Would the Church Fathers be down with "ecumenism"?

[DavidJoseph]

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.”

I think you misunderstand what John Paul II was saying. He wasn’t saying Judaism is salvific or that the Jews have “their own” way to heaven. Catholicism is the fulfillment of Judaism. Judaism came before Christianity. That’s how Jews can be considered our elder brothers. It doesn’t mean that Judaism is salvific.

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.”

So John Paul II prayed in a mosque. Or are you referring to Benedict XVI? I know the latter visited a mosque; did the former do so as well? I can’t remember. Whichever one it was, did he say an Our Father or Hail Mary there, or did he actually join in the prayers the Muslims were saying? As for kissing the Koran, was John Paul II endorsing the Koran and its teachings? I doubt it. In that culture, its customary to show gratitude for a gift by kissing it, and from what I’ve heard, the copy of the Koran he’s holding in that picture was a gift. Do I approve of what His Holiness did? This may surprise you, but no, I don’t think it was a good idea. I think it could very well give the wrong impression. Same with praying in mosques. At any rate, charity demands giving people the benefit of the doubt and not automatically assuming a bad will on someone else’s part. John Paul II had a momentary lapse in good judgment (haven’t we all had one of those before?), and yet people like yourself seem ready to stone him for blasphemy, heresy, etc.!

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

And Protestantism is still a heresy. But you fail to consider that several centuries have passed since the “Reformation.” In the 1500s those who left the Church for Protestantism willingly and deliberately committed heresy. They were formal heretics! And calling them heretics would be merely speaking the truth, especially since they had hardened their hearts and minds against the Church. Today, however, most Protestants are born into Protestant communities and thus, through no fault of their own, are unaware of the truth of Catholicism. As a result, these folks are merely material heretics, not formal heretics. Because they don’t know any better, it would be counter-productive to denounce them as heretics, not to mention downright uncharitable. Remember, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

 

[DavidJoseph]

To all:

I think many people here who are condemning ecumenism don’t realize there’s such a thing as TRUE ecumenism. If you want to bring someone to the Truth, you have to be willing to come to the table and dialogue. You have to hear their side of the story, tell your side, and try and show them in which areas they’re wrong and why. That is true ecumenism.

Watering down differences so that we can all get along, however, is what the Church condemns as FALSE ecumenism. Of course, there’s been a lot of false ecumenism among laity, priests, and even bishops in the past several years, but it’s NOT what the Church instructs. Even Vatican II condemns false ecumenism.

 

[Tsuwano]

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.

Well, first of all, for many Christians around the world practicing ecumenism, or interacting with folks of other religions, is not simply a matter of choosing to do so. It is an imperative; something they must do in order to function in society. I’ll use myself as an example. My wife is a convert to Catholicism and our children are being raised as Catholic. My wife’s Japanese family, however, practice religion in a typical Japanese way that incorporates Buddhist and Shinto elements into their faith culture. They have a Butsudan, or a family Buddhist altar, in their home where they pray for deceased relatives. When my children visit their Grandparents, especially during the season of Obon (the traditional season when Japanese families pray for deceased relatives and clean gravesites), should they not be allowed to pray for their deceased relatives in front of the family altar? When a relative dies, should my wife and our children not attend the funeral services where Buddhist sutras are chanted? Not participating, at least to some degree, in the faith rituals of others, especially family members, is not an option for Christians in Japan unless they wish to fracture families and create disharmony among those they associate with everyday. Now, I expect my Buddhist family members to participate in certain rituals that we, as Christians, practice, as much as they expect me to participate in their rituals. When my daughters were baptized, we expected their Grandparents to be present at the ritual, and they were. When my wife and I were married in a Catholic wedding ceremony, we expected her family members to be present and celebrate with us. When my wife was baptized in 2004, her parents did not disown her, but applauded her courage in following a path that is more difficult to follow in Japanese culture and society. So, though I in no way way equate Buddhism with Christianity as a means of attaining salvation or understanding the will of God, I do not deny there is a genuine desire to know God and live according to his light among Buddhists, and I also acknowledge that in some manner I am required to interact with people of a different faith in an intimate manner that respects their faith without negating my own.
The Church, if it truly espouses the “brotherhood of man,” is in a similar situation. In order to give life to this “brotherhood” and make God’s love manifest in the world, especially to those who are not of our faith, it may at times be necessary for representatives of the Church to be present at rituals and in places where God is sought and worshipped. Again, this does not equate that worship or the vision of that faith with our own, but rather accentuates the holiness of the search for faith and the grace and love we believe God offers all men and women. The Church has never given credence to error, especially when engaged in theological dialog, but it does give credit to men and women of sincere faith (though different from our own) who seek to communicate with God. We acknowledge that communication and join, in our own fashion, in prayer. When I pray at a Buddhist funeral service, my prayer still acknowledges the presence of the Father, his Holy Spirit and the Christ who is our Lord. Our faith is a bold and fearless faith. It is not a faith that hides behind walls or turns away from the world of men. Our faith engages others and is a witness to the presence of Christ, even in places where Christ goes unrecognized and misunderstood. Ecumenism is a practice that can only emerge from a strong and devoted faith, and is not an exercise for a weak or pale faith that cowers from the most important questions of human relationship with God.

 

[JReducation]

Ecumenism is not as new as many would think. The word itself is very old. There were ecumenical councils before the split between East and West.

There are other points in the Church’s history that suggest the presence of Ecumenism under other names or even nameless, but the same type of activity.

1. The union that exists between the Latin Church and the Eastern Churches in communion with the Apostolic See is the product of some very fancy ecumenical work through the centuries. Thus they came to be called the Uniate Churches.
2. The Church Fathers argued against heretics. Today’s Protestants are not heretics. Their forefathers were. Today’s Protestant is usually born a Protestant. Therefore, the definition of heretic does not apply to him/her.
3. When Luther rebelled against the Church he had some valid complaints. Maybe an ecumenical spirit would have prevented the birth of the Lutheran Reform. This is speculation, of course. But the fact that Rome dealt with Luther’s concerns in a very offensive manner is a historical fact.
4. The statements made by the Fathers of the Church concerning Judaism and Islam were never adopted as part of the Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church. They have their place in Catholic history, but it is up to the popes and the bishops in union with them to identify dogma. These statements are not dogmatic. Therefore, Pope John Paul II can say what he said about the Jews and both Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict can pray in a Mosque without fear of sinning against the faith.
5. It has been a long established custom in the Church to adapt to and learn the ways of those whom we are to evangelize. There are several examples that I can offer.
   

     a.  The Jesuits traded their secular black cassocks for orange robes when they went to China, including St. Francis Xavier.
   
     b.  St. Maximilian Kolbe founded a Franciscan mission and seminary in Japan.  He wrote back to the friars that were to follow him to Japan that they should put aside their Franciscan habit and wear secular clothing.  We have those letters.  They were read and made public as part of his canonization research.  You can find them in his biography, Forget Not Love.
   
     c.  Mother Teresa wrote to Rome and to her local bishop that Jesus wanted Indian sisters and that the traditional religious habit is European.  Thus she designed an Indian habit for her sisters.  Those who join the Missionaries of Charity must learn to speak English, must study in India and do their six years of formation before final vows in India.  They are trained in Islam, Hindu, and the Hindi language along with Catholic theology and the constitutions of the Society of the Missionaries of Charity.
   
     d.  St. Francis of Assisi negotiated a treaty with the Sultan, whom he failed to convert.  But that treaty has allowed the Franciscans to minister in Jordan and Israel for 800 years.  The agreement between Francis and the Sultan was that the Sultan would treat the Christian prisoners of war with kindness and justice and Francis would send his friars, not to convert them, but to live among them in peace.  Francis took this tactic as a way of evangelizing without proselityzing.  Today there are missions in Jordan and Israel run by Franciscans, Muslims and Jews.  There have been converts, without proselityzing.  The converts are attracted by the life and love of the Franciscans and other Catholic volunteers who go there.

There is a long tradition of ecumanism. However, the manner of doing ecumenism changes with the directives of the Holy See. Sometimes the directives are better than others. But that’s the Holy See’s perogative to change the process as it wishes. We really have not voice in the matter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[thunderballs75]

I know exactly what you are saying! My family is made up of atheists and protestants. I have to learn to accept their faith, and I do respect them. I have the same exact situation and experience as you do.

However, the part that we have lost is trying to show others the truth. When my family questions me about my faith, I try to show them the truth of the Catholic Faith. People are afraid because they feel some may interpret this as intolerant, condescending, or disrespectful. I am not intolerant, but I do believe in trying to show others the path to salvation which is Christ’s Church.

 

[JReducation]

I know exactly what you are saying! My family is made up of atheists and protestants. I have to learn to accept their faith, and I do respect them. I have the same exact situation and experience as you do.

However, the part that we have lost is trying to show others the truth. When my family questions me about my faith, I try to show them the truth of the Catholic Faith. People are afraid because they feel some may interpret this as intolerant, condescending, or disrespectful. I am not intolerant, but I do believe in trying to show others the path to salvation which is Christ’s Church.

The Church has always encouraged and will continue to encourage the kind of evangelization that you do. People have a right to know the Truth. I am a convert from Judaism. I became a Catholic over 35 years ago. Any way, I always share with my siblings my Catholic faith and they have come to a greater understanding of it. The attend mass when they visit me. They send Christmas presents. They have even been at a papal audience. As they know more, they ask more questions. Recently, my sister asked me the question that must have been on her mind for over 35-years, “Why did you become a Catholic?” and “Why did you become a Franciscan?”

They have also introduced me to their friends who are Jewish or non Catholics. We always end up in a Q & A session. The last one was at my nephew’s birthday. There was a non Catholic who asked me about celibacy. He was concerned that the Church was anti-marriage. When I explained the theology of celibacy and the theology of marriage his answer was, “You’ve taught me a lot tonight.” I ran into him later and he repeated what he had said before. It proves that he was thinking about it.

My younger brother has asked me how one goes about being a Catholic. I laughed because I knew what he meant, but he had trouble with the words. This presented a great opportunity to give him a book on St. Francis. I gave him that because I know that he is very appreciative of Franciscan spirituality.

Sometimes, Ecumenism takes different forms. The idea is to teach truth in charity, not with a campaign. Campaigns make people suspicious and nervous.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Tsuwano]

I know exactly what you are saying! My family is made up of atheists and protestants. I have to learn to accept their faith, and I do respect them. I have the same exact situation and experience as you do.

However, the part that we have lost is trying to show others the truth. When my family questions me about my faith, I try to show them the truth of the Catholic Faith. People are afraid because they feel some may interpret this as intolerant, condescending, or disrespectful. I am not intolerant, but I do believe in trying to show others the path to salvation which is Christ’s Church.

And you are right to do so! Expressing your own faith, I believe, is not intolerant or disprespectful of other faiths. Even less is it condescending. Not to express your faith honestly and fully, especially when sincerely questioned by others, is condescending. Again, I believe our faith should be bold, not in the sense that we believe we are the only ones God communicates with, but in the sense that we know who we are and what we believe and we are not afraid or ashamed of the Gospel. Mother Theresa, by placing a drop of water from the Ganges on the lips of a dying Hindu man, was not denying her faith or the supremacy of Christ in her action. Rather, she was entering into the very heart of the Christian faith; a faith that centers on divine love and calls us to imitate that love with complete trust, even though those acts of love may go against expectation or what passes for common sense. She allowed her acts of love to reveal her Christian faith, rather than use her Christian faith as an excuse not to love. This is the light people saw in her and has been impossible to diminish.