Too Much Ecumenism?

[Ignats75]

I was reading a book called the Four Witnesses about 4 early church fathers. One was St. Ignatius of Antioch. He wrote many letters while on his journey to be executed by the Romans. One such letter was the the Church at Philadelphia. There are a couple of quotes that are eye openers.

If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion.

That is an absolute statement made by a saint who was trained directly by St. John the Apostle. Pretty strong huh? That was in Chapter 3.

Another quote:

Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to (show forth) the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to (the will of) God.

Talks about the primacy of the Eucharist in Chapter 4.

Now I know that we should be happy if more people followed Christ. But those are pretty strong words that make it seem that we may have gotten carried away with all the ecumenical stuff. It may be leading to a misunderstanding for those who leave the Mother Church over music, or boring homilies et al.

What do you think?

 

[Fauken]

Perhaps you could detail exactly how this “Ecumenical stuff” has gone overboard? Last I checked we aren’t allowed to receive Communion from other churches (except for the Orthodox who has valid Sacraments) and Protestants aren’t allowed to receive Communion from us (except for maybe, maybe extreme circumstances). We haven’t said that they’re right, only that the parts of their theology that is right comes from us. And also, I’ve never heard any Catholic authority figure say that it’s okay to leave the Church due to irreconcilable tastes in music, Liturgy, and/or homilies.

How are any of those statements getting “carried away” with Ecumenism?

EDIT: I would assume this extreme circumstance would involve a Catechumen on his/her death bed and the Priest would give them their Sacraments immediately along with Holy Viaticum. In which case the Catechumen already has standing in the Church anyway, even without Baptism.

 

[Beryllos]

What Is “Ecumenism”?

Also this from the CCC:
Toward unity

820 “Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.” Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: “That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me.” The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

That is an absolute statement made by a saint who was trained directly by St. John the Apostle. Pretty strong huh? That was in Chapter 3.

What do you think?

That the living Magisterium of the Church is far far greater than any one saint, even one as extraordinary as Saint Ignatius of Antioch.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I was reading a book called the Four Witnesses about 4 early church fathers. One was St. Ignatius of Antioch. He wrote many letters while on his journey to be executed by the Romans. One such letter was the the Church at Philadelphia. There are a couple of quotes that are eye openers.

That is an absolute statement made by a saint who was trained directly by St. John the Apostle. Pretty strong huh? That was in Chapter 3.

Another quote:

Talks about the primacy of the Eucharist in Chapter 4.

Now I know that we should be happy if more people followed Christ. But those are pretty strong words that make it seem that we may have gotten carried away with all the ecumenical stuff. It may be leading to a misunderstanding for those who leave the Mother Church over music, or boring homilies et al.

What do you think?

How is something like an annual interfaith Thanksgiving prayer service, or sitting across a table attempting to find areas of common belief or common action (such as pro-life), or a joint choir Christmas concert, “following him who makes a schism?”

 

[OraLabora]

The Catechism clearly states that Protestants of today are not guilty of schism. That was the work of their forefathers.

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers … All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.

While their forefathers may be the ones guilty of the sin of separation, it will likely be they themselves or their descendants who will be responsible for reuniting their separated communities into the Catholic Church. Indeed this is already happening for example with the Anglican Ordinariate, and it is already happening and has been for a long time on an individual basis.

The only reliable way to ensure that unity be restored, is to keep the lines of communication and dialogue open with our separated Christian brethren. Therefore ecumenism, far from being a way to water down the Truths entrusted to the Catholic Church, is a pathway to reunite everyone in Christ.

The magisterium and popes, particularly since Saint John XXIII, know this full well and have thus made it a priority of the Church and have founded a Pontifical Council for Christian Unity.

 

[meltzerboy]

I was reading a book called the Four Witnesses about 4 early church fathers. One was St. Ignatius of Antioch. He wrote many letters while on his journey to be executed by the Romans. One such letter was the the Church at Philadelphia. There are a couple of quotes that are eye openers.

That is an absolute statement made by a saint who was trained directly by St. John the Apostle. Pretty strong huh? That was in Chapter 3.

Another quote:

Talks about the primacy of the Eucharist in Chapter 4.

Now I know that we should be happy if more people followed Christ. But those are pretty strong words that make it seem that we may have gotten carried away with all the ecumenical stuff. It may be leading to a misunderstanding for those who leave the Mother Church over music, or boring homilies et al.

What do you think?

On the contrary, I believe there is too little ecumenism. If people who are members of the great religions of the world do not learn to live in peace with one another and respect one another’s differences as well as commonalities, they will most likely die together.

 

[commenter]

I was reading a book called the Four Witnesses about 4 early church fathers…

The Early Church Fathers are also deeply respected by many Protestants (and, obviously, Eastern Orthodox Christians). Lutherans, Anglicans, and some with similar traditions often cite them, recognize them as part of the common Christian tradition, or “orthodoxy”.

Other Protestant Christians tended to de emphasize them for many years, with the battle cry of “Scripture alone!”, seeing the ECF’s as possible competition or distraction from the Bible. But in recent years some of them, too, have been taking a closer look at the ECF’s, if for no other reason than to help understand the New Testament. These ECF’s were part of the same empire, under the same overall government and civilization as Jesus!

By all means keep studying the Early Church Fathers. They may help to clarify where Catholics agree, and disagree with other Christians. You may find some surprises. But I think the ECF’s would if they could speak now, reinforce the urgency of starting with the Catechism.

 

[commenter]

On the contrary, I believe there is too little ecumenism. If people who are members of the great religions of the world do not learn to live in peace with one another and respect one another’s differences as well as commonalities, they will most likely die together.

So true.

 

[peter26]

Personally I think we need more ecumenicalism with other Christians. I would like to see terms like “ecumenical communities” consigned to the history books and an acknowledgement that all Christians who believe in certain fundamental doctrines (e.g. the Trinity, the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection) recognised as part of the universal church (even if imperfectly). I think we should avoid making so many artificial distinctions between those who agree with us on most things (especially high church Anglicans, Lutherans, even a lot of evangelicals agree with us on many moral issues). The pro-life cause for instance would benefit from more ecumenical working, as would many social and charitable programs. There is no reason not to encourage ecumenical services at a local level on a regular basis. The Ordinariate’s Evensong service, almost identical to the CofE service, is a good example of something that can and does bring people together. This is not nessecarily about converting people but achieving Christian unity in the only way we ever will, by acknowledging that we are all one.

What does though make me uncomfortable is so much ecumenicalism with non-Christians, who should instead be seen as those who need to hear the message of the Gospel.

 

[Omaestre]

I think the more important question is whether ecumenism actually works, the more we change to resemble protestants the less of a reason they have to end the western schism.

If we give validity to them, why would they ever be interested in joining? What would be the point?

 

[peter26]

I think the more important question is whether ecumenism actually works, the more we change to resemble protestants the less of a reason they have to end the western schism.

If we give validity to them, why would they ever be interested in joining? What would be the point?

Why do they need to join anything. We merely need to set a good example and make them more like us. Working with Anglo-Catholics to teach people about the Real Presence would be a good start.

 

[poche]

Ecumenism is really a subset of evangelization. As time goes on the situation that existed during the time of St Ignatius changed. As the situation changed and the people changed it has become time for us to have a change in tactics of evangelization.
The truth of the Gospel is still the same but the methods we use are different in order that we may be more effective witnesses to the truth that is the Gospel.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Perhaps you could detail exactly how this “Ecumenical stuff” has gone overboard? Last I checked we aren’t allowed to receive Communion from other churches (except for the Orthodox who has valid Sacraments) and Protestants aren’t allowed to receive Communion from us (except for maybe, maybe extreme circumstances).

No, you are not allowed to receive communion from an Orthodox priest. That actually goes against ecumenism by violating a boundary. Orthodox priests are not allowed to give communion to non-Orthodox and doing so could get him into trouble.

 

[poche]

No, you are not allowed to receive communion from an Orthodox priest. That actually goes against ecumenism by violating a boundary. Orthodox priests are not allowed to give communion to non-Orthodox and doing so could get him into trouble.

From the Code of Canon Law;

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-

Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM

 

[Jon_Mallory]

From the Code of Canon Law;

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-

Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM

Those canons make it permissible to violate the rules Orthodox clergy have to follow. A Catholic may receive a blessing and some blessed bread but not communion regardless of Rome’s stance on the matter. An orthodox priest could get into serious trouble if he gave communion to someone outside the Church.

 

[peter26]

Would an Orthodox priest give communion to a Catholic who was in danger of death (as a Catholic priest would for a non-Catholic)?

 

[poche]

Those canons make it permissible to violate the rules Orthodox clergy have to follow. A Catholic may receive a blessing and some blessed bread but not communion regardless of Rome’s stance on the matter. An orthodox priest could get into serious trouble if he gave communion to someone outside the Church.

If there is a situation where it were impossible for the Catholic party to go to a Catholic church or receive the ministrations of a Catholic priest and there were to be an Orthodox priest who was willing to hear the confession of the Catholic party or give him communion then that would not be objectionable.
I have heard of instances where Catholics have received communion from Orthodox priests and I know of instances where certain Orthodox have received communion in Catholic churches.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

If there is a situation where it were impossible for the Catholic party to go to a Catholic church or receive the ministrations of a Catholic priest and there were to be an Orthodox priest who was willing to hear the confession of the Catholic party or give him communion then that would not be objectionable.
I have heard of instances where Catholics have received communion from Orthodox priests and I know of instances where certain Orthodox have received communion in Catholic churches.

That doesn’t mean it should happen. It is tempting, especially in this era, to think there is one Church but many different “denominations” of that Church. Differences aside, we all profess to be Christians and have some kind of trinitarian theology so why shouldn’t we all be one Church? I hope the Orthodox Church and the RCC will become one someday but right now, they are not. Communion between the two can only happen when we share the same faith–the faith of St. Peter. The Orthodox and Catholics disagree on what constitutes that faith. Permitting intercommunion between the two only confuses well meaning people into thinking we share the one Faith of St. Peter. Honest dialogue needs to continue and much work needs to be done on both sides before we can share the one Cup.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

That doesn’t mean it should happen. It is tempting, especially in this era, to think there is one Church but many different “denominations” of that Church. Differences aside, we all profess to be Christians and have some kind of trinitarian theology so why shouldn’t we all be one Church? I hope the Orthodox Church and the RCC will become one someday but right now, they are not. Communion between the two can only happen when we share the same faith–the faith of St. Peter. The Orthodox and Catholics disagree on what constitutes that faith. Permitting intercommunion between the two only confuses well meaning people into thinking we share the one Faith of St. Peter. Honest dialogue needs to continue and much work needs to be done on both sides before we can share the one Cup.

There are a number of points being made in this thread that are errors in fact.

The decision about who may receive sacraments from a Catholic minister is decided by the Catholic Church…not by non-Catholics. This is articulated in Canon 844.

Thus, I have had numerous occasions to administer the sacraments not only to those in paragraph 3
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
I have also had occasion to do so, as a hospital chaplain, to do so using paragraph 4
§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
Paragraph 2 is not an invitation to non-Catholic priests of the East to violate the canons of their hierarchies which govern them…rather, it is addressed to Catholics telling them that there is not an impediment from our perspective, from Rome, provided these norms apply.

Of course the Catholic faithful should not do so when it violates the norms of the other Church.
§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
However, there are non-Catholic Churches in the East, and non-Catholic bishops and priests, that have allowed this to happen and have administered these sacraments to Catholics.

The prohibition in the many different non-Catholic Churches of the East is not as rigid or unilateral as it is being portrayed here.