. **

And there are many poor homilies that fail to instruct the faithful in faith and morals. Every weak homily is a wasted opportunity to pass on the living legacy of the Catholic faith. **
I think homiletics (the art or science, if you will, of preaching) is in a very poor state in the Church, but that still isn’t watering down doctrine. AND if we’re depending on a 10-15 minute sermon per week to pass on the faith, I think we’re in trouble. The homilies are supposed to address the readings. I think we would do well to borrow a leaf from our Protestant brethren (dare I suggest it) and adopt “Sunday School,” ie, continuing religious education across the board, not simply Bible studies (which are well and good and plentiful), but studies of the Catechism, of the encyclicals, etc. These things, however, are still not a dilution of the faith. They go to poor catechetical methods.
**
Now, I know that you attend a good parish, and this may not be your experience, but you are aware that this happens routinely around the world. Weak priests, poorly formed in the seminaries translates into weak faith for their parishioners. **Again, poor instruction. **

Add to that, the way we seem to close our eyes to the more difficult and harder truths of our faith, (like no salvation outside the Church, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption of Mary) when we are dealing with ecumenism, and you can see what I mean when I say we have watered down our faith.

**Touching on the first matter of the last paragraph, properly understood, it isn’t a problem (ie, understanding it the way the Church understands it), except for the airy-fairy types who believe absolutely EVERYONE goes to Heaven or that you have to pull a Hitler before you go to Hell (which the Church doesn’t teach) OR that you absolutely have to be a formal card-carrying member of the Church to get into Heaven (also not taught). As for the latter two, yes, those are stumbling blocks for some, BUT I’ve never heard either denied in the interests of ecumenism (though I’ve heared them denied).

Let me ask a question of those who self-identify as traditionalists: when it comes to ecumenism, what ARE you willing to compromise on, for the salvation of souls? I don’t mean doctrine or dogma, there can obviously be no compromise on that, but what are you willing to compromise on?
**

 

[CatholicNick]

Can you give specific examples of how the faith is watered down?

I can probably say that in all these ecumenical meetings, not once has there been any mention that these people of these false religions (yes, including protestantism) need to convert to the Catholic Church. Such people form other faiths which are present at these meetings (although I cannot judge their souls) are very unlikely to be Invincibly Ignorant of the Catholic Church…

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is a Dogma, I dont think I need to remind anyone on this forum of that fact. Not mentioning this to the heretics in these ecumenical meetings is doing no good for their souls…

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I can probably say that in all these ecumenical meetings, not once has there been any mention that these people of these false religions (yes, including protestantism) need to convert to the Catholic Church. Such people form other faiths which are present at these meetings (although I cannot judge their souls) are very unlikely to be Invincibly Ignorant of the Catholic Church…

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is a Dogma, I dont think I need to remind anyone on this forum of that fact. Not mentioning this to the heretics in these ecumenical meetings is doing no good for their souls…

I think we would agree that God alone will be able to determine what “invincible” means, just as I’m sure we agree that there is, but one true Faith.

 

[Genesis315]

Hardly from hiding the teaching’s on Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Glorious Assumption, they were discussed at great length with the Anglicans and the Anglicans admitted them at the end:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/angl-comm-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20050516_mary-grace-hope-christ_en.html