Posted on 06/25/2009 9:21:29 PM PDT by 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).
No.
Why don't you capitalize Catholic Church? It's a proper noun, why don't you capitalize it?
Wow. Are you serious? You’re angry because I didn’t capitalize?
I’m not angry. I asked a question.
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?
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.
>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.
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
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.
Wow, the attacks. Liturgy is paganism and not Biblical. To say that I am not saved is risible.
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.
Ecumenical pandering is relativism..nice image..save it for kindling next winter.
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.
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.