Does the ecumenical movement have a future?

[Myles Domini]

Since the phorum has been pretty slow since it got back up and running I thought I'd try and provoke some debate. Benedict XVI has insisted that the unity of Christians is one of the prime objectives of his pontificate but how feasible is this goal? Is our beloved Benedict XVI being somewhat naive about the situation?

For instance look at the [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html"]joint declaration on the doctrine of justifcation by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church[/url] on paper it surmounts the principal reason for the Western Schism: 'Sola Fide'. However, since its publication in 1997 (almost a decade ago) has the Catholic Church moved any closer to full communion with the Lutheran World Federation? Does the average Lutheran even know this document exists? If they do, why do they have to follow it? Given Luthers' other two key reformation principles: 'Sola Scriptura' and the priesthood of all believers can anybody honestly say they speak for all Lutherans everywhere? Why should we believe that simply because the main spokesmen for Lutheranism have agreed to something that all Lutherans are obliged to adopt their stance? Is not schism the logical outcome to allowing private interpretation in matters of faith and morals?

I dont want to be pessismistic but I think there comes a moment in time where we must be realistic. The joint Anglican-Roman Catholic theological commusion are about to publish a new document on Our Lady zenit tells me. My only response is towards what ends? Will that solve the Episcopalian decision to ordain practicing homosexuals to the clergy (even unto the episcopate)? Or the Anglican communions acceptance of female's in their clergy? Or the various anti-life stances they've taken etc.etc. What is the point of this new document on Mary when in reality we're even further apart on the fundamentals of faith than we were in the days when Queen Elizabeth I sat on the English throne? Once again the reality of the situation is that whatever we agree with one set of Anglicans there will be another set who according to reformation principles are free to elect schism.

Where does the future of the ecumenical movement lay in light of this fact?
How should 21st century Catholics approach ecumenism after 40 years of dissapointment?
Where should we be focussing our attention? And how should we negotiate relations with Christians ex communio?

You have the floor phatpham
Myles

[popestpiusx]

It would depend on how you define 'ecumenism'.

[Myles Domini]

Well thats why I didnt make it poll only. Like I said this ones for a slow day at the forum so I'm leaving a little bit of room for maneuvering and for people to duly explain their choices. Although from the thrust of my post I think its clear what I view ecumenism as, no?

[popestpiusx]

In its modern syncretist form, not a chance in hell. In the true form (as steps to conversion) it has always been our duty and always will.

Edited May 3, 2005 by popestpiusx

[Gal. 5:22,23]

It has been my experience as a conservative evangelical that none of the talk about ecumenism or unity has drawn any of them closer to the Catholic Church. They are just as suspicious as they've always been. Sermons are still full of praise for the reformers and plenty of jabs at the Church.

But among liberal protestants, that's a different story. They respond to terms like unity, tolerance, etc. The new slogan for the Methodist churches in my hometown is "Open hearts, open minds."

In an earlier thread I asked what the new Pope meant when he talked about unity among all Christians. It seems to me that there are only two solutions - either everyone becomes Catholic, or, you so water down Christianity so as not to offend anyone that it becomes completely meaningless. The latter is what I fear.

[Ash Wednesday]

Well, what's the alternative? Have the pope say "Christian unity ain't gonna happen, so why bother?"

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]In an earlier thread I asked what the new Pope meant when he talked about unity among all Christians. It seems to me that there are only two solutions - either everyone becomes Catholic, or, you so water down Christianity so as not to offend anyone that it becomes completely meaningless. The latter is what I fear.[/quote]

Yes, from a Catholic perspective, unity consists in everyone becoming Catholic. However, the Second Vatican Council, and its subsequent Popes, have chosen to frame the question from the perspective of truth, rather than an ecclesial centered perspective. The Church is trying to foster a communion in truth, which she believes resides fully only in her. But to frame the subject in an ecclesio-centric way brings too much baggage, and seems to imply that in a communion of truth, there cannot be legitimate diversity in form.

John Paul II writes in his Encyclical Letter on Ecumenism, "Ut Unum Sint":

[quote]Taking up an idea expressed by Pope John XXIII at the opening of the Council, the Decree on Ecumenism mentions the way of formulating doctrine as one of the elements of a continuing reform. Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truth to the preferences of a particular age, or suppressing certain articles of the Creed under the false pretext that they are no longer understood today. The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, "the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth? The Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae attributes to human dignity the quest for truth, "especially in what concerns God and his Church", and adherence to truth's demands. A "being together" which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart.[/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

If it means watered down catholicism why bother?
But if it means finding areas of agreement and explaining each others positions so we can
a] work together in common goals, and
b] show them the error of their ways thru good apologetics and help them convert,
then its a good goal.

We are to preach and teach in and out of season.

[philothea]

Related trivia: some popular science fiction novel series have reunification of the christian denominations under Rome as a part of their future history.

[Gal. 5:22,23]

As in "Left Behind?"

[philothea]

[quote name='Gal. 5:22,23' date='May 3 2005, 12:43 PM'] As in "Left Behind?" [/quote]
No... I haven't read those.

The one I'm thinking of is Peter F. Hamilton's gargantuan [i]Night's Dawn[/i] trilogy. It has Christian reunification in 2044. (Note this is NOT "Christian" fiction, though, like most big SF it has deep religious themes. It's R-rated.)

I know there's another big series out there that has reunification too... Niven, maybe?

[guardsman]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='May 3 2005, 11:26 AM'] If it means watered down catholicism why bother?
But if it means finding areas of agreement and explaining each others positions so we can
a] work together in common goals, and
b] show them the error of their ways thru good apologetics and help them convert,
then its a good goal.

We are to preach and teach in and out of season. [/quote]
I personally believe we should start with the Orthodox, and work hard to reunite with them, as I see the Orthodox Church as the closest thing to Catholicism. (I could be wrong, this is just my own observation) I think the reunification of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches would make huge news throughout the Christian world, and possibly start something positive. But there will always be the "Bible Prophecy" teachers who will say that this has something to do with the "whore" of Revelations or Apocolypse, and some Christian Fundamentalists will follow these prophecy experts right up til they die, then they find a new prophecy expert with a new date and new signs for the end of the world. There will always be a fringe out there that does not understand Church authority, and will resist Christian unity, because they believe they are the only true Christians.

[Q the Ninja]

Just a side-note, in the [i]The Ratzinger Report[/i], the then Cardinal mentions that it is because of the Orthodox that Protestants have become more open to the Catholic Church and the Truth of the two Churches.

Now as for me, I'm going to be having an ecumenical (dealing with ecumenism) Bible study with some Protestant friends at school.

The whole point of ecumenism is to show that what Protestants disagree with is just misconception upon misconception.

I have discussions with Protestants (and really oh so many Catholics!) where the problem is they misunderstand everything from the beginning. Take [i]Ex Cathedra[/i] statements, or even Papal infallibility as a whole. It's the most misunderstood thing, and probably one of the biggest problems found in ecumenism.

Ecumenism cannot be a watering down of the truth, but rather a rediscovery and expansion of that truth lost in the people fallen away. Many Protestants and Orthodox do not realize that they hold many of the same beliefs as we, but think that they disagree. Well, ecumenism should show what we have in common. True ecumenism shows what needs to be added or changed, but in many cases that's not all that much. (Take that with a grain of salt, it's hard for Catholics to believe in the Immaculate Conception much less Protestants or Orthodox). Pope Benedict said there is very little necessary for the Eastern Church to return to the Western Church, but there is still a lot that stands in the way.

In a way, ecumenism with Protestants remains a dialogue with Luther. It is first of all a relationship dialogue. Wanna know one reason why it's so hard for the Orthodox to return? It's because of the fourth crusade which invaded and destroyed Constantinople. There are many such cases (this probably the worst) where bad things had happened on either side and so people were just angry with each other. True ecumenism tries to first open up a door of discussion and then progress from there.

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='guardsman' date='May 3 2005, 04:29 PM'] I personally believe we should start with the Orthodox, and work hard to reunite with them, as I see the Orthodox Church as the closest thing to Catholicism. (I could be wrong, this is just my own observation) I think the reunification of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches would make huge news throughout the Christian world, and possibly start something positive. [/quote]
I agree. The Orthodox is the closest and for good reason. The Eastern Church holds that the Church must have both East and West to come up with doctrine, and so they're still a couple of centuries behind us, not really changing. Protestants on the other hand have progressed well beyond what we believe (and changed so much!)

[Crusader_4]

I think there is a lot of room and good dialogue between the orthodox and CAtholics. I think we as well as them need to put behind some past troubles and work together. the Greek orthodox and other oriental churches i can see coming into communion altho from our persepctive i think the latin west will really have to look and study its devolped theology and how it can fit into the eastern rites and traditions. Perhaps we could look at a model that the Ukrainian Catholic church has right now. It is a shame that these churches are not in communion. Perhaps the greatest tragedy in the unification of Christendom.