Unitatis Redintegratio-In light of tradition?

[missadeangelis]

IMHO the problem with ecumenism itself is not ecumenism, but rather a misconception of what ecumenism within a Catholic context actually means. Many folks don’t set their end goal as conversion and instead get caught up in a “dialogue” of compromise that eventually can lead to indifference.

The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church alone possesses the fullness of Truth and while their are other ecclesial communities that may share bits and pieces of Catholic Truths, they are deficient to varying degrees. All real Truth is Catholic. Ecumenism is really about evangelization, which is ultimately concerned with the salvation of souls. It’s important and useful when understood and practiced correctly. The “you have your beliefs and I have mine and let’s just agree to disagree” approach or worse the acceptance of a compromise of the Faith is false ecumenism.

mda

 

[Melchior_1]

I can see what you mean. But could not one contend that your case was very specific but in general does not work?

For an example, there could be a couple who came together because they shared the same bed in a chaste way for sometime. The marriage that was brought forth through this cohabitation would be truly amazing. But the means are still questionable on the grounds of prudence. No?

So I do not think that those who oppose ecumenical activity object that there can be no good result from it. I think the objection is rather that in general, it is misleading to the average Catholic.

The analogy you give is a bit flawed because sexual cohabitation before marriage is a sin. Meanwhile, the Pope has said that ecumenism is not a sin, and there have been documents and cases in the past where we have seen ecumenism at work. One is a misrepresentation of a Sacrament, the other is a practice. Big differences there.

My case may have been a specific example, however there are tohers. OraLabora, a poster here, married an Anglican women. He’s also a product of a Catholic/Anglican marriage himself.

 

[choliks]

I’ll just butt in a bit… I married a baptist woman. However, I don’t know what she saw in me.
She converted a few weeks before we got married. So i guess, I married a Catholic. Now I’m living with my baptist in-laws, and they know I’m not ashamed of my Catholic faith. Sometimes I can’t avoid praying with them before meals. They would even let me lead the prayers. So far they have not tried to convert me.

 

[Eufrosnia]

The analogy you give is a bit flawed because sexual cohabitation before marriage is a sin. Meanwhile, the Pope has said that ecumenism is not a sin, and there have been documents and cases in the past where we have seen ecumenism at work. One is a misrepresentation of a Sacrament, the other is a practice. Big differences there.

The analogies are not suppossed to be 100% accurate.

Anyways, you are also pre-assuming that all situations of cohabitation are intrinsically sinful. They are not. Cohabitation is sinful on the grounds of prudence.

The point I making here is that your actions could also be considered imprudent though not intrinsically sinful. So what you did do should be something Catholics in general should avoid on the grounds of Prudence.

In this sense the analogy is accurate I feel, yes?

My case may have been a specific example, however there are tohers. OraLabora, a poster here, married an Anglican women. He’s also a product of a Catholic/Anglican marriage himself.

Well there could be many Catholics who undergo your situation. But this will still not change the fact that it is imprudent (if it is), yes?

So I am not saying that you are the only person on earth who has had such an experience. I am just saying that in general your method leads to lot of sadness in marriage (if it ever happens), children growing up with no clear faith, and scandalizing of faithful.

 

[cap76]

No law, no pope, no council, no saint, no miracle, no doctor of the Church, no interpretation of scripture other than that which is infallible, can bind a pope. This was established in the Church during the papacy of St. Boniface. Tradition allows for the current Magisterium to rework these laws. They what binds us is what is law today, not what was law yesterday.

One can begin to understand why a monk once said,
“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God.”

 

[mgsk]

In this case, the dogma of one baptism, does not imply that every baptized Christian is a member of the Catholic Church.

That’s not exactly what I said. But all those infants who are validly baptized are incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church. We make a material distinction once the baptized individual gives assent to heretical beliefs (some Protestant beliefs are heretical ).

“the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.”

• Humani generis

However, not every Christian is a Catholic.

Agreed. That doesn’t really address what I said, and I still think the modern usage of the terminology we’re discussing just represents a change in semantics.

 

[poche]

Those past prohibitions were part of the discipline of the Church. What has happenned is that now there is a change of strategy for the evangelization. The goal is the same, the method is different.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Bump

 

[Eufrosnia]

Those past prohibitions were part of the discipline of the Church. What has happenned is that now there is a change of strategy for the evangelization. The goal is the same, the method is different.

I think there are those groups of Catholics who fail to realize the difference between discipline and faith/morals.

But, I feel that there are those who have concerns along different lines (myself included) with the new strategies. Since these new strategies are just disciplines, one can discuss the merits and negative aspects of these new methods. I for one believe that this new method fails at doing its job in today’s world.

Why? Because people have already given in to indifferentism as an option for world peace. There is an urge among majority of Catholics to say that all roads lead to heaven. Religion itself has just become a hobby of sorts or something one turns to when faced with a crisis that has no earthly solution (cancer etc). Even then, some would try out all religions to get some benefit from any religion. There is also the issue of the level of catechism that is provided for the faithful.

Then there is the onslaught of Atheism. The common charge is that all religions merely require an arbitrary assent to a person or holy book. This charge is indeed true with non-Catholic religions, including that of Protestantism. Protestantism requires an arbitrary assent at some point to the Bible. Modern Protestant scholars will try to show God exists by reason, Resurrection through historical methods, but in the end they require you to take their word that the Bible is the book from Christ. Since they lack authority, the assent is arbitrary.

So overall, I feel that this new “method” is unacceptable at this time for most of the world. It does not satisfy the genuine questions asked by non-believers or doubters and at the same time causes confusion to the not so well catechized faithful.

We need to reconsider how we present our faith with respect to others or risk being grouped together under the banner of “religions that require an arbitrary assent through faith”