Would the Church Fathers be down with "ecumenism"?

[thunderballs75]

I know you’re probably tired of hearing from me, so after this last comment I’ll shut up for awhile. I honestly believe that the Church Fathers, if they were living today in the light of our experience with representative democracy and universal suffrage, in the shadow of the Holocaust, the carnage of two world wars and the atomic bomb, and at the end of the glorious heritage of lived Christianity after two millenium, would temper their devout faith with tolerance, a firm determination to seek understanding in peace and an even stronger understanding of Christ’s presence in the Church and in human history. The holiness which compelled these men to defend their faith during their own time on Earth would, in the modern era, compell them to defend their faith in a different manner and by using methods designed to win hearts for Christ, not through fear or intimidation, but through pursuasion and love.

Don’t get me wrong! I’m not irritated! You give interesting comments, so I hope you’ll read this and *not *shut up.

I understand that times are different now. And of course any conversion we do should be done in charity and love. Fear and intimidation should never be used to force converts, as was clearly laid out by Pius XII. However, what I’m talking about is the praying in Jewish synagogues (not Christian-Jew synagogues like their time) and praying in Mosques with Muslims, acknowledging heretics as simply “reformed”. Would the Church Fathers have done these sort of things? Or would they have turned to the Holy Scripture and logic to show pagans and heretics the errors of their ways and the truth? Of course, in charity and peace that is.

 

[da_nolo]

Do you guys think that the Church Fathers were more concerned with mutual agreement with other religions/sects, or trying to convert them to the truth?

Are there any writings of the Church Fathers dealing with ecumenism?
Are there any writings of the Church Fathers dealing with heresies and apologetics?

guess what, everyone in their attempt to ‘unite’ will be saying, believe with me. not lets work together.

 

[centurionguard]

The Church Fathers wrote extensively about heresies and the true faith. No they were not the least bit interested in ecumenism because they knew what the truth was and were not afraid to point it out, even if if offended someone hurt someones feelings or dare I say it,or state that another faith or belief system was flat out wrong:bigyikes::bigyikes:

They believed in exactly one way to salvation. Not two or three of a hundred.

ONE

(“MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY”) I could say much much more on this topic but it would only create disharmony and resentment with Catholics and Non-Catholics who believe (“Ecumenism”) is this best thing that has happened in the Church since Swiss-cheese.
The Smoke Of Satan as spoken by Pope Paul VI shortly before his death has (“NEVER”) left the Church.

 

[palmas85]

Do you mean to tell me it is an historical fact that the Church Fathers did not believe the** search for faith is holy or reflect upon the grace filled path that led them to faith?** I find that hard to believe. If you wish me to believe that ecumenism is a recent development within the Church, well, that much I can accept. If you wish me to believe that the Church Fathers were fully convinced of the truthfulness of their Christian faith, that much I can accept as well. In fact, I stand with the Church Fathers in this conviction. But it cannot be proven historically that they did not reflect upon their faith. Indeed, it would seem to me that in order to reach the levels of faith that they did reach, they would, by necessity, have to reflect upon their faith. I believe what you are trying to say is that the Church Fathers were not as tolerant or as willing to cooperate with other faiths as our Church leaders are today. This is true, and reflects a completely different set of historical circumstances. If Saints Ambrose and Athanasius was living today, their responses to people of other faiths would probably be different, though I have no doubt their convictions would still be as strong as they ever were.

They saw the search for the true path to be holy. Not an acceptance of or search for something less.

No, you are wrong in what I was trying to say. They were not less tolerant,and less willing to cooperate with other faiths. They were not tolerant and cooperative in the least.

And since they had the true path and felt a keen duty to spread it to others, why should they be so? They may have used seeming acceptance of some things as an aid in evangelization, but they did not accept the validity of other faiths one iota.

Nor, in my opinion, should they have.

In closing I’m sure they did reflect upon their faith. many of them were tempted and tormented by the various heresies that were floating around in those days. In fact, there were those who actually embraced other faiths at times.

But they saw and understood that error and did not want others to make the same mistake.

No my friend what is happening in the Church these days is totally unprecedented in the history of the Church and in my opinion grew directly out of the heresy of modernism and belief in relativisitic ideas that came into being in the 19th century and grew into full blown fruition in the 20th. It is nothing more than the logical conclusion of these two schools of thought because for them there were no absolutes. Everything was relative to the time it was in and truth was relative as well.

 

[justme]

How would the Church Fathers feel about indoor plumbing?

 

[thunderballs75]

No my friend, what is happening in the Church these days is totally unprecedented in the history of the Church and in my opinion grew directly out of the heresy of modernism and belief in relativisitic ideas that came into being in the 19th century and grew into full blown fruition in the 20th. It is nothing more than the logical conclusion of these two schools of thought because for them there were no absolutes. Everything was relative to the time it was in and truth was relative as well.

This is where I think we have changed.

 

[Fensterblau]

How would the Church Fathers feel about indoor plumbing?

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

This is where I think we have changed.

If anything, it is a crisis of people, clergy included, that are not listening to the teaching and are too lazy, spiritual sloth, to learn philosophy like St. Thomas Aquinas but are influenced by modernistic philosophy of the world. The Church, through the Holy Spirit in the Magisterial teaching, is true to what it has passed down but is trying to preach in a way that the world will listen. Throwing condemnations at people or a bunker mentality will not make today’s people listen. The truth is there, how it is presented is a function of how people today can hear it. Jesus gave the Divine Mercy Chaplet to St. Faustina to emphasize His Mercy for a reason and it is approved by the Church.

The Magisterial teaching is still opposed to relativism. CCC 1751** “The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.”** and CCC 1752 "In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity."

From Veritatis splendor:** 79. “One must therefore reject the thesis, characteristic of teleological and proportionalist theories, which holds that it is impossible to qualify as morally evil according to its species — its “object” — the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behaviour or specific acts, apart from a consideration of the intention for which the choice is made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.”**

 

[adstrinity]

How would the Church Fathers feel about indoor plumbing?

They’d poo-poo the idea?

 

[xXConfiteorXx]

well…since this is an opinion forum, i shall give mine. Im extremely ambivalent towards ecumenism. On one hand, i am a converting Protestant (TO the Church.) and if not for ecumenism, well…who knows where i would be?
The downside of ecumenism (in practice) is that many ecumenical organizations and people have a tendency to disregard the treasure of their own Roman Catholic faith. (hence the throwing out rosaries comment.) I think, like many of the changes that the Church underwent after the Vat II years, more specification is needed to help guide authentic ecumenism. After all, much of the ecumenical message has been watered down into political correctness. And its a very good point that perhaps the Fathers of the Church were merely responding to their own situation in history; perhaps God wants us to respond differently in this new time?

 

[thunderballs75]

Don’t get me wrong you guys. Let me throw my understanding out there clearly:

1. I believe in religious tolerance and not hating others based on their religion.
2. I believe we should try to unify the Church and bring Protestants back, through their conversion.
3. The Eastern Orthodox are a little different, considering the fact that they are not heretics.

However, here is what I don’t believe in. The modern day way of doing this. I could state it best by simply giving modern examples.

Judaism:
-John Paul II: “With Judaism, therefore, we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers, and in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers.”
-St. Ambrose: “The Jews feared to believe in manhood taken up into God, and therefore have lost the grace of redemption, because they reject that on which salvation depends.”

Islam:
-John Paul II: Praying in a mosque and kissing a Quran. Need I say more? The Pope (highest authority of Christianity on earth), not only visiting but praying in a mosque, kissing the false teachings of Muhammad (at least I thought they were…).
-St. John of Damascus: “There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites(Muslims) which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist.”

Protestants:
-1500s: Heretics
-present: Separated brethren.

You honestly don’t see it? You really think it is exactly the same. Don’t get me wrong. I pray that all heretics and non-believers will be saved. In fact, I believe that many by invincible ignorance will receive God’s mercy. However, I think that previous Church teaching and the teachings of the Church Fathers are not the same as the, dare I say it, false ecumenism of today. God bless.

 

[adstrinity]

Don’t get me wrong you guys. Let me throw my understanding out there clearly:

1. I believe in religious tolerance and not hating others based on their religion.
2. I believe we should try to unify the Church and bring Protestants back, through their conversion.
3. The Eastern Orthodox are a little different, considering the fact that they are not heretics.

However, here is what I don’t believe in. The modern day way of doing this. I could state it best by simply giving modern examples.

Judaism:
-John Paul II: “With Judaism, therefore, we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers, and in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers.”
-St. Ambrose: “The Jews feared to believe in manhood taken up into God, and therefore have lost the grace of redemption, because they reject that on which salvation depends.”

Islam:
-John Paul II: Praying in a mosque and kissing a Quran. Need I say more? The Pope (highest authority of Christianity on earth), not only visiting but praying in a mosque, kissing the false teachings of Muhammad (at least I thought they were…).
-St. John of Damascus: “There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites(Muslims) which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist.”

Protestants:
-1500s: Heretics
-present: Separated brethren.

You honestly don’t see it? You really think it is exactly the same. Don’t get me wrong. I pray that all heretics and non-believers will be saved. In fact, I believe that many by invincible ignorance will receive God’s mercy. However, I think that previous Church teaching and the teachings of the Church Fathers are not the same as the, dare I say it, false ecumenism of today. God bless.

There’s nothing that Pope JPII said that contradicts St. Ambrose.

St. John of Damascus uses a word that I don’t think we can use anymore and get anywhere.

The difference is about men of that time and men of now is that at that time, the Church was more influential. Now that there’s more players on the field, and we all MUST get along to play nicely, things are different.

We’ve evolved.

 

[thunderballs75]

There’s nothing that Pope JPII said that contradicts St. Ambrose.

St. John of Damascus uses a word that I don’t think we can use anymore and get anywhere.

The difference is about men of that time and men of now is that at that time, the Church was more influential. Now that there’s more players on the field, and we all MUST get along to play nicely, things are different.

We’ve evolved.

Well don’t get me wrong, I think the Church Fathers could have been kinder and maybe acted a little more in charity. But the difference from before, at least as I see it, is that we’ve changed from trying to “convert others” towards “trying to accept others”. You can’t see it in the examples I’ve used? Mutual peace and respect are great things. But mutual acceptance on the Church’s part that all faiths are equal is a heresy to say the least.

Let me give a better example, an even earlier one at that.

St. Ignatius of Antioch:
“Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless. For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace… If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord’s day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny … how shall we be able to live apart from Him? … It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity —”

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I think you’re right, but when you talk with people who are actually involved in dialog with representatives of other faiths, you realize that most of these men and women are deeply devoted to their Catholic faith and do their work precisely because of their conviction that Jesus and his Church are the means God has chosen to bring all people to salvation. They are not interested in false symbols of unity or in singing “Kumbayah,” but that doesn’t mean they don’t believe there is nothing to be gained from attempting to understand the faith experiences of others or that different faiths, working together, can bring about a better environment for believers of all faiths. I am familiar with a priest who has spent years studying a foreign language, more years studying Buddhism, and even more years studying the concept of charity and welfare in Buddhism, not for the purpose of becoming a Buddhist, but for the purpose of presenting Christ and his Gospel to others in a language and method they can understand and accept. In the modern world we do a great disservice to our faith if we utilize crusades, inquisitions, or evagelical type condemnations to present the Gospel to others. Our best weapon today is patient understanding, firm knowledge of our own faith and a deeply held belief that the Holy Spirit guides our endeavors.

Not necessarily church fathers, but if you look at many of the great early missionaries, they also took time to understand the cultures and people they were going in to convert. They learned the languages and used the cultural and religious practices of hose people as a bridge to bring them to Catholicism. Bl. Ramon Bull spent many years learning arabic and teaching in the middle east. He even founded a seminary in Majorca for the purpose of teaching missionaries about Islam so they would be better equipt to reach the Muslims. Jesuit Father Matteo Ricci also taught that the Chinese already believed in the One True God, and that Christianity (specifically Catholisim) was the perfect manifiestation of a faith they already had. He famously related the ancestor worship of the Chinese to belief in purgatory and praying for the dead.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Protestants:
-1500s: Heretics
-present: Separated brethren.

You honestly don’t see it? You really think it is exactly the same. Don’t get me wrong. I pray that all heretics and non-believers will be saved. In fact, I believe that many by invincible ignorance will receive God’s mercy. However, I think that previous Church teaching and the teachings of the Church Fathers are not the same as the, dare I say it, false ecumenism of today. God bless.

Heresy separated someone from the Church and the community by way of going against the authoritative Magisterial teaching, teaching made doctrine and dogma by recognizing the truth in the saying of these Church Fathers. God gave people centuries of time to turn around in the Old Testament and like Nineveh, He accepted their initial repentance in “sackcloth and ashes” even though they didn’t stay repentant. Before Jericho was destroyed, Rahab, a prostitute, helped Israel, repenting where others did not. She became an ancestor to King David and related to the “shoot of the stump of Jesse”, Jesus. Condemning her as a prostitute would have been easy but the spies from Israel spared her and God certainly rewarded her. We should not condemn easily. Actions of the pope are not authoritative teaching and is not an endorsement in rejection of magisterial teaching. Teaching doesn’t change, how we approach the Ninevites and Rahabs of today certainly must be taken into consideration.

The difference is about men of that time and men of now is that at that time, the Church was more influential. Now that there’s more players on the field, and we all MUST get along to play nicely, things are different.
We’ve evolved.

We’ve evolved but the teaching has not. It must be as handed down and defined: From Vatican I "If anyone says that

• it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
  let him be anathema.

Some use this to denigrate Vatican II or any modern teaching as “Modernist” as if “modern” were the problem and not the specifics mentioned in Pascendi Dominici Gregis or as stated by The Catholic Encyclopedia:

• A spirit of complete emancipation, tending to weaken ecclesiastical authority; the emancipation of science, which must traverse every field of investigation without fear of conflict with the Church; the emancipation of the State, which should never be hampered by religious authority; the emancipation of the private conscience whose inspirations must not be overridden by papal definitions or anathemas; the emancipation of the universal conscience, with which the Church should be ever in agreement;
  • A spirit of movement and change, with an inclination to a sweeping form of evolution such as abhors anything fixed and stationary;
  • A spirit of reconciliation among all men through the feelings of the heart. Many and varied also are the modernist dreams of an understanding between the different Christian religions, nay, even between religion and a species of atheism, and all on a basis of agreement that must be superior to mere doctrinal differences.

Fr. Richard Rohr and his Center for Action and Contemplation, A Call to Action, Women Priests Movement, “Emerging Church”, homosexual advocates, dissenters of all forms against the Magisterial teaching of the Church are Modernist by what they propose contrary to the Church.

 

[jmcrae]

How would the Church Fathers feel about indoor plumbing?

The earliest of them had it (the Roman Empire had indoor plumbing; it was only after the fall of civilization that the memory of how to set it up became lost) and I don’t remember reading any complaints about it.

We have not “evolved.” This notion of “let’s all just get along; all religions are really just expressions of the same idea” is at least as old as King Solomon and his many foreign wives with their many foreign religions - and perhaps it is even as old as Babel.

 

[chrisb]

I think if one reads a great deal of Roman Catholic works in the last 300 to 400 years one would notice a great deal more bitterness than more modern works, such as works after Vatican II. Clearly there was a change in course in the approach used in dialogue with those outside the Church. I’m not sure I would argue that “ecumenism” is something ‘the’ Church Fathers would be opposed to. St. Isaac of Syria was one who comes to mind that was very opposed to debates concerning Dogmatics. He once wrote to his Desert Brothers to ‘run from anyone wishing to discuss Dogma’. I don’t see a great deal of vinger in St. Francis de Sales either as he was a mighty apologetist for the Catholic Church in Geneva.

 

[adstrinity]

Well don’t get me wrong, I think the Church Fathers could have been kinder and maybe acted a little more in charity. But the difference from before, at least as I see it, is that we’ve changed from trying to “convert others” towards “trying to accept others”. You can’t see it in the examples I’ve used? Mutual peace and respect are great things. But mutual acceptance on the Church’s part that all faiths are equal is a heresy to say the least.

Let me give a better example, an even earlier one at that.

St. Ignatius of Antioch:
“Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless. For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace… If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord’s day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny … how shall we be able to live apart from Him? … It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity —”

I don’t understand this example, but, I am digesting your first paragraph.

I think if one reads a great deal of Roman Catholic works in the last 300 to 400 years one would notice a great deal more bitterness than more modern works, such as works after Vatican II. Clearly there was a change in course in the approach used in dialogue with those outside the Church. I’m not sure I would argue that “ecumenism” is something ‘the’ Church Fathers would be opposed to. St. Isaac of Syria was one who comes to mind that was very opposed to debates concerning Dogmatics. He once wrote to his Desert Brothers to ‘run from anyone wishing to discuss Dogma’. I don’t see a great deal of vinger in St. Francis de Sales either as he was a mighty apologetist for the Catholic Church in Geneva.

This is what I meant by we evolved. It’s not just us, mind you, but, the Protestants and Orthodox leaders are trying to talk nice to us, too. Today one can gleam a lot from Protestantisms in the way that some Protestants believe in Catholic teachings. If one listens to the radio, it’s not all “The Pope is the Anti-Christ,” no, as a matter of fact, the better, more notable Protestants leaders love Jesus so much that they don’t have any room in their heart for the hating of Catholics. Many priests and pastors and rabbis are friends, I’m sure. Do we agree? No! Should we water down any of our teachings? NO!!! Should we all just get along…or try to? Time does heal all wounds. I’m rather fond of it took 1000 years for the Church to split and it’s taking just as long to come to terms on both sides. God is doing this in His time. I’m not for the mixing of our faith, but, I am for trying to settle our differences AND KNOW WHAT EACH SIDE REALLY BELIEVES before anybody can accuse anybody of saying what somebody believes.

On top of this, as I have been thinking about this topic for a while, something has most DEFINITELY changed since the Church Fathers…and even since a good number of cannonized saints: We have an Israel again.

 

[Tsuwano]

Well don’t get me wrong, I think the Church Fathers could have been kinder and maybe acted a little more in charity. But the difference from before, at least as I see it, is that we’ve changed from trying to “convert others” towards “trying to accept others”. You can’t see it in the examples I’ve used? Mutual peace and respect are great things. But mutual acceptance on the Church’s part that all faiths are equal is a heresy to say the least.

Let me give a better example, an even earlier one at that.

St. Ignatius of Antioch:
“Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless. For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace… If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord’s day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny … how shall we be able to live apart from Him? … It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity —”

As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, you and many folks who are opposed to ecumenism seem to equate ecumenism with “trying to accept others.” Well, first of all, to clarify things, we are called to accept others. Our Christian faith compels us to do this. I think what you mean is trying to accept other faiths as equal to our own. From the Catholic perspective, this is not what ecumenism is, and many Catholic theologians and missionaries would be surprised that this is what you think. They definitely do not equate other faiths with their own, otherwise they would not sacrifice family, language, culture, income and their youth spend in years of preparation to engage in such a useless pursuit. We do seek to “convert others” to the faith we hold to be the one true means initiated by Jesus Christ to insure our salvation. We use the same means that former missionaries have used over the centuries including, as one previous poster noted, missionaries such as St. Francis Xavier, Matteo Ricci, Peter DiNobili, St. Joseph Frienademetz, St. Daniel Comboni, and St. Paul himself. We use dialog, patient listening to the faith experience of others, understanding, and gentle pursuasion and discussion. We seek to find areas of agreement, but this does not mean we gloss over areas of difference. Your quote from St. Ignatius of Antioch does not apply to what missionaries and those engaged in dialog and ecumenism are doing today. They do not accept other faiths or seek to imitate them, but they do seek to understand the process of faith and why people believe the way they do. It seems to me that your entire understanding of ecumenism is wrong. It is not about mutual acceptance of faiths or believing that all faiths are equal. It is about understanding in order to present the Christian faith to the other within a light the other may find comprehensible and recognizing that all faith, though rough and unequal, still germinates from the seed of grace granted to all people from God. Accepting the other’s sincere desire to know God is what allows ecumenism to progress.

 

[thunderballs75]

As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, you and many folks who are opposed to ecumenism seem to equate ecumenism with “trying to accept others.” Well, first of all, to clarify things, we are called to accept others. Our Christian faith compels us to do this. I think what you mean is trying to accept other faiths as equal to our own. From the Catholic perspective, this is not what ecumenism is, and many Catholic theologians and missionaries would be surprised that this is what you think. They definitely do not equate other faiths with their own, otherwise they would not sacrifice family, language, culture, income and their youth spend in years of preparation to engage in such a useless pursuit. We do seek to “convert others” to the faith we hold to be the one true means initiated by Jesus Christ to insure our salvation. We use the same means that former missionaries have used over the centuries including, as one previous poster noted, missionaries such as St. Francis Xavier, Matteo Ricci, Peter DiNobili, St. Joseph Frienademetz, St. Daniel Comboni, and St. Paul himself. We use dialog, patient listening to the faith experience of others, understanding, and gentle pursuasion and discussion. We seek to find areas of agreement, but this does not mean we gloss over areas of difference. Your quote from St. Ignatius of Antioch does not apply to what missionaries and those engaged in dialog and ecumenism are doing today. They do not accept other faiths or seek to imitate them, but they do seek to understand the process of faith and why people believe the way they do. It seems to me that your entire understanding of ecumenism is wrong. It is not about mutual acceptance of faiths or believing that all faiths are equal. It is about understanding in order to present the Christian faith to the other within a light the other may find comprehensible and recognizing that all faith, though rough and unequal, still germinates from the seed of grace granted to all people from God. Accepting the other’s sincere desire to know God is what allows ecumenism to progress.

I think I understand what you are saying better. I’d say that in general, you are right. Of course we are called to accept others and be kind. However, if we consider that no religion is equal to our own as you say, how can we pray in mosques or synagogues, let alone that person being the pope? By doing this, don’t we *imply *that they are equal to our own religion? Do we really need to embrace any of their false religious customs at all to understand them?

Specifically, before I reverted to Catholicism, I was simply looking for the right religion. So I studied the other religions and tried to understand them. However, in order to understand them I didn’t find it necessary to go pray in a mosque, kiss a Quran, or turn to dual covenant theology. Why is it necessary that the Catholic Church does? So I’m saying you are right in theory. However, it seems to me that in practice, modern “ecumenism” doesn’t follow what you say, and truly does give the impression that all faiths are equal.