Does the ecumenical movement have a future?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 3 2005, 10:40 PM'] Trekkie...


Although I was always partial to the Membari and the Vorlons... anyone who gets that is obviously just entirly too cool. [/quote]
Ok you are forgiven for everything

There's nothing more annoying than Mr. Garibaldi when he's right.
Ivanova

And its Trekkie!!

[God Conquers]

So many awesome old school posters in this thread.... memories...

[Apotheoun]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDVhB0jGP7I[/media]

[let_go_let_God]

I think this still has some relevence espescially in looking at all the recent Anglican communions. So looking at the arguements made, for and against the ecumenical movement. Do you think that it has a chance?

God bless-
LGLG

[Resurrexi]

I think there definitely is a future for [i]true[/i] ecumenism (like what were are seeing now with Anglicans converting to the Catholic Church [i]en masse[/i]). However, I think there is absolutely no future for "Assisi ecumenism". All true ecumenism entails working for the conversion of non-Catholics.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='26 May 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1274902317' post='2118363']
I think there definitely is a future for [i]true[/i] ecumenism (like what were are seeing now with Anglicans converting to the Catholic Church [i]en masse[/i]). However, I think there is absolutely no future for "Assisi ecumenism". All true ecumenism entails working for the conversion of non-Catholics.
[/quote]
150% agreed.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Myles Domini' date='03 May 2005 - 10:10 AM' timestamp='1115125846' post='581945']
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? [/quote]

Benedict XVI is far too knowledgeable and definitely too strong a theologian to be naive about ecumenism. As the Vicar of Christ, it's his duty to pursue Christian unity regardless of the circumstances. One might consider the burden a penance for the sins of prior popes.

[quote name='Myles Domini' date='03 May 2005 - 10:10 AM' timestamp='1115125846' post='581945']
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? [/quote]

Just because Protestant denominations do not have the rule of hierarchy to ensure some amount of unity and obedience with in their communions does not mean agreements like this one are effectively meaningless. You could look at Catholicism from the outside-in and see a lot of division over matters that are officially settled. Pope John Paul II removed "all doubt" about women's ordination, but a sizeable minority (if not a majority) of Western Catholics still believe women could be ordained.

For that matter, you're talking about ten years. It's a flash in the eye compared to the centuries of abusive power that set the stage for the Reformation, not to mention the errors of Catholic bishops and rulers that made it worse, along with 500 years for Protestantism to develop legitimate traditions of her own. Any grand project needs realistic goals to mark progress toward the destination. Physical unification is the destination (and it is happening in a few cases), but for now we need to set the stage for a future in which that destination will gradually become more realistic. Consider how long it took to recover from the Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression... rebuilding is always a longer process than destruction.

[quote name='Myles Domini' date='03 May 2005 - 10:10 AM' timestamp='1115125846' post='581945']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.[/quote]

The only Church suffering from schisms is the Catholic Church. There cannot be a schism without an authority.

[quote name='Myles Domini' date='03 May 2005 - 10:10 AM' timestamp='1115125846' post='581945']
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?
[/quote]

If Cub fans can wait 100 years for a World Series, we can wait until Jesus comes back for complete Christian unity. In fact, it may take Jesus coming back for either to happen

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='26 May 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1274902317' post='2118363']
I think there definitely is a future for [i]true[/i] ecumenism (like what were are seeing now with Anglicans converting to the Catholic Church [i]en masse[/i]). However, I think there is absolutely no future for "Assisi ecumenism". All true ecumenism entails working for the conversion of non-Catholics.
[/quote]

It's sad that we have to note true ecumenism with an adjective. I assumed we were going with the definition of ecumenism, not Kum Bah Yahs and Goat Staring Contests and other such shenanigans that are not ecumenism at all.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='11 June 2010 - 08:50 PM' timestamp='1276307448' post='2127586']
It's sad that we have to note true ecumenism with an adjective. I assumed we were going with the definition of ecumenism, not Kum Bah Yahs and Goat Staring Contests and other such shenanigans that are not ecumenism at all.
[/quote]
Unfortunately it seems that more people adhere to a fake ecumenism than to the true one.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='11 June 2010 - 08:58 PM' timestamp='1276307902' post='2127591']
Unfortunately it seems that more people adhere to a fake ecumenism than to the true one.
[/quote]

Indeed. Any ecumenism that does not work for the conversion of non-Catholics is false.

[Nihil Obstat]

Someone negated the +1 I gave you back in May, and I had to negate a -1 just now.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='12 June 2010 - 02:51 PM' timestamp='1276365113' post='2127743']
Someone negated the +1 I gave you back in May, and I had to negate a -1 just now.
[/quote]

Funny that some people pay so much attention to the points... I never see them

Edited June 15, 2010 by LouisvilleFan

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='14 June 2010 - 09:04 PM' timestamp='1276567450' post='2129034']
Funny that some people pay so much attention to the points... I never see them
[/quote]
While I don't pay a heck of a lot of attention to my own points, I don't like seeing my friends targeted like that.

[LouisvilleFan]

Well, who knows.. it could be a misclick since the + and - are so small and right next to each other.

This thread has itself gone into schism...

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='15 June 2010 - 12:41 PM' timestamp='1276623670' post='2129300']
Well, who knows.. it could be a misclick since the + and - are so small and right next to each other.

This thread has itself gone into schism...
[/quote]
Since it happens with very high frequency, that would be some coincidence.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='15 June 2010 - 03:28 PM' timestamp='1276626527' post='2129326']
Since it happens with very high frequency, that would be some coincidence.
[/quote]

Honestly, who cares? This place is just a web site and most of us here hardly know each other. I come here for good conversation and to think about things deeper than mundane life.

Guess we're done with the ecumenical movement topic.

[Apotheoun]

The poll proves by a vote of 19 (Yes) to 9 (No) that the ecumenical movement has a future.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='16 June 2010 - 04:46 PM' timestamp='1276717580' post='2130003']
The poll proves by a vote of 19 (Yes) to 9 (No) that the ecumenical movement has a future.
[/quote]

Though we do have a significant swing vote count of 13... if most of them go No, the Yesses will have to pull their papal weight.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='15 June 2010 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1276626527' post='2129326']
Since it happens with very high frequency, that would be some coincidence.
[/quote]

"I" notice points, including my own point count.

I think it's unfair to give someone a -1 simply because their point of view is different than yours. -1's should be reserved for posts that are rude, disrespectful, non-charitable, or just plain mean.

Because of that, I use up most of my +1's "undoing" -1's that I think are unfair.

Personally, I'd do away with the point system altogether. I know that, for me at least, it often keeps me from expressing my opinion, or even asking a question. I suspect that people are often less "honest" about their true views (by their silence) because of the point system.

I don't think any of the -1's are accidents.

Edited June 16, 2010 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='16 June 2010 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1276717757' post='2130006']
Though we do have a significant swing vote count of 13... if most of them go No, the Yesses will have to pull their papal weight.
[/quote]
The people who voted "possibly" clearly lean in favor of ecumenism, but you could create a new poll without that option.