What are your feelings on ecumenism?

[Steven_Merten]

kimber1:

heh, steven, i see you like to make me think no fair.

so i’m assuming from your post you’re not a huge fan then of Vatican II? or that you feel Pope John Paul II’s lean toward ecueminism was too extreme?

it’s okay if you say yes, you’re entitlted to your opinion and i respect that. i guess your post though brings up another question.

what is true ecumenism and how do we achieve it?

Hello Kimber,

We Catholics have all these spiritual death papal bindings, which can kick us out of the bosom of the Catholic Church, hanging over our heads. Now, with the advent of ecumenanism, the Church teaches that all baptised Protestants are within the bosom of the Catholic Church for salvation but the Pope does not bind them to any of the papal bindings which can kick them out of the bosom of the Catholic Church and into damnation.

Yes! I think that is unfair. Catholics who have stood by the Church through milleniums of generations and they are now put at a huge disadvantage for salvation over those whos forfathers scorned the Church? Present day Protestants who scorn and insult the Catholic Church are put at a spritual life advantage, by the modern Popes, over the flock who has remained faithful to them. Yes! I think it is unfair.

No salvation outside the Church has been turned into far less salvation within the Church for Catholics.

Why? Because modern Popes want to encourage ecumenical unity. But what about justice? What about fairness? What about a little consideration for your own people?

Not to mention that there is a good reason Popes of the past opposed Protestant theology. Jesus says, “If you wish to enter into life, obey the commandments”. The Protestants oppose this teaching of Christ’s. Should we bend to their way of thinking or remain faithful to Jesus teachings.

Peace,
Steven

 

[TNT]

What I think of Ecumenism:

Ecumenism: The destruction of internal unity in the False hope of External unity.
From 1928 - Pius XI - Mortalium Animos
(This Encyclical takes about 20 min to read. Straight forward and UNambiguous…very refreshing)

**2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. **

** 3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.

**

 

[kimber1]

Steven Merten:

Hello Kimber,

We Catholics have all these spiritual death papal bindings, which can kick us out of the bosom of the Catholic Church, hanging over our heads. Now, with the advent of ecumenanism, the Church teaches that all baptised Protestants are within the bosom of the Catholic Church for salvation but the Pope does not bind them to any of the papal bindings which can kick them out of the bosom of the Catholic Church and into damnation.

Yes! I think that is unfair. Catholics who have stood by the Church through milleniums of generations and they are now put at a huge disadvantage for salvation over those whos forfathers scorned the Church? Present day Protestants who scorn and insult the Catholic Church are put at a spritual life advantage, by the modern Popes, over the flock who has remained faithful to them. Yes! I think it is unfair.

No salvation outside the Church has been turned into far less salvation within the Church for Catholics.

Why? Because modern Popes want to encourage ecumenical unity. But what about justice? What about fairness? What about a little consideration for your own people?

Not to mention that there is a good reason Popes of the past opposed Protestant theology. Jesus says, “If you wish to enter into life, obey the commandments”. The Protestants oppose this teaching of Christ’s. Should we bend to their way of thinking or remain faithful to Jesus teachings.

Peace,
Steven

okay i can see where you’re coming from. now bear with me cause i’m still a baby Catholic. just confirmed last Easter

i loved Pope John Paul II and just cried buckets when he passed. i loved that he was so willing to embrace others and accept them.

on the other hand i’m so very proud of being Catholic and it’s not easy. not AT ALL IMO. but where in the past i specifically chose an Independant Baptist church to attend BECAUSE they didn’t fall under any hierarchy of anyone telling them what they could and couldn’t preach, how ironic is it that i ended up right in the spot that DOES have the heirarchy and the rules and such

i think i needed that discipline as hard as it is to take at times (for me anyway)
like i said (whether it was here or somewhere else i’ve forgotten) but i’ve been studying alot of history this summer and have only so far made it to the 800’s so i have a ways to go. but one thing that has struck me is all the conspiracy that was going on back then to “out” or “off” a pope and within the Papl office no less!! there were some definite corrupt times but somehow God managed to maintain His Church and i’m blessed for that.

so where i sit in amazement that Christianity even survived, and then look at the fact that the Catholic Church survived it does raise mroe questions.

you say the Church has changed and i guess i’d say it’s evolved with the times. is that good or bad? well hearing about some of the corrupt Masses and abuses that take place in some areas i don’t know.

i think Vatican II was taken overboard. it meant well but it wasn’t put forth correctly maybe is the right way to say it?

i am concerned about “my own people” in that i think the Church needs to better catechize these newcomers. but if we don’t show love towards non-Catholics and rather anathemize them, how are we to reach them at all? there has to be some middle ground.
don’t you agree?

peace be with you
Kim

 

[TNT]

kimber1:

okay i can see where you’re coming from. now bear with me cause i’m still a baby Catholic. just confirmed last Easter

… but if we don’t show love towards non-Catholics and rather anathemize them, how are we to reach them at all? there has to be some middle ground.
don’t you agree?

peace be with you
Kim

I would say that, based on the FRUITS of conversion, that St Francis De Sales would be one great model.
When you get to 1500-1600AD+ in your studies, make sure you do not miss his “Catholic Controversy”. This site has reviews which are 100% 5-star. It’s also on sale for $10.20. I paid 16.00 for several copies in the past.
By the writings in this book, St Francis converted about 70,000 Calvinists in Switzerland. It’s written in 16th century style which adds to the uniqueness. Francis was one of the youngest Doctors of the Church.
It is such a powerful read. I have so many paper clip markers in it that it’s 50% thicker than its original.
Here is a sample of the book regarding the pope…

Here are several more chapters you can read for free.

Next, I’ll take you to the late 18th century and some of the master evangelists’ writings which converted 1000’s.

 

[kimber1]

ooooh thanks for the links i LOVE to read anything i can get my hands on regarding history.

i’m reading now the 5 book series by warren carroll starting with the founding of Christendom. i’m in the second book now, the glory of Christendom. it’s just amazing

 

[TNT]

kimber1:

ooooh thanks for the links i LOVE to read anything i can get my hands on regarding history.

i’m reading now the 5 book series by warren carroll starting with the founding of Christendom. i’m in the second book now, the glory of Christendom. it’s just amazing

YOU’RE AMAZING

 

[kimber1]

aww shucks and i made a booboo last night the second book is the building of Christendom. i would highly recommend them

 

[TNT]

From
"Dissenting" from Ecumenism? What Does That Mean?

ecumenism" is one of those newfangled words that have afflicted the Church since Vatican II. The idea that Catholics must believe in a newfangled idea they never heard of before has no precedent in Church history. And because ecumenism is not really a doctrine — it would be impossible for the Church to discover a new doctrine during Vatican II — no one can really say what exactly “ecumenism” means in doctrinal terms. The most specific thing that can be said about ecumenism’s meaning is that it is “a movement for Christian unity.”

But, obviously, a movement is not a doctrine, but only a contingent historical event that can be fruitful over unfruitful, wise or unwise, rather than true or false in a doctrinal sense. No Catholic is obliged to profess faith in an ill-defined “movement” that has produced nothing by way of “Christian unity” since it began. On the contrary, after forty years of “ecumenical dialogue,” the Protestants and the Orthodox are further than ever from unity with the Catholic Church.

…the actual doctrinal content of “ecumenism” is nil.

 

[Lazerlike42]

TNT:

From
"Dissenting" from Ecumenism? What Does That Mean?

ecumenism" is one of those newfangled words that have afflicted the Church since Vatican II. The idea that Catholics must believe in a newfangled idea they never heard of before has no precedent in Church history. And because ecumenism is not really a doctrine — it would be impossible for the Church to discover a new doctrine during Vatican II — no one can really say what exactly “ecumenism” means in doctrinal terms. The most specific thing that can be said about ecumenism’s meaning is that it is “a movement for Christian unity.”

But, obviously, a movement is not a doctrine, but only a contingent historical event that can be fruitful over unfruitful, wise or unwise, rather than true or false in a doctrinal sense. No Catholic is obliged to profess faith in an ill-defined “movement” that has produced nothing by way of “Christian unity” since it began. On the contrary, after forty years of “ecumenical dialogue,” the Protestants and the Orthodox are further than ever from unity with the Catholic Church.

…the actual doctrinal content of “ecumenism” is nil.

I’d say there are things there that simply aren’t true. First of all, the Protestants and Orthodox are most certainly not “farther than ever” from unity.

Second of all, the idea that a new doctrine could not be introduced by VII is true, but the idea that ecumenicism must be bad simply because it is a “newfangled” word is absurd. At one time transubstantiation and Trinity were newfangled words. What matters is if the meaning conveyed by the word has always been taught, and I would venture to say it most certainly has. One of the very first ecumenical act was that of St. Paul instructing Timothy to be circumcised so he would have an easier time getting along with the Jews. Another was the ancient Christians worshipping alongside the Jews in the synagogues. Another was St. Paul’s instructions not to remove ourselves from the world. Another was Christ treating the Samaritan woman mercifully. It goes back to Jesus Himself.

 

[TNT]

Lazerlike42:

I’d say there are things there that simply aren’t true. First of all, the Protestants and Orthodox are most certainly not “farther than ever” from unity.

Second of all, the idea that a new doctrine could not be introduced by VII is true, but the idea that ecumenicism must be bad simply because it is a “newfangled” word is absurd. At one time transubstantiation and Trinity were newfangled words. What matters is if the meaning conveyed by the word has always been taught, and I would venture to say it most certainly has. One of the very first ecumenical act was that of St. Paul instructing Timothy to be circumcised so he would have an easier time getting along with the Jews. Another was the ancient Christians worshipping alongside the Jews in the synagogues. Another was St. Paul’s instructions not to remove ourselves from the world. Another was Christ treating the Samaritan woman mercifully. It goes back to Jesus Himself.

First, thanks for helping wake up this thread.
Second: Trinity and Transubstantion are immutable doctrine, so another set of examples might better apply.
The point was that ecumenism is not a doctrine, and I and you, could quote Scriptures and the perennial Magisterium that mitigate or condemn ecumenism severely.
Third: “the Protestants and Orthodox are most certainly not farther than ever from unity” may also be expressed by them, and is, that the Catholic Church is the one that is moving “toward us”.
“most certainly…” is not what I would say as that is a subjective opinion, hardly verifiable overall.

 

[Lazerlike42]

TNT:

First, thanks for helping wake up this thread.
Second: Trinity and Transubstantion are immutable doctrine, so another set of examples might better apply.
The point was that ecumenism is not a doctrine, and I and you, could quote Scriptures and the perennial Magisterium that mitigate or condemn ecumenism severely.
Third: “the Protestants and Orthodox are most certainly not farther than ever from unity” may also be expressed by them, and is, that the Catholic Church is the one that is moving “toward us”.
“most certainly…” is not what I would say as that is a subjective opinion, hardly verifiable overall.

I think it matters what you mean by the word ecumenicism. There are some things you could be referring to which are to be condemned, and then there are things you could be referring to that are acceptable or even worth encouraging.

As far as Trinity and transubstantiation, I was using them to combat the author’s misleading statement that since ecumenicism is a newfangled word, it must be a new teaching. Just because a word is new, it doesn’t mean that what the word is referring to is new. The author seemed to… almost deceptively jump from pointing out that ecumenicism is a newfangled word to saying that the entire idea must be brand new.

 

[seanie]

The best definition I ever heard of ecumenism was one single word: EDUCATION.

Education of non-Catholics about our beliefs and why we hold them.
Education of Catholics about non-Catholic beliefs and why they hold them.

As regards the utility per se of ecumenical endeavor, I’d draw a big distinction between ecumenical initiatives with other Churches (namely, the Orthodox, and others with valid episcopacy) and with ecclesial communions (Protestant denominations). As far as I can see, ecumenical ventures with Protestant leaders of ecclesial communions is practically useless as it will not shift the sola scriptura rule of faith in their congregations. In other words, even if a Protestant leader were to be convinced of the truth of the Catholci faith, his congregation will still hold to sola scriptura.

Contrast this with the Orthodox faith. If the Patriarchates announced union with Rome, there is no sola scriptura rule to keep thier flock from uniting with Rome. Hence ecumenical dialog has its best hope for success at the Orthodox gate.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Greetings and peace and I pray that we may come to love people of other faiths as we love ourselves.

Earlier this year I had a profound experience, I am a Catholic and I went out door knocking with an Anglican in the style of the JW’s.

When we introduced ourselves at the door as an Anglican and Catholic and said we were asking people’s thoughts on the Easter story, they seemed confused.

Some could not understand how a Catholic and Anglican could be working together in mission, and they were actually engaging us in conversation. I was astounded by the willingness that people wanted to talk to us. I sensed a number of seeds were sown that day, and one was certainly sown in my heart.

I have had the opportunity to work with other denominations in mission type work this year, and the more we seem to share together the more we come to see Christ working through each other.

I believe that unity and relations depend on searching for what is good in other people and other groups. We have to act as if we really believe that the same God created all people and we are all brothers and sisters together.

In the spirit of searching for greater relationships

Eric

 

[kimber1]

I believe that unity and relations depend on searching for what is good in other people and other groups. We have to act as if we really believe that the same God created all people and we are all brothers and sisters together.

amen very well said