Is 'Ecumenism' a Bad Word?

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

[bdeaner]

I remember listening to a conversation among several “traditional” Catholics (you know, the anti-Vatican II/anti-John Paul II/anti-Novus Ordo Missae/Latin Mass only crowd!) when I heard one individual exclaim: “Ecumenism is a bad word!” The others quickly nodded in agreement. (Not exactly a surprising statement and response, considering the source.)

But seriously, ecumenism is a vital mission of the Church that needs to be understood more fully and correctly, especially as we enter this ostensibly pivotal third millennium. Is ecumenism really a bad word? Or, more to the point, does ecumenism require Catholics to compromise their faith? The answer lies in whether we are talking about authentic ecumenism (no) or false ecumenism (yes).

Contrary to what most “traditional” Catholics say, there is such a thing as authentic ecumenism – and it is essential for Christian unity. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Christ bestowed unity on His Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time. Christ always gives His Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ will for her…. The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit” (n. 820).

In Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II also speaks of the urgent need for Christian unity: “By the year 2000 we need to be more united, more willing to advance along the path toward the unity for which Christ prayed on the eve of His Passion. This unity is enormously precious. In a certain sense, the future of the world is at stake. The future of the Kingdom of God in the world is at stake.”

So why is ecumenism so controversial? One central issue is the oft-misinterpreted and misrepresented teaching extra ecclesiam nulla salus (“outside the Church there is no salvation”).

The Catechism quotes Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium on this subject: “Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation…. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it. This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church” (nn. 846-847).

The Catechism goes on to quote Vatican II’s teaching on what is known as Baptism of desire: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation” (n. 847).

And in its section on Baptism, the Catechism teaches what is known as Baptism of blood: “The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament” (n. 1258).

In summary, we know that everyone’s salvation – Catholic and non-Catholic – is through the Catholic Church, either as faithful members of the Church (Baptism of water), or as persons who give their life for Christ (Baptism of blood), or who would belong to the Catholic Church if they knew it was the one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ (Baptism of desire). BR> There are, however, a considerable number of “traditional” Catholics, known affectionately as “Feeneyites” (followers of the late Fr. Leonard J. Feeney and his rigorist and thereby erroneous interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus), who deny Baptisms of blood and desire. They often cite various quotations (mostly out of context) from early Popes, saints, and councils to “confirm” their erroneous position that Baptism of blood and Baptism of desire are false teachings.

Yet we see that this assertion is simply ludicrous. Indeed, Baptism of blood and/or desire was taught by such early Church fathers as Iranaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, and Augustine, and also by the Council of Trent. And the teaching of Baptism of desire was reaffirmed by Pope Pius XII in his 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis and by the Vatican’s Holy Office in 1949. So much for the false assertion that this teaching was “invented” by the Second Vatican Council!

It is also asserted by many “traditional” Catholics that ecumenism itself was an invention of Vatican II. This, needless to say, is not the case.

Consider Pope Leo XIII, who tried to encourage an attitude of respect and friendship with the Eastern Churches and with our Protestant brothers and sisters. He never referred to them as heretics, but rather as “separated Christians.”

And consider Pope Pius XII, whose ecumenical outlook in regard to Protestants is most striking. In his 1939 encyclical, Summa Pontificatus, he says that “we cannot pass over in silence the profound impression of heartfelt gratitude made on us by the good wishes of those who, though not belonging to the visible body of the Catholic Church, have given noble and sincere expression to their appreciation of all that unites them to us, in love for the person of Christ or belief in God.”

Also significant during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII was the publishing of On the Ecumenical Movement by the Holy Office in 1949. This document allowed Catholics, with the approval of their bishop, to engage in theological dialog and common prayer with Protestant Christians.

Examples such as these illustrate how ecumenism has profoundly developed over the years, especially since Vatican II and with the post-Vatican II pontificates.

Now there also is such a thing as false ecumenism, which seeks to promote religious indifferentism (all religions are of equal value and therefore it doesn’t matter which one you belong to), universalism (the heretical belief that all people are saved), and syncretism (the combining of various beliefs and practices of different religions as a “compromise”).

But none of these are taught – and could never be taught – by the Church or the Vicar of Christ. Yes, it is (unfortunately) true that some Catholics go too far in this arena and end up promoting erroneous doctrines and ideologies instead of authentic ecumenical dialog. Even a priest can be guilty of this, such as when he allows or encourages non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion – something ordinarily not permitted by the Church.

Yet, to say that the Magisterium itself is teaching and promoting heresy is preposterous, for we know that Christ’s Church is both infallible and indefectible. And all of Pope John Paul II’s ecumenical efforts stem the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which – like the previous 20 ecumenical councils – was guided by the Holy Spirit and thus protected from doctrinal error.

Ultimately, true ecumenism does not require us to give up our Marian devotions (a big no-no in my book!) or in any way compromise our faith; it means joining hands with other Christians and people of goodwill to bring our nihilistic, hedonistic, anti-life, anti-family culture back to God, while at the same time acknowledging our obvious differences. Far from being a bad word, ecumenism is – in the words of John Paul II – “a response to the exhortation in the First Letter of Peter to ‘give an explanation of the reason for our hope’” (1 Peter 3:15).

Sources

1. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

2. “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” by Pope John Paul II (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1994).

3. “Catholic Replies” by James J. Drummey (C.R. Publications, 1995).

4. “Pre-Vatican II Ecumenism” by Dave Armstrong (from his web site).

5. “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: Fr Feeney Makes a Comeback” by Michael J. Mazza (“Fidelity” magazine, December 1994).

6. Catholic Encyclopedia, edited by Fr. Peter Stravinskas (Our Sunday Visitor, 1991).

[bronxville]

Well, kingpin didn’t last long. All it took was a few scriptures and off he goes. :)

[bronxville]

Oops, you’re back. lol Could we have a source for your disinformation? Thanks.

[kingpins10]

Not disinformation, just trying to give some truth.

2 books are great sources, “Faith Undone” by Roger Oakland and also “While Men Slept” by Dr. Kerby Fannin. While Men Slept is a better book about the origins of ancient manuscripts and how they were used by the Catholic church and also the how and why we have so many ‘modern’ Bible versions at bookstores.

[kingpins10]

Not trying to offend anyone, just offering what I have studied. Gotta retire...on the east coast...

[bdeaner]

Your history is way off, my Christian Brother.

The first official Canon of the Bible was only discerned,by St Athanasius in his “Festal Letter” of 367 AD, by the bishops of the Catholic church at a Council held probably at Rome in 382 AD under Pope Damasus, and at the 4th century Councils of Hippo(393 AD) and Carthage(397 AD). The Catholic Church was preaching the good news of salvation for about three centuries before it discerned from among the many manuscripts in circulation which ones were truly inspired and were to become part of what we call the New Testament.

The Bible is a Catholic book nurtured within the influence of the Catholic Church who discerned the Canon. The first Bibles were all produced by Catholics. The first person to translate any part of the Bible into English was the priest, Bede, in the 8th century. Years later, even Martin Luther admitted that without the Catholic Church we would not even have a Bible.

[bdeaner]

Actually, you’re wrong about the original Christian brothers. They were called the apostles.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. But the fact of the matter is that the Church IS Apostolic. If that's what you are trying to say, you are more Catholic than you might think!

St. Paul writes, "you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the Apostles" (Ephesians 2:19-20). St. John shows us that the Apostles are the "twelve foundations" of the walls of the heavenly Jerusalem" (Revelations 21:14). The household of God, the heavenly city--that is, the Church--rests upon the sure foundation of its apostolicity.

But what does this mean, "apostolic"? It means several things: the Church is founded on the Apostles, presedrves their teaching and traditions, continues to be guided by those teachings and traditions, and has recieved the entire patrimonyu of the Apostles, through a legitimate succession. Yes, succession!

Look at your Bible. The Apostles were careful to choose successors. St. Peter's quotation of Psalm 108:8, "His office let another take," is illuminating. The word "office" here is a translation of the Greek word episkopen (literally, "overseer"), from which we derive the English word "bishop." In fact, in the Protestant King James Version of the Bible, the line is rendered, "his bishopric let another take." Luke is discussing here the "office" of Apostle, which the Church even then understood under the title "bishop."

A close collaborator of Sts. Paul and Peter, St. Clement of Rome described how these men continued this practice in the later years of their apostolate. Clement also explains why his predecessors did this: "Our Apostles know through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be dissension over the bishop's office. That is why, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards, they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in ministry."

And so the succession has continued unbroken. St. Irenaeus wrote in 190 A.D. about the earlier popes as if he were writing about ancient history--and he was!--but he was careful to include each and every name as he traced the chain of succession down to his own day.

We, too, can trace it down to ours. For the Church still today passes on its apostolic authority as the first Apostles show us in the pages of the Bible: by the laying on of hands (see 1 Tim. 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).

And it is not merely a matter of credentials--though credentials too are important. It is a matter of "the gift"--the charisms, the grace--conferred through the imposition of divinely qualified hands (1 Tim. 4:14). The clergy so ordained became "stewards of the mysteries of God" (1 Cor. 4:1), with the God-given power to exercise that stewardship.

[Irisshlass]

All the Saints you have posted came from the Latin Mass. :)

[Ransomed]

You missed the sarcasm; there is nothing nice about claiming Catholics (I are one) are not Christian. The vast majority of the other sorts of Christians on FR know that, too. I’ll try to be clearer next time.

Freegards

[kingpins10]

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

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’.

[Ottofire]

Ecumenicalism with compromise is an attempt to compromise truth.

Ecumenicalism without compromise is merely a conversion attempt hidden by guile and deception.

Either way it is a dissipation of the gospel.

Now we see that after the disunity that was caused by Florence and Trent, among others, the Catholic Church is trying to bring together Christians that were driven forth from the united Church by those that were seeking to retain worldly power in the RCC, rather than spread the gospel. And those that were driven forth are blamed for it by the RCC’s most vocal apologists. Yeah, that is the way to bring Christianity back together.

The only way to bring the church back together is to repudiate all the councils and go back to those first seven and stick to those alone. Since that is not going to happen, the RCC has painted itself into a corner. Sorry, ain’t gonna happen. Pride is seriously a deadly thing.

Like Reagan, the Protestants can truly say “We didn’t leave the RCC, the RCC left us.” And now the RCC is trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

Soli Deo gloria

[bdeaner]

Ecumenicalism with compromise is an attempt to compromise truth.

Ecumenicalism without compromise is merely a conversion attempt hidden by guile and deception.

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. 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. 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.

God bless.

[Petronski]

Jesus Christ himself would be furious with the Catholic Church and it’s faith based on works theology.

Baloney.

Jesus Christ Himself would understand that the theology of the Catholic Church is not "faith based on works."

You are beating up a straw man.

[Petronski]

Among those are the belief that works are good enough to win salvation, which is false.

Of course it's false.

It's also not Catholic teaching.

That is why the Catholic church rounded up Christians by the millions, all through the ages, and murdered them.

You have a rather significant proof problem.

[Petronski]

I’m not Catholic.

There's still time to fix that.

My Lord and Saviour is Jesus Christ, not works.

The same is true of Catholics.

My deeds can never be good enough to get to heaven. To say otherwise is denial of Christ.

Thus, it's a good thing Catholics don't say that.

[bdeaner]

Okay! Sorry for the misinterpretation. God bless.

[bdeaner]

We all need to get together somehow or other because what’s coming down the pike will need strong unity.

Exactly right. In the West, make no mistake, Christianity is under attack, and this is just the beginning. What is happening in Massachusetts to the Catholic hospitals, and the attempts by the gay lobby to silence the Church, are good examples of what more is to come. In the UK, there is a full frontal assault on Christianity, and the children are falling for it hard. A recent survey in the UK found that the majority of UK adolescents do not believe in God. That is alarming.

[kingpins10]

Foxe’s Book of Martyrs

[wardaddy]

it’s bs...and an argument you get from libs who hateb social conservatism constantly

[Petronski]

Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is self-serving unsubstantiated propaganda. Any resemblance it might bear to history is purely coincidental and highly rare.

[kingpins10]

Not true. So you’re telling me that the Catholic church did not torture any Christians? Am I correct in stating your opinion?