Why isn't the Catholic Church more "cooperative" with ecumenical efforts?

[Mort_Alz]

I see a lot of noble efforts for Christianity to unify itself again. On account of Jesus’ prayer that we would be unified. But, why is the Catholic Church so strict about ecumenical efforts, it seems the only REAL effort to be ecumenical was the Vatican council in the 1960’s, but even that didn’t seem like a real effort, just a changing of a few words to soften controversial issues to bring Protestants into the Catholic Church.

To be fair, if any tradition of Christianity has the right to take an I’m right, you’re wrong stance on ecumenism, it’s the Catholic Church simply because of apostolic succession and volume, but, then what about the Eastern Orthodox church? Don’t they have apostolic succession, too? Doesn’t even the Catholic Church recognize that? And what about the Great Schism? Wasn’t the primary dividing issue in that just a difference in the doctrine of the Trinity because the Eastern Orthodox church, (appealing to their consciences) disagreed with the spelled-out version of the Trinity regarding Christ and the Spirit? Which, was a later addition to the Nicene Creed anyway? So, because of such a small difference, they’re schizmatics and therefore not Christians? They’re not saved??

Not that the Eastern Orthodox Church isn’t guilty. In some ways, they seem more stiff and unyielding to ecumenism than the Catholic Church. Not accepting any baptisms but Orthodox ones. But, that’s slightly beside the point.

Plus, don’t Protestants have some very good points? I think any sane Catholic has to admit that a lot of good change came about in the counter reformation BECAUSE of Luther and the Reformation. I kind of understand the allure of Anglicanism now (though, of course it’s beginning was rather ignoble), it seems VERY ecumenical. Protestant, yet Catholic, and some of Christianity’s greatest advocates came from the Anglican community (C.S. Lewis anyone?) So, because they’re not Catholic, they’re not valid???

And there’s also the issue of a previously non-believing person coming to know Christ and trying to choose a local church to worship at. If that person attends mass at the town’s parish and finds it to be very hard to understand, unrelatable, and full of practitioners who are not so friendly and poorly reflect the person of Jesus the Son, and then attends a worship service at a Protestant congregation and finds the people there to be VERY friendly and reflective of how Jesus acted in the Bible and just serves as a better community of believers, can ANYONE blame that person for joining the Protestant communion instead?

These are real questions by the way, not objections. I would like to hear y’all’s thoughts.

 

[Sherry_G]

WElcome to Catholic Answers and thank you for your questions/thoughts. I invite you to seek out a local parish priest and ask about enrolling in our RCIA program. This is the best way for your to learn what the Catholic Church really teaches and then you will be in a much better position to understand why the Catholic Church is as it is and decide if its a good idea for you to join. A lot of what you are saying makes sense if you really don’t understand the Catholic faith. There is a lot to learn before you can become Catholic, if you so decide after you know what the Church teaches and why. May God Bless you abundantly.

 

[Willy_Jose]

Hi Mort Alz,
First, a few concepts:

*For Catholics, the word ecumenism refers to all of the activities and initiatives of the Church and her members to promote mutual understanding and, ultimately, unity among all Christians. Ecumenism is based on the unity and universality of the Church, which possesses all the goods given by God for salvation, and on the Church’s proper relationship with non-Catholic Christian bodies which share some of these goods, including baptism.

The three core principles of proper ecumenical activity are succinctly stated in three principles. Those who fail to maintain these principles fall into one of two errors: Either they reject ecumenism altogether because they believe it is wrong to recognize salvific gifts outside the Catholic Church, or they pursue a false ecumenism which seeks unity at the expense of truth.*
/
Secondly, you inquire if “schizmatics [are] therefore not Christians? They’re not saved??..So, because they’re not Catholic, they’re not valid???”

Ecumenism certainly does not assert this, and neither does the Magesterium teach so. While it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).
/
Third, you stated a case of a non-believer joining the Protestant communion. Well and good that the person is in the right direction. We don’t blame him but rather rejoice that he is on the first steps to the right path. Seeking the TRUTH however, needs deeper digging and soul searching more than seeking very friendly people in the community.

God bless.

 

[GloriousOrder]

Mort Alz, are you kidding us? I don’t mean to sound mean-spirited, but you mustn’t have read much about the Catholic Church if you think this. Please go to a Mass, then to an Anglican Service, and tell me they are wholly different.

The Church has practically created modern Ecumenism, and is at its forefront. Much to my chagrin, it is the Catholic Church that has changed its Mass readings to coincide with Anglican readings. This institution is the one that massacred its own high altars in order to replace them with tables, such as are used in more Radically-Reformed churches. Our own Church has taken to the battlefield with such agreements as the Balamand Declaration, which says that it’s “outdated” to believe that everyone has to join the Catholic Church to be saved. According to our own hierarchy, it is itself not needed for salvation (cf. vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html - especially articles 13 and 30).

Guitar masses and papal masses at World Youth Day have jazzed up the Liturgy as much as any modernist reformed Presbyterian mega-church. Catholicism has embraced all Christianity except Catholicism. The Rosary was added to in 2002 to be more ecumenical, and the 14 Stations of the Cross were given a “fresh face” in 1991, in order to appeal specifically to Protestants. We allowed altar-girls/women in 1994. Our last Pope lovingly kissed a Qu’ran, and many bishops have made blatant attempts to reconcile Buddhism and all sorts of religions to Catholicism. The modern Catholic Church loves ecumenism, and co-operates with it gleefully. As much as I hate it, it is a fact that it must be duly recognised.

 

[benidict]

so to reach unity, we as Catholics should give up what? let me guess. our teachings of the Blessed Mother? the Papacy? the real Presence? confession? not gonna happen. and those of us who converted from protestantism, really have no desire to return. these are just the facts. i worked with the 40 days for life campaign, in michigan. i went to at least 20 different denominations to ask them to walk the line with us at planned parenthood and simply show support and pray with us, for an end to abortion. didnt even let on that i was Catholic. its a human rights issue, not a religious one. guess how many decided to put aside denominational differences, and stand with their Catholic neighbors? 0, zip, nadda. only Catholics walked that line. only Catholics stood in the gap. even though it is not a Catholic organization, 40 days for life, is viewed this way by many protestants. they couldnt even put aside the differences to pray for the unborn! how on earth can we even begin to adress doctrinal matters, if we cannot even do this one simple task? Peace p.s. there was a 40% drop in abortions during these 40 days we did this. Some one up above was listening.

 

[benidict]

Mort Alz, are you kidding us? I don’t mean to sound mean-spirited, but you mustn’t have read much about the Catholic Church if you think this. Please go to a Mass, then to an Anglican Service, and tell me they are wholly different.

The Church has practically created modern Ecumenism, and is at its forefront. Much to my chagrin, it is the Catholic Church that has changed its Mass readings to coincide with Anglican readings. This institution is the one that massacred its own high altars in order to replace them with tables, such as are used in more Radically-Reformed churches. Our own Church has taken to the battlefield with such agreements as the Balamand Declaration, which says that it’s “outdated” to believe that everyone has to join the Catholic Church to be saved. According to our own hierarchy, it is itself not needed for salvation (cf. vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html - especially articles 13 and 30).

Guitar masses and papal masses at World Youth Day have jazzed up the Liturgy as much as any modernist reformed Presbyterian mega-church. Catholicism has embraced all Christianity except Catholicism. The Rosary was added to in 2002 to be more ecumenical, and the 14 Stations of the Cross were given a “fresh face” in 1991, in order to appeal specifically to Protestants. We allowed altar-girls/women in 1994. Our last Pope lovingly kissed a Qu’ran, and many bishops have made blatant attempts to reconcile Buddhism and all sorts of religions to Catholicism. The modern Catholic Church loves ecumenism, and co-operates with it gleefully. As much as I hate it, it is a fact that it must be duly recognised.

yes. i had to look really hard to find a traditional mass in my town. i was fortunate. they can keep the praise service. i never liked the sappiness of the new type of services as a protestant, and i wasnt going to accept this type of worship, when i converted. Peace

 

[Reuben_J]

The modern Catholic Church loves ecumenism, and co-operates with it gleefully. As much as I hate it, it is a fact that it must be duly recognised.

I hope this answers the OP’s question - the importance and the priority that the Catholic Church attaches to ecumenism and the pain and effort it takes to accomodate it.

BTW, to the OP, what does your church do to promote ecumenism and you, on your part?

 

[JRKH]

I see a lot of noble efforts for Christianity to unify itself again. On account of Jesus’ prayer that we would be unified. But, why is the Catholic Church so strict about ecumenical efforts, it seems the only REAL effort to be ecumenical was the Vatican council in the 1960’s, but even that didn’t seem like a real effort, just a changing of a few words to soften controversial issues to bring Protestants into the Catholic Church.

Mort,
Since I don’t know your specific background or why you feel the Church is “so strict” or what you might consider “REAL” effort to be ecumenical, I can only porvide a fairly general response.
Ecumenism is a great effort on the part of the Church. We are in talks with the EO, have had talks with Lutherans, and with the Anglicans. Each of these have yielded positive and promsing results. In addition many parishes and Diocese have outreach programs and cooperative programs with other churches on things like food pantries, right to life efforts and so on.
What the Church is very careful abvout though is protecting the Truth of the Gospel as received by the Church from Christ and the Apostles. Thus she is moves carefully in areas and discussions of teaching. And you will readily recognize and agree that it is teachings that are the primary seperator between all the various ekklesial groups.

To be fair, if any tradition of Christianity has the right to take an I’m right, you’re wrong stance on ecumenism, it’s the Catholic Church simply because of apostolic succession and volume, but, then what about the Eastern Orthodox church? Don’t they have apostolic succession, too? Doesn’t even the Catholic Church recognize that? And what about the Great Schism? Wasn’t the primary dividing issue in that just a difference in the doctrine of the Trinity because the Eastern Orthodox church, (appealing to their consciences) disagreed with the spelled-out version of the Trinity regarding Christ and the Spirit? Which, was a later addition to the Nicene Creed anyway? So, because of such a small difference, they’re schizmatics and therefore not Christians? They’re not saved??

Not that the Eastern Orthodox Church isn’t guilty. In some ways, they seem more stiff and unyielding to ecumenism than the Catholic Church. Not accepting any baptisms but Orthodox ones. But, that’s slightly beside the point.

Regardless of the theological issues between East and West, the primary reason for the split was more political and personal than doctrinal. The two branches have come to realize that more and more and thus, as I said earlier, we are in talks seeking to resolve the various issues seperating us. Yes we recognize they have valid apostolic succession.

Plus, don’t Protestants have some very good points? I think any sane Catholic has to admit that a lot of good change came about in the counter reformation BECAUSE of Luther and the Reformation. I kind of understand the allure of Anglicanism now (though, of course it’s beginning was rather ignoble), it seems VERY ecumenical. Protestant, yet Catholic, and some of Christianity’s greatest advocates came from the Anglican community (C.S. Lewis anyone?) So, because they’re not Catholic, they’re not valid???

The Church actually adress the issue of, what we refer to as, “our seperated brethren” in the Catechism. I suggest you take a look HERE. In particular look at the section called “Wounds To Unity” beginning with para 817.

And there’s also the issue of a previously non-believing person coming to know Christ and trying to choose a local church to worship at. If that person attends mass at the town’s parish and finds it to be very hard to understand, unrelatable, and full of practitioners who are not so friendly and poorly reflect the person of Jesus the Son, and then attends a worship service at a Protestant congregation and finds the people there to be VERY friendly and reflective of how Jesus acted in the Bible and just serves as a better community of believers, can ANYONE blame that person for joining the Protestant communion instead?

This is a complicated question since a great deal depends on the specifics of the individual etc. The first thing to note is that the form and purpose of the mass is quite different from the Baptist/Evangelical “preaching” style format. So if the person is “put off” by the mass, they will likely be put off by the Lutherans and the Anglican/Episcipals as well.
As to the actions of the parishoners. Yes this can have a great appeal and is something that we as Catholics need to work on. That said however, one might be drawn initially to the "friendly crowd’ but it is the Truth and teaching of the Gospel and the Fullness of Truth that is found in the Catholic Church that should be the determining factor.

These are real questions by the way, not objections. I would like to hear y’all’s thoughts.

I take no offense at your questions. Ask away…I hope some of what I’ve said has helped.

Peace
James

 

[ignatius777]

I see a lot of noble efforts for Christianity to unify itself again. On account of Jesus’ prayer that we would be unified. But, why is the Catholic Church so strict about ecumenical efforts, it seems the only REAL effort to be ecumenical was the Vatican council in the 1960’s, but even that didn’t seem like a real effort, just a changing of a few words to soften controversial issues to bring Protestants into the Catholic Church.

To be fair, if any tradition of Christianity has the right to take an I’m right, you’re wrong stance on ecumenism, it’s the Catholic Church simply because of apostolic succession and volume, but, then what about the Eastern Orthodox church? Don’t they have apostolic succession, too? Doesn’t even the Catholic Church recognize that? And what about the Great Schism? Wasn’t the primary dividing issue in that just a difference in the doctrine of the Trinity because the Eastern Orthodox church, (appealing to their consciences) disagreed with the spelled-out version of the Trinity regarding Christ and the Spirit? Which, was a later addition to the Nicene Creed anyway? So, because of such a small difference, they’re schizmatics and therefore not Christians? They’re not saved??

Not that the Eastern Orthodox Church isn’t guilty. In some ways, they seem more stiff and unyielding to ecumenism than the Catholic Church. Not accepting any baptisms but Orthodox ones. But, that’s slightly beside the point.

Plus, don’t Protestants have some very good points? I think any sane Catholic has to admit that a lot of good change came about in the counter reformation BECAUSE of Luther and the Reformation. I kind of understand the allure of Anglicanism now (though, of course it’s beginning was rather ignoble), it seems VERY ecumenical. Protestant, yet Catholic, and some of Christianity’s greatest advocates came from the Anglican community (C.S. Lewis anyone?) So, because they’re not Catholic, they’re not valid???

And there’s also the issue of a previously non-believing person coming to know Christ and trying to choose a local church to worship at. If that person attends mass at the town’s parish and finds it to be very hard to understand, unrelatable, and full of practitioners who are not so friendly and poorly reflect the person of Jesus the Son, and then attends a worship service at a Protestant congregation and finds the people there to be VERY friendly and reflective of how Jesus acted in the Bible and just serves as a better community of believers, can ANYONE blame that person for joining the Protestant communion instead?

These are real questions by the way, not objections. I would like to hear y’all’s thoughts.

Why would it be? The church believes, as Jesus promised He would send the spirit to guide the church in the way of the truth so the deposit of faith with which the church works is a fulfillment of that promise. To alter it or adapt it in whole or part would be, on the part of the church, a denial on the part of the truth God revelaed to us through the Holy Spirit. Why would the church do that?

 

[JRKH]

Why would it be? The church believes, as Jesus promised He would send the spirit to guide the church in the way of the truth so the deposit of faith with which the church works is a fulfillment of that promise. To alter it or adapt it in whole or part would be, on the part of the church, a denial on the part of the truth God revelaed to us through the Holy Spirit. Why would the church do that?

This is a good point.
But I also think that there are matters of “Doctrine” that we should not or cannot change and then matters of Practice that we could and should work on.

For instance the OP talks about the mass being difficult to understand and also mentions “not so friendly” people. Obviously we are not going to change the Mass in any substansive way but we as Catholics can certainly work on being more friendly and outgoing and welcoming to others at Church.

Peace
James

 

[GaryTaylor]

Why would it be? The church believes, as Jesus promised He would send the spirit to guide the church in the way of the truth so the deposit of faith with which the church works is a fulfillment of that promise. To alter it or adapt it in whole or part would be, on the part of the church, a denial on the part of the truth God revelaed to us through the Holy Spirit. Why would the church do that?

I hear you,

You know at the end of day theres one Bishop of Rome. And the present and last have bent over backwards to accomodate Christianity. When the bending takes place on “both sides” then communion is reached. An that communion is with GOD, not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church just happens to be the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and the Bishop of Rome the Apostle who sits in Peters chair, and thus represents Gods Church on Earth. And thats the Cross it bears, and at whatever point one choose’s to take a different fork in the road. The church still stands as it has for thousands of years for Gods truth and His path. For 300-years every single Pope that sat in that chair was martyred. So they were not selling an easy road, but the only one to salvation, and they died for that by the hundreds. And the CC still grew. Its not going away and nor will Truth.

So the question is really “When will everyone else cooperate with Gods Church” God has offered man communion since Adam and Eve, man for the most part man still refuse’s.

Look at the 60’s and the effort to modernize the CC and make it appeal to protestants. Then it suffered for 40-years. Its not for the church to lower its standards, its for us to raise ours foremost and always. Really, thats the hard fast truth.

 

[ignatius777]

I hear you,

You know at the end of day theres one Bishop of Rome. And the present and last have bent over backwards to accomodate Christianity. When the bending takes place on “both sides” then communion is reached. An that communion is with GOD, not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church just happens to be the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and the Bishop of Rome the Apostle who sits in Peters chair, and thus represents Gods Church on Earth. And thats the Cross it bears, and at whatever point one choose’s to take a different fork in the road. The church still stands as it has for thousands of years for Gods truth and His path. For 300-years every single Pope that sat in that chair was martyred. So they were not selling an easy road, but the only one to salvation, and they died for that by the hundreds. And the CC still grew. Its not going away and nor will Truth.

So the question is really “When will everyone else cooperate with Gods Church” God has offered man communion since Adam and Eve, man for the most part man still refuse’s.

Look at the 60’s and the effort to modernize the CC and make it appeal to protestants. Then it suffered for 40-years. Its not for the church to lower its standards, its for us to raise ours foremost and always. Really, thats the hard fast truth.

Excellent points. I like your last point especailly and its why we are seeing the coming changes to the wording of the liturgy. There was an attempt when we left the latin to make the mass more appealling to protestants but I have one question…WHY? The church teaches a truth which is unalterable.

 

[JonNC]

I see a lot of noble efforts for Christianity to unify itself again. On account of Jesus’ prayer that we would be unified. But, why is the Catholic Church so strict about ecumenical efforts, it seems the only REAL effort to be ecumenical was the Vatican council in the 1960’s, but even that didn’t seem like a real effort, just a changing of a few words to soften controversial issues to bring Protestants into the Catholic Church.

To be fair, if any tradition of Christianity has the right to take an I’m right, you’re wrong stance on ecumenism, it’s the Catholic Church simply because of apostolic succession and volume, but, then what about the Eastern Orthodox church? Don’t they have apostolic succession, too? Doesn’t even the Catholic Church recognize that? And what about the Great Schism? Wasn’t the primary dividing issue in that just a difference in the doctrine of the Trinity because the Eastern Orthodox church, (appealing to their consciences) disagreed with the spelled-out version of the Trinity regarding Christ and the Spirit? Which, was a later addition to the Nicene Creed anyway? So, because of such a small difference, they’re schizmatics and therefore not Christians? They’re not saved??

Not that the Eastern Orthodox Church isn’t guilty. In some ways, they seem more stiff and unyielding to ecumenism than the Catholic Church. Not accepting any baptisms but Orthodox ones. But, that’s slightly beside the point.

Plus, don’t Protestants have some very good points? I think any sane Catholic has to admit that a lot of good change came about in the counter reformation BECAUSE of Luther and the Reformation. I kind of understand the allure of Anglicanism now (though, of course it’s beginning was rather ignoble), it seems VERY ecumenical. Protestant, yet Catholic, and some of Christianity’s greatest advocates came from the Anglican community (C.S. Lewis anyone?) So, because they’re not Catholic, they’re not valid???

And there’s also the issue of a previously non-believing person coming to know Christ and trying to choose a local church to worship at. If that person attends mass at the town’s parish and finds it to be very hard to understand, unrelatable, and full of practitioners who are not so friendly and poorly reflect the person of Jesus the Son, and then attends a worship service at a Protestant congregation and finds the people there to be VERY friendly and reflective of how Jesus acted in the Bible and just serves as a better community of believers, can ANYONE blame that person for joining the Protestant communion instead?

These are real questions by the way, not objections. I would like to hear y’all’s thoughts.

Goodness, Mort.
It is the Catholic Church, begining at Vatican II, that really got us talking with each other.

Here’s a couple of links.

On the USCCB website, click on ecumenical relations on the left toolbar.
usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml

From the Vatican website:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/index.htm

And this webstie.
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/e_dialogues.html

Jon

 

[agent_grey]

ecumenical effort is the prime indicator of satanic religion. The only thing that indicates a satanic religion with greater proof is division.

If the Catholic church is ecumenical in any way shape or form than it is devoid of the Holy Spirit.

The church of God is absolutely and completely intolerant of any and all other religions.

True seekers of God will avoid tolerant religions like the plague. Satan worshippers will seek out religions of tolerance.

 

[JonNC]

ecumenical effort is the prime indicator of satanic religion. The only thing that indicates a satanic religion with greater proof is division.

If the Catholic church is ecumenical in any way shape or form than it is devoid of the Holy Spirit.

The church of God is absolutely and completely intolerant of any and all other religions.

True seekers of God will avoid tolerant religions like the plague. Satan worshippers will seek out religions of tolerance.

This will come as a surprise to the Vatican.

Jon

 

[Willy_Jose]

ecumenical effort is the prime indicator of satanic religion. The only thing that indicates a satanic religion with greater proof is division.

If the Catholic church is ecumenical in any way shape or form than it is devoid of the Holy Spirit.

The church of God is absolutely and completely intolerant of any and all other religions.

True seekers of God will avoid tolerant religions like the plague. Satan worshippers will seek out religions of tolerance.

This will come as a surprise to the Vatican.

Jon

I guess so, because that is not what the Vatican says.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

 

[wmscott]

I see a lot of noble efforts for Christianity to unify itself again. On account of Jesus’ prayer that we would be unified. But, why is the Catholic Church so strict about ecumenical efforts, it seems the only REAL effort to be ecumenical was the Vatican council in the 1960’s, but even that didn’t seem like a real effort, just a changing of a few words to soften controversial issues to bring Protestants into the Catholic Church.

To be fair, if any tradition of Christianity has the right to take an I’m right, you’re wrong stance on ecumenism, it’s the Catholic Church simply because of apostolic succession and volume, but, then what about the Eastern Orthodox church? Don’t they have apostolic succession, too? Doesn’t even the Catholic Church recognize that? And what about the Great Schism? Wasn’t the primary dividing issue in that just a difference in the doctrine of the Trinity because the Eastern Orthodox church, (appealing to their consciences) disagreed with the spelled-out version of the Trinity regarding Christ and the Spirit? Which, was a later addition to the Nicene Creed anyway? So, because of such a small difference, they’re schizmatics and therefore not Christians? They’re not saved??

Not that the Eastern Orthodox Church isn’t guilty. In some ways, they seem more stiff and unyielding to ecumenism than the Catholic Church. Not accepting any baptisms but Orthodox ones. But, that’s slightly beside the point.

Plus, don’t Protestants have some very good points? I think any sane Catholic has to admit that a lot of good change came about in the counter reformation BECAUSE of Luther and the Reformation. I kind of understand the allure of Anglicanism now (though, of course it’s beginning was rather ignoble), it seems VERY ecumenical. Protestant, yet Catholic, and some of Christianity’s greatest advocates came from the Anglican community (C.S. Lewis anyone?) So, because they’re not Catholic, they’re not valid???

And there’s also the issue of a previously non-believing person coming to know Christ and trying to choose a local church to worship at. If that person attends mass at the town’s parish and finds it to be very hard to understand, unrelatable, and full of practitioners who are not so friendly and poorly reflect the person of Jesus the Son, and then attends a worship service at a Protestant congregation and finds the people there to be VERY friendly and reflective of how Jesus acted in the Bible and just serves as a better community of believers, can ANYONE blame that person for joining the Protestant communion instead?

These are real questions by the way, not objections. I would like to hear y’all’s thoughts.

So I guess I would like to know what Truths that the Catholic Church teaches would you and any other Protestant want to be dismissed, tucked away, watered down, expunged, or abandoned in order for you or any other Protestant denomination to be unified. I am curious as to what these would be, would you aor anyone else like to list them here?

 

[JHow]

I see a lot of noble efforts for Christianity to unify itself again. On account of Jesus’ prayer that we would be unified. But, why is the Catholic Church so strict about ecumenical efforts, it seems the only REAL effort to be ecumenical was the Vatican council in the 1960’s, but even that didn’t seem like a real effort, just a changing of a few words to soften controversial issues to bring Protestants into the Catholic Church.
…

Mort:

If you haven’ read it yet, for a recent and (my opinion) thoughtful attempt at ecumenism, check out Chuck Colson and Richard J. Neuhaus’ “Evangelicals & Catholics Together” from 1994 (printed here in First Things, Neuhaus’ magazine):

firstthings.com/article/2007/01/evangelicals–catholics-together-the-christian-mission-in-the-third-millennium-2

As you can see by the signatures and endorsements, this was not a small project. The group had several follow-up articles on various subjects exploring areas where agreement and disagreement exist.

Not everyone liked their take, however, but the article is still a subject of conversation, for example:

christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/november/10.19.html?start=4

 

[wmscott]

Mort:

If you haven’ read it yet, for a recent and (my opinion) thoughtful attempt at ecumenism, check out Chuck Colson and Richard J. Neuhaus’ “Evangelicals & Catholics Together” from 1994 (printed here in First Things, Neuhaus’ magazine):

firstthings.com/article/2007/01/evangelicals–catholics-together-the-christian-mission-in-the-third-millennium-2

As you can see by the signatures and endorsements, this was not a small project. The group had several follow-up articles on various subjects exploring areas where agreement and disagreement exist.

Not everyone liked their take, however, but the article is still a subject of conversation, for example:

christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/november/10.19.html?start=4

Thanks for the interesting articles, and I guess to answer my own question above, in order for there to be unity then the Catholic Church would have to abandon all of the “Truths” that the Catholic Church teaches and anything that makes us Catholic. Some good examples from the article are as follows:

The Evangelicals in this gathering see that “For Catholics, all who are validly baptized are born again and are truly, however imperfectly, in communion with Christ”. Emphasis mine

Evangelicals hold that the Catholic Church has gone beyond Scripture, adding teachings and practices that detract from or compromise the Gospel of God’s saving grace in Christ. Emphasis mine

Among points of difference in doctrine, worship, practice, and piety that are frequently thought to divide us are these:

• The church as an integral part of the Gospel or the church as a communal consequence of the Gospel.

• The church as visible communion or invisible fellowship of true believers.

• The sole authority of Scripture (sola scriptura) or Scripture as authoritatively interpreted in the church.

• The “soul freedom” of the individual Christian or the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the community.

• The church as local congregation or universal communion.

• Ministry ordered in apostolic succession or the priesthood of all believers.

• Sacraments and ordinances as symbols of grace or means of grace.

• The Lord’s Supper as Eucharistic sacrifice or memorial meal.

• Remembrance of Mary and the saints or devotion to Mary and the saints.

• Baptism as sacrament of regeneration or testimony to regeneration.

To me it is just the same old tire anti-Catholic rhetoric.

 

[JHow]

Thanks for the interesting articles, and I guess to answer my own question above, in order for there to be unity then the Catholic Church would have to abandon all of the “Truths” that the Catholic Church teaches and anything that makes us Catholic. Some good examples from the article are as follows:
…

Well, your question is directed to protestants. I’m not suggesting that we take anything away from Catholicism. Perfect unity would require that protestants drop the protest and re-join the church. I think the goal of ecumenism, however, should be to figure out how we can work together on the really big problems the world faces: denial of God, warped view of humanity, culture of death, worship of power, etc.

Also, I think your post might have mis-quoted the article slightly. I got the impression you felt that protestants viewed Catholic baptism as imperfect, based on the following?

For Catholics, all who are validly baptized are born again and are truly, however imperfectly, in communion with Christ.

The above expresses the Catholic viewpoint, how Catholics view protestant baptism. Pretty much lifted right out of the catechism:

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."81 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."82