Ecumenism

[Myles Domini]

We all know that Jesus prayed that we might be one (cf Jn 17:21) but are we overemphasising one part of Sacred Scripture by neglecting another:

[quote]Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! From now on, five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided: father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.--Luke 12:51-53[/quote]

Interpreting these two texts of Scripture in light of one another isn't it possible that a) yes, Jesus wants us to be one but b) he knows we wont be. Just as he wants all men to be saved but knows they wont be? Thats not my view but I reckon its an interesting topic for debate. Has the ecumenical adventure been beneficial to the Church? Should we continue it? If so, why so? If not, why not?

Lets hear from you phatpham?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Ut Unum Sint #9']Jesus himself, at the hour of his Passion, prayed "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21). This unity, which the Lord has bestowed on his Church and in which he wishes to embrace all people, is not something added on, but stands at the very heart of Christ's mission. Nor is it some secondary attribute of the community of his disciples. Rather, it belongs to the very essence of this community. God wills the Church, because he wills unity, and unity is an expression of the whole depth of his agape.

In effect, this unity bestowed by the Holy Spirit does not merely consist in the gathering of people as a collection of individuals. It is a unity constituted by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and hierarchical communion.10 The faithful are one because, in the Spirit, they are in communion with the Son and, in him, share in his communion with the Father: "Our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ" (1 Jn 1:3). For the Catholic Church, then, thecommunion of Christians is none other than the manifestation in them of the grace by which God makes them sharers in his own communion, which is his eternal life. Christ's words "that they may be one" are thus his prayer to the Father that the Father's plan may be fully accomplished, in such a way that everyone may clearly see "what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things" (Eph 3:9). To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which corresponds to the Father's plan from all eternity. Such is the meaning of Christ's prayer: "Ut unum sint".[/quote]

[quote name='Unitatis Redintegratio #15']These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.[/quote]

What am I getting at? Well, Ecumenism, when it is genuine, is most definitely a help to the Church.

[quote name='Ut Unum Sint #43']It happens more and more often that the leaders of Christian Communities join together in taking a stand in the name of Christ on important problems concerning man's calling and on freedom, justice, peace, and the future of the world. In this way they "communicate" in one of the tasks which constitutes the mission of Christians: that of reminding society of God's will in a realistic manner, warning the authorities and their fellow-citizens against taking steps which would lead to the trampling of human rights. It is clear, as experience shows, that in some circumstances the united voice of Christians has more impact than any one isolated voice.

Nor are the leaders of Communities the only ones joined in the work for unity. Many Christians from all Communities, by reason of their faith, are jointly involved in bold projects aimed at changing the world by inculcating respect for the rights and needs of everyone, especially the poor, the lowly and the defenceless. In my Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, I was pleased to note this cooperation, stressing that the Catholic Church cannot fail to take part in these efforts. In effect, Christians who once acted independently are now engaged together in the service of this cause, so that God's mercy may triumph.

This way of thinking and acting is already that of the Gospel. Hence, reaffirming what I wrote in my first Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis, I have had occasion "to insist on this point and to encourage every effort made in this direction, at all levels where we meet our other brother Christians". I have thanked God "for what he has already accomplished in the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities and through them", as well as through the Catholic Church. Today I see with satisfaction that the already vast network of ecumenical cooperation is constantly growing. Thanks also to the influence of the World Council of Churches, much is being accomplished in this field.[/quote]

A couple of thoughts......

[Era Might]

Ecumenism actually balances both principles. It is aimed at the unity of all Christians, but not at the expense of the truth. The Church could just say "we're all united, we cannot have division". But she doesn't. She accepts division to the extent that the two cannot be reconciled, while at the same time doing all she can to reconcile what can be reconciled.

[toledo_jesus]

I think that any ecumenism that doesn't result in a unified Christian Church is a failure. We have a LARC conference in my diocese (Lutheran, Anglican, Roman Catholic) and I don't see what point they serve aside from coordinating things for churches to do together. I don't suppose we'll heal 500 or more years of division overnight, but sometimes I feel like the Catholic message is diluted so that we can get along.

[Era Might]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Oct 25 2005, 05:05 PM']I think that any ecumenism that doesn't result in a unified Christian Church is a failure.  We have a LARC conference in my diocese (Lutheran, Anglican, Roman Catholic) and I don't see what point they serve aside from coordinating things for churches to do together.  I don't suppose we'll heal 500 or more years of division overnight, but sometimes I feel like the Catholic message is diluted so that we can get along.
[right][snapback]770227[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Corporate reunion is a long way off (Pope Benedict admits as much himself in "The Ratzinger Report"). What ecumenism accomplishes, apart from corporate reunion, is to cultivate the shared faith and partial communion that already exists among all Christians. We are truly brothers in a supernatural way. We should act like it.

To quote Chris Farley, brothers don't shake, brothers gotta hug.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Oct 25 2005, 05:17 PM']To quote Chris Farley, brothers don't shake, brothers gotta hug. 
[right][snapback]770241[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
hahaha.

[Theoketos]

The poll is kind of flawed with a false distinction. Seperated Brethern refer to Prostestants, not to any other religion.

[Myles Domini]

[quote]The poll is kind of flawed with a false distinction. Seperated Brethern refer to Prostestants, not to any other religion.[/quote]

What about the Orthodox? Are they not also our seperated brethren? The point of making the first option 'all our seperated brethren' was to pose the question of whether its advisible to persue ecumenism with both Protestants and Orthodox Christians. The list does not refer to interreligious dialogue and the distinction is accurate.

My personal sentiments are that the Catholic Church should focus principally if not solely on ecumenism with the Orthodox Churches. The idea that its feasible to carry out ecumenism with everyone at once is inherently flawed. Orthodoxy and Protestantism, even conservative anglicanism, are poles apart. Moving closer to one logically means moving further away from the other e.g. liturgy, women's ordination, dogmatic questions, ecclesiology etc.etc. It seems to me far more logical to turn East in these matters than to continue a futile dialogue with Christians who have no means of enforcing what we agree on outside of their own parties within their ecclesial communities. Why spend time dialoging with Anglicanism only to have the Anglican Bishops vote for women bishops? Why dialogue with them at all when sola scriptura means they dont have to listen to their bishops? These are serious questions that should be addressed.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Myles' date='Oct 26 2005, 12:00 PM']My personal sentiments are that the Catholic Church should focus principally if not solely on ecumenism with the Orthodox Churches. The idea that its feasible to carry out ecumenism with everyone at once is inherently flawed. Orthodoxy and Protestantism, even conservative anglicanism, are poles apart. Moving closer to one logically means moving further away from the other e.g. liturgy, women's ordination, dogmatic questions, ecclesiology etc.etc. It seems to me far more logical to turn East in these matters than to continue a futile dialogue with Christians who have no means of enforcing what we agree on outside of their own parties within their ecclesial communities. Why spend time dialoging with Anglicanism only to have the Anglican Bishops vote for women bishops? Why dialogue with them at all when sola scriptura means they dont have to listen to their bishops? These are serious questions that should be addressed.
[right][snapback]771061[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You can't restrict dialogue to certain groups. Dialogue is, by its very nature, open to all men, no matter how close or how far they are from the Church. You seem to view dialogue solely as a means to convert someone. While, of course, dialogue is focused on the search for truth, it is also a communion of gifts and respect. The Church accepts her ecumenical (and interreligious) partners in dialogue as they are. Cutting off the lines of dialogue with, say, Anglicans, isn't going to do anything. But if we persist in the dialogue, even if they move further and further from the truth, we remain true to Christ, who calls after a soul even when it has strayed.

Edited October 26, 2005 by Era Might

[Maria]

Ecuminism is a great idea and unity needs to be worked and prayed for, but I don't want to go into that field, so to speak. The vision of the Church which sees visible unity as something so important is a fundamentally Catholic one, one which many protestants don't even hold.

[Cam42]

From the Vatican:

[quote]JEWS AND CHRISTIANS: COOPERATE TO BUILD A WORLD OF PEACE

VATICAN CITY, OCT 28, 2005 (VIS) - Yesterday evening, Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Holy See Commission for Religious Relations with Jews, read out a Message from the Holy Father during an event held to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Vatican Council II's Declaration "Nostra aetate."

This anniversary, writes the Holy Father in his Message, "gives us abundant reason to express gratitude to Almighty God for the witness of all those who, despite a complex and often painful history, and especially after the tragic experience of the Shoah, which was inspired by a neo-pagan racist ideology, worked courageously to foster reconciliation and improved understanding between Christians and Jews.

"In laying the foundations for a renewed relationship between the Jewish people and the Church, 'Nostra aetate' stressed the need to overcome past prejudices, misunderstandings, indifference, and the language of contempt and hostility. The declaration has been the occasion of greater mutual understanding and respect, cooperation and, often, friendship between Catholics and Jews."

In considering 40 years "of fruitful contacts between the Church and the Jewish people," says Benedict XVI, "we need to renew our commitment to the work that yet remains to be done. In this regard, from the first days of my pontificate ... I have expressed my own firm determination to walk in the footsteps traced by my beloved predecessor Pope John Paul II."

Dialogue between Jews and Christians, says the Pope, "must continue to enrich and deepen the bonds of friendship which have developed, while preaching and catechesis must be committed to ensuring that our mutual relations are presented in the light of the principles set forth by the Council."

In closing, the Holy Father expresses the hope that "both in theological dialogue and in everyday contacts and collaboration, Christians and Jews will offer an ever more compelling shared witness to the One God and His commandments, the sanctity of life, the promotion of human dignity, the rights of the family and the need to build a world of justice, reconciliation and peace for future generations."[/quote]

Ecumenism is good.

[Cam42]

[MichaelFilo]

In as much as bringing together heretics and Catholics, or heathens and Catholics, or even schismatics and Catholics can be considered good, so too can ecumenism.

What need do we have today of ecumenism when toleration is the virtue neccessary for all religious discussion? What maybe gained from worshiping with a heretical group? Does praying the rosary with an Orthodox congregation help?

One can agree that yes, at least in as much as the person becomes more accepting to the Catholic and his Church because of praying together and worshipping together forms a sort of common bond. However, what past a common bond is formed? Not much; and from what I have seen of ecumenism, it has done nothing less than put me at odds with those "seperated brethern" of whom the intent was to become more united. It may work for church leaders; sure Billy Graham can say a prayer with a pope (if neccessary, although, it hasn't happened and I don't see a good reason as to why it should), but that doesn't do much to unite churches at a local level.

There is much too much difference between the Protestant pastor, who goes up and sings another "praise Jesus with repitious nonesense that is formulated to make you feel better" hymn, preaches a sermon where (suprisingly) he may or may not refer to the Bible (correctly, or in some cases I have seen, reffering to parts of the Bible that he mistanklingly imagined) and then shoves down a good dose of good ol' personal theological beliefs, and a Mass.

The most that I can have in common with someone who attends such crude services is possibly saying the "Our Father", which is also different since they include the priest's prayer when we say it during Mass when they pray the "Our Father".

So, at least to our "seperated brethern" of the protestant heresy, we may find little room for ecumenism that will bear much fruit for their conversion.

I've dealt very little with schimatics, but I have little doubt that it may bear better fruit amongst them since the real division is a lack of friendship more so than a lack of common practice.

But, as always, ecumenism is nothing more than a stress on unity that does not base itself on conversion; which, if anyone knows a convert, will confide is the surest way to be unified to the Church. Therefore, while ecumenism maybe praised, I find it to be nothing more than a modernist solution to an ancient problem.

God bless,
Mikey

[MichaelFilo]

After having round 2 of a religious debate with a protestant, and after seeing the successful fruit of debate in another kid who is now set on becoming a Catholic I find that ecumenism has borne little fruit in my eyes. In fact, I find it breeds complacency. How do I tell a heretic that he must convert when I have no trouble praying with him, what is so superior about my Church than to that of an Orthodox church-goer when our practices are hardly seperate?

No, only forceful words and accusations of the crime of heresy bear much fruit. To make peace with a heretic or schismatic has not proven to be successful with me in the past. Now, that I finally forsaked the principal rule I learned here in Phatmass that fully represented what ecumenism is all about (the golden rule on the debate table is, as you know, "don't call anyone heretic as it doesn't build bridges") not only has there been success in my work to convert the world to Christ's Body, in a years time I may get to witness the seed I planted in a boy's heart blossom under the Spirit into acceptance into the Church.

So, I am teetering here. Ecumenism has failed me miserably in my work to convert the world to Christ. Old fashioned St. Jerome style condemnation has bore many times the spiritual fruit that ecumenism has and all in the time of 2 weeks, as opposed to the 2 years time I spent doing the modernist way. So, from experience, I find ecumenism to be of limited use.

God bless,
Mikey

[cmotherofpirl]

Ecumenism means I am on common ground with my evangelical neighbors when we work on projects together : picket an abortion clinic, or protest obcene artwork , or pray for peace or work in a food pantry together. It means there is some basis for a common understanding and a joint effort is possible based on the idea of serving God and fellow man.