Is 'Ecumenism' a Bad Word?

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

[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?