Is 'Ecumenism' a Bad Word?

Catholic Culture ^ | 7/27/2000 | Matt C. Abbott

[Petronski]

So you’re telling me that the Catholic church did not torture any Christians?

No.

Why don't you capitalize Catholic Church? It's a proper noun, why don't you capitalize it?

[kingpins10]

Wow. Are you serious? You’re angry because I didn’t capitalize?

[Petronski]

I’m not angry. I asked a question.

[bdeaner]

As I have learned the hard way, any “potty talk” or reference to it is against the rules of the Religion Forum on FR. Otherwise, beyond that, I have no clue what you are blabbering on about. What does Christian ecumenism have anything to do with liberals who hate social conservatism? The point is just the opposite: social conservative Christians, irregardless of their differences on doctrinal matters, need to work together to protect our culture from being destroyed by the liberals. Get it?

[red irish]

That was very NOT Christian. I am also Catholic and can tell you one thing,I am a Christian. Our Sacred Liturgy is Christ centered. We Catholics know and recognize who our savior is,not you.

[bdeaner]

My history is not way off, yours is. The origins of the Christian New Testament church was not organized.

Have you ever read Acts? Have you read Paul's letters? Of course the early Church was organized. It doesn't even require reference to anything outside of Scripture to understand that. But then once you have some understanding of the early Church, the organized nature of the early Church is an undeniable fact.

For now, I will just provide you with one example from Scripture. See your Bible. In Matthew 18:15-18, we see Christ instructing His disciples on how to correct a fellow believer. It is extremely telling in this instance that Our Lord identifies the Church as the final authority to be appealed to. He Himself says that if an offending brother "will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matt. 18:17)--that is, as an outsider who is lost.

Moreoever, Our Lord then solemnly re-emphasizes the Church's infallible teaching authority in verse 18 by repeating His earlier statement about the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:18-19), directing it this time to the Apostles as a group rather than just to Peter: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 18:18).

Implicit in this passage from Matthew is the fact that the Church must have been a visible, tangible entity established in a hiearchical fasnion. Otherwise, how would anyone have known to whom the wrongdoer should be referred? If the Protestant definition of "church" were correct, then the wrongdoer would have to "hear" each and every believer who existed, hoping that there would be unanimity among them regarding the issue at hand. The inherent absurdity of this scenario is readily apparent. The only way we can make sense of Our Lord's statement here is to acknowledge that there was a definite organization, with positions of authority readily identifiable, to which an appeal could be made and from which a decisive judgment could be had.

Jesus Christ himself would be furious with the Catholic Church and it’s faith based on works theology. The apostles spoke and wrote against these doctrines of devils in all throughout the New Testament.

That statement is ridiculous. Catholic soteriology -- the Church's understanding of grace through faith and good deeds -- was the standard doctrine up until the Reformation. The Reformation theology is a rationalization for breaking away from the Church, and a distortion of the Scripture and a violation of Christ's command that the Apostles appeal to the infallible teaching authority of the Church in theological matters. It's all in the Scriptures, but one requires the eyes to see it and the ears to hear it.

And it goes back well before the 4th century A.D. People do not want to believe that faith is grace, a gift. We cannot get to heaven based on our ‘good deeds’

You are mounting a STRAW MAN argument. Please go up in the thread and the post I sent to you on Catholic soteriology and read it again. Catholics DO NOT believe that we get to heaven based only on our good deeds. We cannot merit our own Salvation. Only through the Lord's gratuitous sacrifice, the gift of Himself as the Lamb of God, can we be saved. And it is through that saving act that we are capable of having the faith and obedience (good deeds) to merit heaven. All the glory is the Lord's. This is Catholic teaching. And it is all Scriptural, as I have shown you above.

[Ottofire]

>This is a false choice. All one needs to do is spend a few minutes exploring FR’s Religion Forum, and it becomes obvious that the great majority of Protestants who criticize the Catholic Church are actually attacking a straw man, due to their ignorance and/or exposure to anti-Catholic propaganda.

How can there be unity when there are unreconcilable differences? Trent laid down the law and evicted many that were rightly in the church of the West who a few hundred years earlier were considered orthodox (small o). After Trent, the line was laid that cannot be erased without 1) Rome admitting it was wrong, 2) wholesale conversion of Protestants from what we see as Biblical truth to what we see as man-made tradition. Either side must reject their beliefs to unify.

As for straw-men and anti-X propaganda, there are plenty of them on both sides. This is why I prefer to watch debates betwixt the sides, rather than just read the literature that either side puts out. The arguments placed side by side, passionately discussed and challenged by those that who really know their stuff is greatly illuminating.

As for those Vatican II, I just simply point out the the writings of Trent and Florence are pretty clear. Any outside the RCC are under the anathema. Unless you are saying that Trent and Florence have changed their clear meaning. It is pretty clear that those in the time of Trent and Florence believed that we are not separated brethren who might have a bit more time in purgatory, but heretics doomed to hell.

>While Catholics these days seem to be relatively open to dialogue with Protestants, thanks in part to the ecumenical spirit of Vatican II, a lot of Catholics do not have a clear understanding of the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism—a problem that is in large part due to the diversity of Protestant beliefs, in contrast to one, unified doctrine of beliefs over the course of history in the Catholic Church.

Um, actually I find that within those that actually hold to the teachings of the Reformation, there is little diversity in the essentials, where when I look to the RCC I find a diversity that is so great I can hardly see how it retains unity. I see many such as are found here, being conservative and then there is the Kennedy, Pelosi and the liberal ilk. When over 70% of Ecumenicals vote for McCain and over 50% of Catholics vote for Obama, where is the unity? Is Life is an issue with the magisterium only, but not so much with those that sit in the pews? Is that your definition of unity?

I see a church that apparently has no real authority, and has to ignore or compromise continually to maintain this unity. The lack of church discipline in the RCC does not argue for its truthfulness. The claim of unity just does not hold water. Maybe if the teachings of the Magisterium were more clear. Maybe there needs to be an infallible interpreter for it... oh wait. Sorry.

Then again, it is also clear that from the beginning there is no one teaching of the church, that there really was no unity. You will find that in each of the councils there were people that disagreed. Each council pared off believers from the unity of the church. And since the paring of the Orthodox (big O) you have to admit there were those that deserve the title Christian whom were separated from the ‘one true universal church’, BY the ‘one true universal church’. As such, the church divided itself from the unity that the later RCC is trying to reclaim. Does Athanasius Contra Mundum suggest that there was unity?

In the bedrock issue of the Canon of Scripture, the matter was not settled for some 1500 years after Christ!

One unified doctrine of beliefs indeed.

The problem with both the Protestant and RCC is that there are a majority of people that have no clue and no interest in finding out, what their churches teach. In the Protestant churches, whole churches wander from the clear teaching of the bible to liberalism, legalism and heresy. In the RCC there are those that think it is okay to be a cafeteria Catholic, picking and choosing what is okay to believe and what is okay to ignore. And then there is the RCC ignoring that to maintain a semblance of unity. In both cases there is no want to know doctrines, and in too many cases, no real spiritual rebirth in those that sit in the pews. Thus the problem with both is the lack of real believers changed by the Spirit of Truth.

>Both sides can learn something from each other without compromising. If nothing else, ecumenism among Christians is necessary in order to create a unified front politically and philosophically against the securalism and other anti-Christian forces taking root in our time — which requires focusing on common ground rather than differences — also very much a possibility, without compromising anything.

As for unifying for political and social issues, I agree. HOWEVER we cannot agree to do so under the banner of faith due to the fact we are not united in faith. I would not allow a Catholic to lead my children in prayer in school. Why? What if that prayer included references to Mary or the Saints? Would you allow a Mormon or a JW lead your children in prayer? I hope that sets your teeth on edge.

Such unity must be under where we are unified. Such as here, as fellow Freepers. As I stated prior, not all that are of your faith tradition agree with me on 5% of what you and I do. Thus they are embarrassed by you standing arm and arm with me, and would argue that the RCC does not stand for social conservative issues.

I know, I was all over the place on this, but I have only had one cup of coffee, so I apologize for the meandering response.

I understand the desire to unify, but again, it is impossible, outside God. Until He returns there is going to be disunity, unfortunately.

May God bless you, bdeaner, and I pray we will be united in Christ after He is proclaimed King by all people.

[wardaddy]

Oh lord...I eschew relativism...
but good luck with all that

i had an article with a lib last nite in which he equated all the usual garbage about Islam and Christianity being equivocal and all Christianity’s bad history and what not

I replied that since i did not believe in Islam why should I care?

the answer WFB often gave when asked essentially the same thing.

ecumenical pandering leads to the same (you fill it in for me hoss)

Jesus ain’t relative with apostate watered down be nice dogma and the Old Covenant still matters

btw in case you missed it, most Christians are no longer socially conservative, they have been brainwashed the past 40 years like most other folks

the only socially conservative under 40s I know came from like parents

[red irish]

I also believe the same thing. But there are those who are so arrogant to believe because they say who is Christian and who is not is rude and lacks all Christian charity. It’s like the Mary thing,over and over and over and over trying to tell Catholics they worship Mary. Telling people they know a person’s relationship with Christ? Of all the gifts of the spirit my favorite is the fear of the Lord,more people should desire it. In our country there are Christian churches who have embraced sins such as abortion,50 million deaths mean nothing,acceptance of homosexuality as equal to heterosexuals. Yes we need each other in prayer and fasting.

[kingpins10]

Wow, the attacks. Liturgy is paganism and not Biblical. To say that I am not saved is risible.

[kingpins10]

Like I said, the church is the New Testament assembly of believers, not the catholic church. The autographs were written in the first century A.D.

My father was entrenched in his catholic views, as you are. We will both find out who is correct one day. Martin Luther had reason to be angry.

[bdeaner]

No one is espousing relativism.

[wardaddy]

Ecumenical pandering is relativism..nice image..save it for kindling next winter.

[bdeaner]

Liturgy is paganism and not Biblical.

Are you kidding? Have you read Revelations? All of the major elements of the Catholc liturgy are described by John in the Book of Revelations, as the heavenly liturgy. From Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth (pp. 119-121):

Sunday worship: Rev. 1:10
A high priest: Rev. 1:13
An altar: Rev. 8:3-4; 11:1; 14:18
Priests (presbyteroi): 4:4; 11:15; 14:3; 19:4
Vestments: 1:13; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9; 15:6; 19:13-14
Consecrated celibacy: 14:4
Lamp stands, or Menorah: 1:12; 2:5
Penitence: Ch. 2 and 3
Incense: 5:8; 8:3-5
The book, or scroll: 5:1
The Eucharistic host: 2:17
Chalices: 15:7; ch. 16; 21:9
The Sign of the Cross (the tau): 7:3; 14:1; 22:4
The Gloria: 15:3-4; The Alleluia: 19:1, 3, 4, 6
Lift up your hearts: 11:12
The "Holy, Holy, Holy": 4:8
The Amen: 19:4; 22:21
The "Lamb of God": 5:6 and throughout
The prominence of the Virgin Mary: 12:1-6; 13-17
Intercession of angels and saints: 5:8; 6:9-10; 8:3-4
Devotion to St. Michael, Archangel: 12:7
Antiphonal chant: 4:8-11; 5:9-14; 7:10-12; 18:1-8
Readings from Scripture: 4:8-11; 5:9-14; 7:10-12; 18:1-8
The Priesthood of the faithful: 1:6; 20:6
Catholicity, or universality: 7:9
Silent contemplation: 8:1
The marriage supper of the Lamb: 19:9, 17

Take together, these elements comprise much of the Apocalypse--and most of the Mass.

Also, like the Mass, the Book of Revelations divides rather neatly in half. The first eleven chapters concern themselves with the proclamation of the letters to the seven churches and the opening of the scroll. This emphasis on "readings" makes Part One a close match for the Liturgy of the Word in the first half of the Mass. Significantly, the first three chapters of Revelation mark a sort of Penitential Rite: in the seven letters to the churches, Jesus uses the word "repent" eight times. This recalls the words of the ancient Didache, the liturgical manual of the first century: "first confess your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure." Even John's opening assumes that the book will be read aloud by a lector within the liturgical assembly: "Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear" (Rev. 1:3).

Revelation's second half begins in Chapter 11 with the opening of God's temple in heaven, and culminates in the pouring of the seven chalices and the marriage supper of the Lamb. With the opening of heaven, the chalices, and the banquet, Part Two offers a striking image of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the second half of the Catholic Mass.

It's all in your Bible -- the one you espouse to be inerrant and infallible and your sole authority.

The early Christians, from the Apostles onward, were engaged in liturgy. See Mike Aquilina's The Mass of the Early Christians.

[FourtySeven]

I too was shocked when I read what kingpins posted.

kingpins, even if you reject the (fine) apologetic bdeaner posted, to issue the blanket statement “Liturgy is paganism and therefore not Biblical” is to contradict Scripture, quite frankly. And the Scripture I’m referring to here is Hebrew Scripture (the OT), not Christian Scripture (the NT).

There are plenty of descriptions of forms of public worship in the OT, as I’m sure you are aware. The very definition of the word “liturgy” is “a form of public worship”. So, it is quite correct, in every sense of the word, to say that the Jews had their own “liturgy” before Christ was even revealed. They still have their own liturgical practices even today. The Mosaic Law is replete with examples of liturgical practices.

So to say that “liturgy is paganism” is to say that the practice of Jews was/is “pagan”, which of course is ludicrous.

I hope you take this as an opportunity for education, and not to insist on further debate on this point. There is simply no getting around this fact.

[bdeaner]

The books you reference are extremely biased texts that are deceptive and full of propaganda about the Catholic Church.

The Kerby Fannin book, for example, is given this review by a reader on Amazon:

STRONGLY BIASED The title is misleading. A more accurate title would be: "...A Biblical and Historical Attack on Roman Catholicism". How can it be considered "Christian" to implicate as evil the faith of over a billion Christians world-wide? This book must delight our common enemies because for them the thought of a united Christianity might be terrifying. Please know that the references, although extensive, may not all be reliable. Quotes are taken out of context and result in distortion of their original meaning and intent. (i.e., pg. 430, reference 82; go to the internet and please read for yourself.) Common misconceptions regarding papal infallibility and "Mary worship" abound. Ironically, this is a book dedicated to knowing the "truth" and yet it is guilty of the same literary manipulation depicted within its pages.

No wonder you have such a distorted view of history and Scripture, since you are feeding your head with such bigoted trash. You are welcome to raise ANY argument from ANY of those books, and I will be more than happy to show you why is it wrong, or as the case may be, where it gets it right.

For example, you imply that any Bible that can be linked to St. Jerome or Origin is somehow corrupt. In that case, you would have to also reject the King James Version of the bible, which used the Greek NT edited by Erasmus as the principle source of the Textus Receptus that underlies the KJV's NT. So, you might be surprised to learn that Erasmus is connected to Origen and Jerome.

See this article for more information:
Origin, Jerome, Erasmus and the KJV

Based on your logic, I guess you are going to have to dispense with the KJV. Now what Bible will you use?

You also need to consider the implications of what you are saying. If the Latin Vulgate is a corrupt Bible, understand that this was the basis of Christian Scriptural understanding for many centuries before the Reformation. To make such a claim would seriously undermine your Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura--so you are really shooting yourself in the foot. Let me explain.

If it's true that the Christian world relied on a false interpretation of the bible, this would mean that for 15 centuries, the Christian people, the "church," were left without a rudder, so to speak, for a very long time. But this goes contrary to the statements and promises that Our Lord made about His Church--particularly, "behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:20)--not to mention that He told His disciples: "I will not leave you orphans." (John 14:18). Yet your very biases view of history suggests that all of Christendom were left adrift like orphans in a storm until the time of the Reformation. Are you calling Christ a liar?

[bdeaner]

Ecumenical pandering is relativism

Ecumencal PANDERING is relativism--sure. But ecumenism, as a whole, does not imply ecumenical pandering. Witness the way I am not letting certain people on this thread get away with anti-Catholic disinformation. But just by virtue of having this conversation, there is the potential for ecumenical dialogue -- a hearing out of both sides of an argument, and the opportunity for those in the wrong, whoever that may be, to get a glimpse of the Truth. But there is only ONE Truth. Ecumenism does not imply relativism--on the contrary, it strives toward unification in a SINGULAR TRUTH.

[kingpins10]

I find it risible that you point out a bad review from amazon. There are bad reviews on amazon for EVERY book. I know. I usually purchase 3 or 4 books per month from them.

[kingpins10]

Liturgy as practiced by the catholic church is paganism. We are not eating “the flesh of Jesus and drinking the blood” of Jesus. They are symbols. When I take communion at Christmas and Easter, it is in rememberance of Him and what He did for me on the cross.

We are not supposed to reduce it to a ‘common’ thing either.

[bdeaner]

The point is that the reviewer talks about specific errors in the book, which are distortions, or misrepresentations, of Catholic teaching. For example, Catholics do not worship Mary. So, if the book makes this claim alone, it just goes to show that it has no merit. The reviewer points out several other errors. This hardly appears to be a credible text.

But forget about the credibility of the text, and why don't you present arguments from the book. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm not going to read the book -- I would not want to financially support anti-Catholic propaganda, but if you think the book is so great, use the book to make an argument here and now on this thread. You don't seem to be willing to do that. Can't you paraphrase the arguments? Or give us an excerpt of a key argument? Bring it on.