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).
If that is the case, then this would mean Revelations is a pagan text. Do you wish to throw out that book as well as James and the deuterocanonicals, and whatever else doesn’t fit into your preconceptions? That’s what the Reformers have always done. If it doesn’t fit the preconception, get rid of the Scripture. I’m sure the Lord is quite pleased with the revisions to his inspired Word. /s
“I’m not going to read the book “
And therein lies the rub. I don’t support Marxist/Leninist views, but I’ve read and own both authors. I even have memoirs from former Clinton cabinet members. It is good to read all points of view, instead of relying on one bad review, IMHO.
The KJV is based on the majority text, the textus receptus. The catholic church is guilty of revisions. Communion is NOT supposed to be made a common thing.
Buy me the book, and I will read it. Are you buying?
A faith that is based on faith and works is a form of polytheism.
Sure. If you’ll buy a car and let me use it. lol
By thinking that heaven can be obtained by works is the belief through ‘reason’ that we have the power to ‘earn’ our way there.
It denies that Christ’s work alone is what is needed. We in essence make ourselves a ‘god’. I’m not saying that is what you personally believe.
This discussion of “works based salvation” can easily get off track; I’ve seen it happen before on countless threads.
Catholics do not “work” their way to Heaven, at least not in the way you appear to be suggesting. Just like bdeaner, I used to be an “evangelical Christian” so I am fully aware of that kind of mindset and in particular, its aversion to “works”.
The crucial question that everyone must ask themselves WRT this question is, “What are ‘works’ FOR in the Catholic Church?” Catholics don’t believe (at least in a strict theological sense) that our works alone are for “getting to Heaven”. Our works are to conform us to the example, the image if you will, of Christ. Remember (speaking of the Book of Revelation) “nothing unclean shall enter Heaven”. (c.f. Rev 21:27)
A dung heap covered by pure white snow is NOT “clean”. It’s still unclean, it just looks better. But in substance, it’s still unclean.
We literally must be as pure and Holy (both outside AND inside) as Christ to enter Heaven. This is the “narrow gate”. This is the high standard. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get that “clean” on our own.
The works we do are in COOPERATION with God the Holy Spirit. He gives us the graces necessary to DO these works in the first place. He gives us these graces via the Sacraments. bdeaner is an excellent witness of this restorative power, I believe. His powerful testimony on the thread “Pope concerned in decline in confessions” thread is a witness to this fact. The fact of the Holy Spirit transforming HIM (bdeaner), setting him free from the addiction he mentioned there, via the Sacrament of Confession.
Similarly, all the other Sacraments are (ordinary) ways we receive grace from God. With this grace we are set free from our sin. With this grace, we are (slowly) transformed into the image of Christ, that is, after receiving the Grace of God, we CAN do “good works”, and these “good works” are ways we conform to the image of Christ.
IOW, think of the good works done as “exercises”, spiritual exercises if you will, that form us into the image of Christ, so that we may “share in His divinity” c.f. 2 Pet 1:4. You can also think of it this way: The graces God so generously pours out to us are the “food” we need to “do” the “exercises”.
Therefore, ONLY with this grace can we get to Heaven; it is NOT “BY our works” that we “earn” our way to Heaven, as if our works were the ORIGIN (the “food” in my last example) of our transformation (our “exercises”). Quite the opposite.
Our “salvation” is only found in configuring ourselves to Christ, that is, in the “transformation” of ourselves (into someone who is fully human, by the way, like Christ was/is fully human, like Adam was before the Fall; it’s beneficial to meditate on that phrase as applied to Christ and ask oneself, “Why is Christ described as FULLY human and not just merely “human”) The Grace of God is the origin of our salvation (”not by our works lest any man should boast”); our free will cooperation with His Grace is what allows Him to continue the good work He began in us. (c.f. Phil 1:5-11)
Now, given the topic of this thread, you may wonder, “Well then, how is the Catholic Church ecumenical? There are no Catholic Sacraments in other churches.” The answer to that can be summed up thusly: God gives us the Sacraments in the Church as ORDINARY means by which to obtain His Graces. But God can (and does) choose to dispense His Graces in any way He chooses, thus the previous points in the OP regarding “invincible ignorance” flow from this understanding.
Absolutely I stand with God’s word. All ‘modern’ versions of the Bible are based on the Westcott and Hort secretive modifications of the original Greek. Westcott and Hort practiced necromancy, were members of the Apostles Club (a secretive group that practiced necromancy, seances and were Unitarist in their beliefs). They even were followers of so-called “Christian Socialism.” Westcott and Hort did not believe in the Holy Trinity.
Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God
T here is no difference between the ceremonial law and the moral law...
The ceremonial law deals with our relationship with God and the moral law deals with our relationship with man...They are all the same law as can be seen in Romans 7...
Your council of Trent and your Catholic church fathers knew better than to separate the two as can be seen here...
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
It doesn't get any more clear than that...
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
The UNGODLY are justified...NOT those that do GODLY works for justification...
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Without works...Without works...Without works...
Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
You don't and can't work your way out of sin...PLUS, your sin is covered...
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
I realize this verse is completely alien to you guys but those of us who study the scriptures and BELIEVE everything God says know exactly what this means...Praise God...
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
You'll notice it does NOT say we might be justified by the Faith of Jesus Christ AND our righteous, moral works...
Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them
ALL the things...Every one of the things in the Law...The moral and the ceremonial...
Doesn't matter what you believe...What matters is that God is very clear about Grace without works and a person would have to be a fool to teach about another gospel...
That's like reading a History of Saddam Hussein, written by Saddam Hussein...
Thank God there is a non-Catholic church history out there to be read and understood by non-Catholics...
No more of a proof problem than your religion has...How many of the writings of your church fathers were manufactured by your religion after the fact???
Well of course...That true of any and all material written against the Catholic church in the last 2000 years...
What specifically makes you a Christian???
I didn't say that. I think you'd have trouble demonstrating such a thing.
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.