Opposing Ecumenism

[Dave]

Below is an e-mail sent to me by an extremist-type Catholic who opposes ecumenism and who seems to think all ecumenism is false and waters down Church teaching. I could use some help in responding to him.

[quote]I oppose ecumenism because it is based upon a false principal: that the
unity of the Christian Church does not already exist. Some believe that
when
our Lord prayed “That they all may be one,” that His prayer was somehow
lacking. The Ecumenical movement is based upon this error and frankly
it
gives credence to a false Christianity. As Catholics we know that our
Lord’s
prayer “that they all may be one” was fulfilled in His One, Holy,
Catholic,
Roman and Apostolic Church and that if anyone in these other ‘churches’
want
the fullness of Christian unity they should abjure their error and be
brought into the one Church of Jesus Christ: The Catholic Church.


You wrote: [quote]You missed the whole point of the article, then. True
ecumenism
doesn't water down the Catholic faith. Yes, there have been many abuses
of
ecumenism, but that doesn't mean it should be abandoned or that it's a
bad
thing in and of itself.[/quote]

The “true ecumenism” you mention is a fairy tale. Sure, I 100% agree
with
your definition of “true ecumenism,” you know why? Because your
definition
of “ecumenism” is the same as apologetics and missionary work. If “true
ecumenism,” (where ever that is found) means promoting non-Catholics to
become Catholic than I am a million thousand times behind you. Problem
is, I
don’t think the modern ecumenical movement is doing that and so I
rightly
reject it as false.

Not to mention the goal of ecumenism in Cardinal Kasper’s mind is not
to
promote the “return of the dissidents,” but rather find a way for
unity-in-diversity.

But, I will bite on your distinction between “true ecumenism” and abuse
… I
just desire you to give me some practical concrete examples of “true
ecumenism” … for instance was Assisi ’true’ or was it an abuse? How
about
the Pope taking off his shoes, turning towards mecca and praying … was
this
authentic or false ecumenism?

You wrote:
[quote]Besides, as a Catholic you are required to accept ecumenism -- true
ecumenism, mind you -- as a good thing. The ecumenical movement —
understood as the desire and work to bring about Christian unity under
the
headship of the Vicar of Christ and without sacrificing doctrine — is
initiated and fostered by the Holy Spirit.[/quote]I 100% stand by promoting non-Catholics to become Catholics; if you
want to
call that ecumenism, instead of missionary work or apologetics (which
is
what it truly is), sure I am total compliance with this.


You wrote: [quote]As such, it is our duty as Catholic Christians, to help
bring
about this unity of Christian persons, this unity of Christendom. This
duty
and dedication to bringing about unity is part of the Christian life
and can
manifest itself through prayer and/or action. This is the teaching of
the
Church. This is BINDING DOCTRINE. To reject it is to place oneself
outside
the Church.[/quote]

What? Ecumenism is the new super-dogma by which one’s entire
catholicity is
determined? I’m very much confused by your statements here. Ecumenism
is not
a dogma of the faith! To be completely honest I believe you are
becoming
like the integrists who confuse orientations of the Church to be more
sacrosanct that the scriptures. If I were to believe your statement
here
that if one does not accept Ecumenism by prayers/actions one is not a
Catholic; at what point would one stop being a Catholic? At one point
does
the Excommunication set in? When I refuse to go a Protestant Church and
pray
with heretics? Or when I see the scandal of Assisi and reject it? At
what
point does one stop being Catholic when he rejects ecumenism?

You wrote: [quote]How is calling someone a heretic or a schismatic when they
don't
know any better going to help bring them into the Church? It isn't. If
anything, it will probably drive them further away. Also, while
Protestants
are definitely material heretics, most can't be called formal heretics
because again, they don't know any better. At the time of Luther, when
Protestantism had just started out, they all knew EXACTLY what they
were
doing, and so they were full heretics -- material AND formal. But
enough
time has passed so that most Protestants are born into it and are thus
ignorant through no fault of their own. With the SSPX and other
schismatic
traditionalists, it's a bit different. Such movements are very young,
compared to Protestantism and the Orthodox. And as a result, most
people who
join such movements DO know better. So they're both material
schismatics AND
formal schismatics, which thus makes it far more appropriate to use
terms
such as "schismatic" with them. I guarantee you that if the Protestant
"Reformation" happened today instead of a few centuries ago, then the
Church
wouldn't hesitate to call them "heretics" either, as they'd be formal
heretics who should know better.[/quote]I have heard worse things than Luther said by Kung, Rahner, Gumbleton
and
Chardin; but the church does hesitate to call them “heretics,” … if
Luther
lived in our time he would be considered an “odd theologian,” but
probably
not a heretic.

You wrote: [quote]Have you even read John
Paul II's writings? They always seemed crystal-clear and 100% in line
with
Church teaching to me.[/quote]

I do not have a problem with John Paul 2nd’s writings … the problem I
have
is his lack of practicing what he has preached … like at Assisi!

You wrote: [quote]As for Assisi, I'm not going to defend OR condemn it. I know
it
wasn't His Holiness' intention to preach religious indifferentism, and
I
suggest you stop reading articles on the matter from an
ultra-traditionalist
standpoint. Try reading another article on the matter -- by an FSSP
priest
to boot -- [url="http://www.tcrnews2.com/Assisi2.html"]http://www.tcrnews2.com/Assisi2.html[/url]. Also, read the article
that
directly follows the first one (which is on the same page). That
doesn't
mean I necessarily agree that Assisi was a good idea. Even so, it's
really
not my place (or yours or anyone else's, for that matter) to judge His
Holiness' actions or motives.[/quote]To not make a choice is a choice in of itself. Do you really think it
was
Paul’s place to “resist Peter to his face,” after hearing of his
scandalous
behavior? Or do you think it was Pope Leo II’s place when he condemned
Pope
Honorious as a heretic for his weakness in fighting the Arian heresy?
Certainly the office of Peter is above all other offices in this world,
but
when a Pope is in error, we SHARE in that error when we defend it …
silence,
my dear friend, which is the side you are trying to take (“I neither
condemn
nor defend) gives the air of acceptance.

You wrote: [quote]I mean, it wasn't an action that was intrinsically evil, so
there
are other factors to consider. Besides, neither you or I were there,
nor can
we see inside His Holiness' mind; only John Paul II knows all the
factors he
took into consideration, but of course, he's not here to tell us about
them.[/quote]

There is nothing wrong with praying, not even praying for unity … and
no; I
cannot know the mind of the Pontiff … but do you think our Pope prayed
that
they all become Catholic? Find unity under the one shepherd of Rome?
No, no
he didn’t … he rather decided to have the Basilica of St. Francis
become the
ancient Roman Pantheon. If I have to accept this in order to be
Catholic,
frankly I do not want to be Catholic then![/quote]

[N/A Gone]

Im going to pay special attention here, and even argue some. But I do not want to be first

[Dave]

Oh c'mon, you'll do fine!

[Aloysius]

where true ecumenism differs from missionary work and apologetics is that it seeks to bring entire ecclesiastical bodies back into the Church whereas missionary work and apolgetics target individuals.

ecumenism is about the unity of sui juris churches within the Church (hence Ecumenical Councils are councils which bind all sui juris churches). the goal of the ecumenical movement is to perhaps one day see something like an Anglican Sui Juris Church with a patriarch being the Archbishop of Canturbury. of course, we certainly could not just take the names of all the other protestant churches (often named after heretics or heresies) nor even their systems at all; but the end result of ecumenism would be various sui juris churches with full valid Catholic doctrine, belief, and practice coming out of the protestant heresies and schisms.

ecumenism is NOT interreligious dialogue and the interchangable usage of the terms among some is problematic. ecumenism is with Christian sects.

but he is correct that the unity of Christ's Church has never been breached. schisms are breaks away from the unity of Christ's Church, Christ's Church remains united in the body that is split off from (The Catholic Church)

[Akalyte]

I dont agree with ecumenism..it often means becoming one with the enemy.

[Dave]

You can't disagree with ecumenism; the Church teaches that it's a good thing, so you must assent to it. You can disagree with false ecumenism, just as all Catholics should. But true ecumenism? Not at all. True ecumenism doesn't water down Church teaching, unlike false ecumenism.

You'd do well to read this article: [url="http://thewandererpress.com/b5-29-03.htm"]http://thewandererpress.com/b5-29-03.htm[/url]

It's actually part of a series of articles devoted to refuting a certain ultra-traditionalist book, but the one devoted to ecumenism is especially pertinent in this situation.

Edited March 1, 2007 by Dave

[N/A Gone]

fine, my turn.

The issue here is language. It all depends on how you define ecumenism, and also who are you making it applicable to.

Greek Orthodox

Protestant

Other

atheist

Those are 3 very different avenues to consider. The ecumenical goal in any and all of them changes depending on whom you are talking to.

The sticky point appears to be protestant. Luckly, that is where I come in.

You are not doing anyone a favor by yelling and condemning them to hell. No protestant would ever respond to that. In ecumenism our goal is to truth. A false ecumenism is the one where truth does not matter. But we also need to understand that protestants are not formal heretics, but rather material heretics. They are the sons and daughters of the rebellion, not those who rebelled. A good example is a protestant pastor I am friends with and I went to my undergrad with. He was top of the class, a language scholar and an expert on patristic theology. yet he didnt understand catholic sacraments. We spoke over coffee today for 2 hours about that. In relations with protestants are goal is to clarify. They have misconceptions about us, horrible polemic concepts. We befriend them, humanize ourselves and clarify our faith. Ecumenism is simply bringing them back to the church, but respecting the faith traditions in which they have come from. Understanding that there are good things in that, thinks they got from the church, but also working through the bad things that they have as well.

Ecumenism is not watering down our faith, ecumenical unity is not a UN model where everyone is equal. I think with particular protestant sects (anglican for one) parts of their practices might come with them if they converted. We need to respect that. Show how catholicism is the fulfillment of faith. Show what they are lacking in comparison. But dont attack. Dont treat them like people who dont call on the same lord. These are hostages, not heretics. slaves to a relativism that attacks them in all they do.

In John 17 I think we can have an understanding that all who call on the lord should be visibly unified. Lets step away from the dominate eccesiology and think practically. We have thousands of denominations all claiming the same lord, yet not even sharing a cup of joe with each other. That is the first step. For the church to be the visible body of Christ on earth she must be the mother to all who call on her son.

The unity in diversity statement is the fuzzy part. In order to pull you must first connect. The first step is humanizing ourselves and them. and respectfully loving each other as seperated breathen. But this is not the end goal, only a means to produce fruitful dialogue. Dialogue in which something can happen instead of just verbal combat.

I dont know the scandel of Assisi. Sorry, but if we know anything it is that the church will never stop producing at least one idiot who takes a great concept and messes it up.

praying with protestants in there church is not something I would recommend for everyone. Ecumenism takes sincerity and maturity, but also the ability to clarify our faith. As a former protestant I can pray with protestants and not be swayed in my faith. Last thing we need is "still born" soldiers. (St. Ireanus) The militants know this is a battle. But it isnt a sword, it is for hearts and minds. and racism, even denominational racism will only futher the rafts from the ship. We understand the difference in material and formal heretics. But the language needs to be used sensitively. Otherwise you just close the person off to dialogue

/rant..

you both have valid points, but the language is getting in the way. His prejudice is getting in the way as well.

If you really want to put some time into this I suggest reading

"Introduction to Ecumenism" by Jeffrey Gros, Eamon McManus and Ann Riggs

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Ecumenism-Jeffrey-Gros/dp/0809137941/sr=8-1/qid=1172713290/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2560565-2007331?ie=UTF8&s=books"]http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Ecumeni...TF8&s=books[/url]