Ecumenism as a Cover Story

"That sounds to me like calling the invasion of Iraq a product of the peace movement."
- No Ken, you just quite obviously don't know what you're talking about. Wow, the amount of greasy smug in his article could lube diesel engine!

"Pope Benedict XVI, in his landmark assertion, Dominus Jesu, declared flatly that the Catholic church is the pnly "church," shunting others aside as pale imitations."
- Ken, this is nothing new. If you had any understanding of the historical teaching of the Church you'd know that.

Smug and snark are not a substitute of actual knowledge, Ken. Better luck next time.

Anti-Catholic Reporter is anti-Catholic. Why shouldn't Protestants be given the option of returning to the Church that Christ founded either individually or in large groups? It is uncharitable to assert that the motivation for this adjustment it caused by anything other than pastoral concern for the Christian souls in question.

If you look at what Pope John XXIII had to say about ecumenism or Christian unity, it always boiled down to unity with the Catholic Church. This is true ecumenism. Also, his dying words were reputed to be, "Stop the Council, stop the Council!" Too bad they didn't listen to the POPE!

"The Reformation churches have reason to be furious at this slap in the face. They've play the part of fools in thinking ecumenical talks meant something other than surrender."

Just what are "ecumenical talks" *supposed* to mean? That's not a rhetorical question--far from it.

Is the goal simply to set up conferences, meet periodically, issue a working paper and...then what? Ecumenism has turned into a process without a product, a way of avoiding hard questions rather than posing them. The hardest question is "what can we do to end the scandal of disunity?"

Whatever else one thinks (as opposed to refluxing) about this new initiative from Rome, it certainly answers that question. More to the point, it is far from "surrender." No, surrender would be "get your tuchus to the local parish and make a profession of faith--stat."

This acknowledges, in a profound way, the fully validity of the worship traditions of another Christian body, and says Catholicism can embrace it. That is, heart and soul, ecumenical.

Certainly a lot more ecumenical than the "repel boarders!" and "unclean! unclean!" mentality we've sadly been seeing all too much of at this website of late.

Ecumenism has got to me more than mutual (and self-congratulatory) recognition of the like-minded across denominational lines. Eventually somebody has got to change their mind, and act in accordance with their changed mind.

I think that Briggs is confusing some words with others. Ecumenism with Public Relations; Solidarity with Unity. If indeed Ecumenism is mere public relations then he is right. The current gesture of Rome is a bad public relations move. But if the goal of ecumenism, which is an expression of the ecumenoi - the household - to journey towards unity, then Rome did the right thing. Unity is a theological term. While solidarity is simply a 'showing brotherly or sisterly love.' Solidarity is good, but it should not be used at the expense of authentic unity.

Recently in Los Angeles an Episcopalian priest at a public event, invited her Hindu and Buddhist guests to come up for communion. She proudly announced this to the Los Angeles Times. This is a blatant example of confusing solidarity and unity. (Let alone the fact that she does not understand the core meaning of the Eucharistc Wedding Banquet - and Jesus' story of the man without the wedding garment.)

The goal of ecumenical dialogue is not to reduce everyone to a least common denominator in a happy-clappy sort of way. But rather to find our differences and celebrate them while we journey towards full unity.

I think the Holy Father has been very gracious in not only inviting (at their request)these or any other Christians into the fold, but to create an environment of worship that makes them feel comfortable.

The article by Hans Kung published in THE GUARDIAN,Tues, 27 October should be reproduced in full in the NCR.

There really is something defeatist and irresponsible for we Catholics to find, or pretend to find, hope in the Holy Spirit's ultimate guidance of the church. Jesus intervened historically, He fully expects us, subsequently, to be responsiblie and accountable for his message.

This latest, uprincipled intrusion, regardless of the reputed overtures by a few retrograde Anglicans, regardless of any possible validity of their concerns is a violation of not just respect, but a mutually understood trust. Add this to the "visitation" and "investigation" of American women religious in intent and methodology; to the repudiation of Vatican II and its strategic destruction; to the insult to Moslems at Regensberg; the policy of subjugation of women "in the church and in the world"; the irrational and unreasonable demand for respect and obedience inspite of stupidity and unreason; the sexual abuse scandals that are so universal and have "infected" the entire system of church and the responses which have promoted obstructers, dictated obfuscation and belitteling of victms. Throughout the "reign" of John Paul II and up to this day, no single person can be so clearly identified as cause, strategist, motivator, apologist and leader than Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. It is scary to even think let alone type this out.

This action by Benedict brings to an end, any future for ecumenical dialogue. It s too late to repair the damage he has done. It will be felt for centuries. The Church of Rome will now be seen as the church of bigots and woman haters. Benedict has succeeded in his plan but the damage he has caused will only expedite the decay of the hierarchy of the Church of Rome. Corrupt to their core, the decay is almost complete.

Dominus Iesus (which Briggs doesn't appear to have actually read, and which was issued by Cardinal Ratzinger's office before he became Pope Benedict) and the subsequent 2007 instruction regarding "churches" are presented in an inaccurate light.

This post is rooted in a form of Catholicism which is eerily similar to the presumption of Evangelicals. Once one is born (this is much less complicated than having to be “saved” or “born again”), that person will be saved. Faith, religious belief, moral conduct, what "church" you belong to, relationship with God, etc.--none of that ultimately matters. Some might be willing to carve out a very narrow exception for the occasional Hitler or mass murderer, but the rest of us have it made.

So let's live and let live--now and for eternity. So tolerance of is in, evangelization is out.

Of course, if that’s true, who needs Jesus Christ, the one savior of the world? And who needs His Church, the instrument of salvation for the entire world, built on the rock of St. Peter? Why not take a road other than the way of the cross, since after all we “rational adults” know that there are many other more comfortable roads to salvation.

The truth is, God’s grace is unlimited. It’s not absent outside the visible boundaries of the Church. God calls each one of us by name, seeking a personal relationship with us as He offers us eternal life. Yet, God will not save us without our cooperation, in keeping with our human dignity. How dare we, at the moment of our death, cry out “Lord, Lord,” yet be unwilling to do what He says in this life? (see Matthew 7:21). Are we ready to meet Him if He calls us tonight?

Maybe those "dissident" (they dissent from Briggs, not the Church!) and "angry" (Briggs projecting his own animosity?) Anglicans just want to be ready . . .

To Catholics it is ecumenism. Ken Briggs idea of ecumenism is a Christian unity without a Christian identity. I will stick with the Pope of Christian Unity!

If this succeeds, a pattern will have been set that allows for everyone to become part of one Church without having to worry about petty details. That is, unless this whole thing falls apart because of the petty details -- birth control for married Anglican/Catholics (yes or no?), married Catholic priests (move them to formerly Anglican parishes?), church property (who owns the building?), etc.

does anyone remember this did not come through the vatican's office on ecumenism but is a fruit of the "Holy Office?"