Ecumenism

Scottish Knight · Nov 5, 2012

Ecumenism has been touched upon in other threads and this has got me thinking a lot about the subject. I think it's far more complicated than we make out sometimes

What is ecumenism?

What is the aim of ecumenism?

How much should we be willing to compromise and accept?

Is complete organisational unity necessary?

Old Christendom · Nov 5, 2012

Scottish Knight said: ↑

1. Wat are your views of ecumenism?

2. What is the aim of ecumenism?

3. How much should we be willing to compromise and accept?

4. Is complete organisational unity necessary?
Click to expand...

1. I believe no noticeable progress has been made in the last few decades when it comes to ecumenical efforts. In principle, it could be a godly venture but I'm afraid it has become more of an end in itself for its enthusiasts, often at the expense of truth and theological conflict, rather than a brotherly search for unity.

2. The communion of the distinct ecclesiastical bodies that sadly still remain separated to this day.

3. Nothing that pertains to the heart of the Christian religion, namely the Christological doctrines enshrined in the ecumenical creeds, the doctrines of justification by faith alone, salvation by grace alone, the Holy Scriptures as the rule of faith in the Church, Christ as the sole mediator and God as the only object of worship.

4. At least, I would say it's extremely desirable since it was assumed, since the apostolic age, that the faithful should be under the bishop and, those in turn, in communion with each other. "See that you all follow the Bishop, as Christ does the Father, and the presbyterium as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as a command of God. Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop. Let that be considered a certain eucharist which is under the leadership of the Bishop, or one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church. It is not permitted with the Bishop either to baptize or to celebrate an agape; but whatever he shall approve of, that is well-pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be assured and certain." - Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, c. 111 AD.

Toma · Nov 5, 2012

Scottish Knight said: ↑

Ecumenism has been touched upon in other threads and this has got me thinking a lot about the subject. I think it's far more complicated than we make out sometimes

Wat are your views of ecumenism?

What is the aim of ecumenism?

How much should we be willing to compromise and accept?

Is complete organisational unity necessary?
Click to expand...

Anything describable by the adjective "ecumenical" is worldwide, universal, all-encompassing, and total. Modern "Ecumenism" should be called "Compromise", since it has nothing to do with encouraging unity based on one universal set of doctrines. It is, rather, an attempt to say, outright, that fundamental differences don't matter. It wants to create shallow unity based on tolerance.

If Ecumenism was today what it used to be (converting people from error to the truth) I'd support it. Right now, it seems mostly to consist of share-and-care support groups, coffee socials, "ecumenical breakfasts", knitting circles, and hugs. There's zero substance, and it's more inclined to support error and corrupt the ancient faith, than to promote a true unity in the essence of Christ crucified.

In a truly ecumenical movement, Protestants would demand that justification by faith alone is part of the very essence of the faith, and about 60-70% of Christianity would tell them to get lost. The same goes for Rome and Papal infallibility. Modern Ecumenism is about covering up the important things to unite on the unimportant. Rome and Lutheranism may have signed an accord on Justification a few years ago saying they fundamentally agree together, but you haven't seen Rome dropping her theology of merits, graces, and other novelties, have you? Every side that practices this is just promoting rubbish "feel-good"s.

How much should we be willing to compromise? Galatians 1:8: "though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

Accursed be Ecumenism, which allows many gospels. Blessed be those who fight for one way and one truth, who at least have the guts to do so in our secularized age. Complete organizational unity will be impossible so long as there is sin. It's like wanting a one-world government marxist utopia: dreams.

Old Christendom · Nov 5, 2012

And speaking of Ignatius, here are some enlightening thoughts on the ancient Father's ecclesiological thinking made by John Zizioulas, Eastern Orthodox metropolitan of Pergamon (modern day Bergama, Turkey) and taken from his book "Eucharist, Bishop, Church."

At the center all Ignatius’ thinking, lies the Divine Eucharist. Coming together, epi to auto, is the usual expression to indicate the Divine Eucharist, and here it is quite clear that this is what it means. The Divine Eucharist is Ignatius’s passion. He advises the faithful to come together frequently to celebrate it. This insistence on Ignatius’s part seems to stem from his ecclesiology. The Divine Eucharist is the body of Christ, the very flesh of the historical Christ which suf¬fered and is risen. The unity of the Church should be not only spiritual, he says, but also physical. Through this physical unity which is realized in the Divine Eucharist, the local Church takes on historical substance. This is also why he identifies the local Church with the gathering for the Divine Eucharist, and not simply the local Church, but the “Church of God”: the deacons, being ministers of the Divine Eucharist, are ministers of the Church of God.

Both the local Church and the “Church of God” are expressed historically (in space and time) through the Divine Eucharist. We find ourselves confronted once again with the Pauline ecclesiology. The Church is the body of Christ. Ignatius is quite clear on the justification for this consciousness which he interprets fully: the Church is the body of Christ because the body of Christ is the historical Christ Himself and the historical Christ is the flesh of the Divine Eucharist. The local Church, then, is the whole Church for no other reason than because the whole historical Christ is made incarnate within her through the Divine Eucharist. Precisely because of the Divine Eucharist, the local Church can be regarded as the Church of God, the whole Church, and can be addressed as such through the epithets that we have seen. Because through the unity of the body of Christ, she “partakes of God.” This leads Ignatius to stress another element in this passage.

The Divine Eucharist is closely bound up with the Bishop as he is in turn with “the whole Church.” These elements are so deeply bound up with one another that they are not clearly distinguished in Ignatius’ thought. Thus, when he is talking about the Altar, he suddenly introduces the prayer of the Bishop and of the whole Church. And when he is saying that one who does not participate in the Divine Eucharist is showing pride, he immediately adds that in order to avoid pride we should be subject to the Bishop. He indicates the same connection of the Altar with the Bishop more clearly when he says that anyone who does something “apart from the Bishop and the presbyters and the deacons” is the same as one who is outside the Altar. This most profound bond between Bishop and Eucharist in Ignatius’ thought has as a consequence another, more striking identification: the Bishop is identified with the entire local Church. Thus, we reach the classic passage “where the Bishop is, there is the multitude . . . ” Judging from the whole of Ignatius’ theology, it appears that this passage does not have a merely hortatory sense—or if it has such a sense, it.is no more than an expression and affirmation of a reality which is understood ontologically. Ignatius does not hesitate to say that the whole multitude, i.e. the whole local Church, appears before him in the person of the Bishop. The “whole multitude” of the Church of Ephesus is present for Ignatius in the person of her Bishop Onesimus. This incarnation of the local Church in the Bishop – the result, as we have seen, of the connection between the Bishop and the Divine Eucharist – leads to further consequences for the position of the Bishop in the Church. In these consequences, the characteristics of the “catholicization” of the Church find their completion.

“Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude be,” because according to Ignatius the Bishop incarnates the multitude, the local Church. But the local Church is a full, complete entity, the whole Church of God, because the whole Christ is to be found in her and makes her a unity, the one body of Christ, through the Divine Eucharist. In consequence, Ignatius does not hesitate to go on to link the Bishop with Jesus Christ. The Lord is called “Bishop.” Whatever happens to the visible Bishop of the Church is transmitted to the invisible Bishop, Jesus Christ. The Bishop forms a “type” and icon of Christ or of the Father Himself, an icon and type not in a symbolic but in a real sense: “It is fitting to obey in no hypocritical fashion; since one is not deceiving this visible Bishop, but seeking to mock the One who is invisible.” This realist view of the relationship between the Bishop and the Lord allows Ignatius easily to interchange these two persons: when he is being led to martyrdom and is away from Antioch, the Lord is the Bishop of that local Church. Two different worlds are thus created: God with the Bishop, and those who are apart from the Bishop with the devi1. Unity around the Bishop is a unity around God and in Gοd. “For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ, these are with the Bishop.” In the same way, union with the Bishop constitutes union with Christ, and vice versa.

What we have said already sets out the essence of the “catholicization” of the Church. The further consequences of these statements are drawn out by Ignatius himself. The unity of the Church is not simply eucharistic, but because of the relation of the Bishop to the Eucharist it becomes hierarchical as well. The Church of the Philadelphians realizes her “oneness” when she is “with the Bishop and the presbyters and deacons who are with him.” Not only that, but the community cannot even be called a church without the clergy, i.e. the Bishop, presbyters and deacons: “without these, it cannot be called a church.”

The further consequences now follow naturally: whatever is accomplished in the Church is valid only when it is approved by the Bishop. The Bishop is not from men or through men, but from Christ. And unity around the Bishop is not the will of man, but the “voice of God.” The Bishop, in other words, is appointed as such by divine law, and unity around him is recognized as the will not of man but of God. Thus the “catholicization” of the Church leads to the sequence: will (gnome) of the Father – will of Jesus Christ – will of the Bishop. The Catholic Church, as the whole Church, is such by virtue of the fact that she has the whole Christ. But the local Church too is likewise catholic, because she has the whole Christ through the Divine Eucharist. The Bishop as being directly connected with the Divine Eucharist represents the local Church in the same way as the whole Christ represents the generic (katholou) or catholic Church. But given that both the whole Christ and the Bishop are connected with the Church in the Divine Eucharist, the kath’ olou or Catholic Church is to be found where the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop are. Thus the Bishop, as it has been most aptly observed, comes to be “the center of the visible and also the true Church,” and the local Church comes to be the “Catholic Church” herself.

Thus, neither universal consciousness nor polemic against heresies can explain the origin of the “Catholic Church.” Its presence in history follows the line which Ignatius presents to us in such a remarkably concise and comprehensive way, and which, curiously, has been overlooked by scholarly research: one Church, one Eucharist, one flesh and one cup, one altar, one Bishop with the presbyterium and the deacons. Thus, in conclusion, the “Catholic Church” is identified according to Ignatius with the whole Christ, and the whole Christ is to be found and is revealed in the most tangible way in the eucharistic synaxis and communion of all the members of each Church under the leadership of the Bishop. In consequence, the local Church is catholic not because of her relationship with the “universal” Church, but because of the presence within her of the whole Christ in the one Eucharist under the leadership of the Bishop. In this way, each local Church having its own Bishop is catholic per se; that is to say, it is the concrete form in space and time of the whole body of Christ, of the “generic” (kath’ olou) Church.
Click to expand...

Scottish Knight · Nov 5, 2012

Old Christendom said: ↑

1. I believe no noticeable progress has been made in the last few decades when it comes to ecumenical efforts. In principle, it could be a godly venture but I'm afraid it has become more of an end in itself for its enthusiasts, often at the expense of truth and theological conflict, rather than a brotherly search for unity.

good points there. It would be good to hear from the older members here who grew up through the decades to see how they have experienced the ecumnical movement and what progress has been made. There's been talk of today we are living in a "post denominational" time. The baptist times recently changed it's subtitle from "the newspaper for baptists" to " the newspaper for christians in baptist churches" I think there's a lot of truth there. Before we used to be seperated into denominations based on our doctrine and beliefs, our differences we emphasised in architecture, language and creeds, now with the growth of liberalism in all the denominations and the increasingly secular climate in the west now believers care more for being in part of a good church who preaches Christ faithfully. So we have the situation where baptists attend Anglican churches, presbyterians attend baptist churches etc. We find that evangelicals have more in common with other evangelicals than groups within their denominations, the saem with liberals etc.

2. The communion of the distinct ecclesiastical bodies that sadly still remain separated to this day.

ok

3. Nothing that pertains to the heart of the Christian religion, namely the Christological doctrines enshrined in the ecumenical creeds, the doctrines of justification by faith alone, salvation by grace alone, the Holy Scriptures as the rule of faith in the Church, Christ as the sole mediator and God as the only object of worship.

What about the minority groups who disagree with the eternal Sonship of Christ? (They hold an orthodox understanding of Christs divinity and humanity, and his eternallness but feel saying He was eternally begotten is to say He is eternally inferior to the Father and so highlights their joint co-equalness) It seems to me they hold a basic orthodox understanding while rejecting some langauge parts of the creeds. The creeds are often used as the ecumenical standard for orthodox understanding of the godhead but I think these groups are within the bounds of orthodoxy.

4. At least, I would say it's extremely desirable since it was assumed, since the apostolic age, that the faithful should be under the bishop and, those in turn, in communion with each other. "See that you all follow the Bishop, as Christ does the Father, and the presbyterium as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as a command of God. Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop. Let that be considered a certain eucharist which is under the leadership of the Bishop, or one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church. It is not permitted with the Bishop either to baptize or to celebrate an agape; but whatever he shall approve of, that is well-pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be assured and certain." - Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, c. 111 AD.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply

Scottish Knight · Nov 5, 2012

Consular said: ↑

Anything describable by the adjective "ecumenical" is worldwide, universal, all-encompassing, and total. Modern "Ecumenism" should be called "Compromise", since it has nothing to do with encouraging unity based on one universal set of doctrines. It is, rather, an attempt to say, outright, that fundamental differences don't matter. It wants to create shallow unity based on tolerance.

True, this is a rather sad thing that it all too often means compromise. I think true ecumenism is following the principle of semper reformanda - the church continually reforming itself to Christ's image and to God's Word. i think this starts with ourselves as we constantly analyse what we believe and why and whether it's acording to God's word. I have seen christians from wildly different tradtions seeking God's will and finding there is remarkably little different in their day to day living for Christ

If Ecumenism was today what it used to be (converting people from error to the truth) I'd support it. Right now, it seems mostly to consist of share-and-care support groups, coffee socials, "ecumenical breakfasts", knitting circles, and hugs. There's zero substance, and it's more inclined to support error and corrupt the ancient faith, than to promote a true unity in the essence of Christ crucified.

In a truly ecumenical movement, Protestants would demand that justification by faith alone is part of the very essence of the faith, and about 60-70% of Christianity would tell them to get lost. The same goes for Rome and Papal infallibility. Modern Ecumenism is about covering up the important things to unite on the unimportant. Rome and Lutheranism may have signed an accord on Justification a few years ago saying they fundamentally agree together, but you haven't seen Rome dropping her theology of merits, graces, and other novelties, have you? Every side that practices this is just promoting rubbish "feel-good"s.

Have to agree with you. Insititutional ecumenism is all about insitutions, formal positions documents and contracts. So denominational bodies who have two different understandings of justification (eg sola fide and faith and works) are mutually exclusive. However! If we look indiviually things get a little more complicated. For example I have heard people say they believe in "faith and works" but when they say what their view is they give a sola fide understanding of what they believe. In fact I have seen on certain forums users say the same thing, one gets attacked the other defended - why? because they use different buzzwords and this shows the shallowness sometimes that people often go what sounds orthodox rather than what is orthodox. It is my belief that where insitutions may stand at a stand still individuals can often pass through and join hands together.

How much should we be willing to compromise? Galatians 1:8: "though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

Absolutely. We have a catchphrase at my baptist church of holding some things in a closed hand and the rest in an open hand. The closed hand signals the essentials of the faith and the open hand signifies secondary issues. The doctrine of God must surely be held in the closed hand and of course the gospel which is the whole point of Christianity. Of course questions arise, what is the gospel? Can monergists and arminians work together for the gospel? What is essential to it?

Charlotte chapel works only with other reformed churches in gospel partnership, so we often do joint ventures with various local presbyterian, non denom and congregationalist churches. It is my view that calvinists and arminians can indeed work together for the sake of the gospel since we uhold the same message, Christ died in our place, we are saved through Him alone, by God's grace alone. These I think are the essential markers of the gospel

Accursed be Ecumenism, which allows many gospels. Blessed be those who fight for one way and one truth, who at least have the guts to do so in our secularized age. Complete organizational unity will be impossible so long as there is sin. It's like wanting a one-world government marxist utopia: dreams.
Click to expand...

I think we can strive for the impossible ideal in the knowledge and hope it will be realised in the end. When Christ comes then the church shall at last be gathered in and perfected for all time. There's that beautiful vision in the future that prods me into working for unity here and now. Just as we will never be perfected in this life shouldn't stop us trying to live more sanctified lives so the same is with church unity I believe.

I think one way around this is viewing things on a local congregational level, viewing individual local congegations rather than as a denomination. Decentralisation is the future for ecumenical unity I think

Scottish Monk · Nov 5, 2012

We have several ecumenical prayers in the Book of Common Prayer 1979.

...Scottish Monk

1. For Joy in God's Creation (p. 814)
O heavenly Father, who hast filled the world with beauty:
Open our eyes to behold thy gracious hand in all thy works;
that, rejoicing in thy whole creation, we may learn to serve
thee with gladness; for the sake of him through whom all
things were made, thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

3. For the Human Family (p. 815)
O God, you made us in your own image and redeemed us
through Jesus your Son: Look with compassion on the whole
human family; take away the arrogance and hatred which
infect our hearts; break down the walls that separate us;
unite us in bonds of love; and work through our struggle and
confusion to accomplish your purposes on earth; that, in
your good time, all nations and races may serve you in
harmony around your heavenly throne; through Jesus Christ
our Lord. Amen.

5. For Peace Among the Nations (p. 816)
Almighty God our heavenly Father, guide the nations of the
world into the way of justice and truth, and establish among
them that peace which is the fruit of righteousness, that they
may become the kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Amen.

14. For the Unity of the Church (p. 818)
O God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Savior,
the Prince of Peace: Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the
great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions; take away
all hatred and prejudice, and whatever else may hinder us
from godly union and concord; that, as there is but one Body
and one Spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith,
one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may be all
of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth
and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and
one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.

40. For Knowledge of God's Creation (p. 827)
Almighty and everlasting God, you made the universe with
all its marvelous order, its atoms, worlds, and galaxies, and
the infinite complexity of living creatures: Grant that, as we
probe the mysteries of your creation, we may come to know
you more truly, and more surely fulfill our role in your
eternal purpose; in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

41. For the Conservation of Natural Resources (p. 827)
Almighty God, in giving us dominion over things on earth,
you made us fellow workers in your creation: Give us wisdom
and reverence so to use the resources of nature, that no one
may suffer from our abuse of them, and that generations yet
to come may continue to praise you for your bounty; through
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

44. For the Future of the Human Race (p. 828)
O God our heavenly Father, you have blessed us and given us
dominion over all the earth: Increase our reverence before
the mystery of life; and give us new insight into your purposes
for the human race, and new wisdom and determination in
making provision for its future in accordance with your will;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Book of Common Prayer 1979 (Oxford)

Aaytch Barton · Nov 6, 2012

Anglican ecumenism cannot be spoken of without reference to Articles 19 and 21, the jist of which is that anything decided between Christians is of no use unless it shall be Scriptural, and that convening ecumenical councils deserves no presumption of righteous judgement.

XIX. Of the Church. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils. General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

Ecumenism vis-a-vis Rome obviously did not exist. There is something to be said for the middle ground between the Reformed and Lutheran positions on various topics, but the ground was shifting rapidly in thte 16th century and the effort was NOT to be ecumenical but rather to get it right Biblically.

Incense · Dec 19, 2012

I think of all the different parts of Christianity to be like different instruments in one same orchestra. We will not loose our value if we play together, the violin will remain violin the cello a cello, the flue a flute and so on.... I think the mistake will occur if someone tries to clean his flute with the violin tool or if the cello decides to tune all instruments on his own tuner... I hope this is not a silly image and it makes a bit of sense...

mark1 · Dec 19, 2012

1) Ecumenism refers to efforts to build better institutional relationships among Christians. Of course, the first, and critical, stumbling block is joint acceptance that the Holy Spirit is working in the all the churches involved.

2) First, and foremost, the goal of ecumenism is recognize the unity of all Christians, no matter what their style of worship and interpretation of various theological issues. This requires understanding of the other's beliefs regarding essentials of the faith.
Secondarily, the goal is inter-communion or in the extreme, full communion.

3) Ecumenism is not about compromise. There is but one gospel, one faith. It is the immaturity of the elder sons among us that the degree of compromise is an issue. We have separated brothers and sisters.

4) Complete organizational unity has never been necessary. If we had Ecumenical Councils in the 21st century, we would better understand the meaning of ecumenical and ecumenism. As was the case from the beginning, there can be distinct, separate Christian churches.
=======================================
In the end, we must be able to understand what it means to understand that the Holy Spirit guides the Roman Catholic Church, and also the Orthodox Churches, and also the Anglican Communion, and also the Methodist churches and also the Baptist churches.
======================================
As an aside, we in the US are in a very different situation from others. We have no national Church and will never have one. Acceptance of the fact that those in other Churches are led by the Spirit of God is part of the very fabric of our country. Well over 90% of Americans believe in God and seek Him. 1/2 of citizens go to church regularly. We understand that Scripture teaches that ALL who seek Him shall fine Him, ALL! Yes, we are in a spiritual crisis in the US. Our fundamentalists refuse to accept the rest as "true" Christians. This too shall pass.

Scottish Knight said: ↑

Ecumenism has been touched upon in other threads and this has got me thinking a lot about the subject. I think it's far more complicated than we make out sometimes

What is ecumenism?

What is the aim of ecumenism?

How much should we be willing to compromise and accept?

Is complete organisational unity necessary?
Click to expand...

mark1 · Dec 19, 2012

I feel the need to add another thought. This season, I twice stood in unison and unity with my fellow Christians to the finale of Handel's Messiah, after the Christmas story had been shared in Scripture and in hymn and song. Once was at a Christmas concert in Disneyworld. The other was at a Rockette's performance is Nashville.

Perhaps this is what unity and ecumenism is really about.

Scottish Knight said: ↑

Ecumenism has been touched upon in other threads and this has got me thinking a lot about the subject. I think it's far more complicated than we make out sometimes

What is ecumenism?

What is the aim of ecumenism?

How much should we be willing to compromise and accept?

Is complete organisational unity necessary?
Click to expand...

Toma · Dec 19, 2012

mark1 said: ↑

I feel the need to add another thought. This season, I twice stood in unison and unity with my fellow Christians to the finale of Handel's Messiah, after the Christmas story had been shared in Scripture and in hymn and song. Once was at a Christmas concert in Disneyworld. The other was at a Rockette's performance is Nashville.

Perhaps this is what unity and ecumenism is really about.
Click to expand...

Unity is about the destruction of heresy & schism, and the subsequent living in love and charity with our neighbour. Singing and enjoying the Messiah is about as ecumenical as Romans and Anglicans agreeing to "unite" by using sappy campfire-guitar songs and throwing out Latin and Hymns, respectively.

Ecumenism's basically modernist rubbish. Augustine, and several councils did believe that we should receive Donatist and Arian clergy on the basis of their sound Orders, but only after they had utterly renounced their error. The Catholic Church will always be small.

mark1 · Dec 19, 2012

Your very strong anti-Catholicism and anti-catholocism is noted.

Consular said: ↑

Unity is about the destruction of heresy & schism, and the subsequent living in love and charity with our neighbour. Singing and enjoying the Messiah is about as ecumenical as Romans and Anglicans agreeing to "unite" by using sappy campfire-guitar songs and throwing out Latin and Hymns, respectively.

Ecumenism's basically modernist rubbish. Augustine, and several councils did believe that we should receive Donatist and Arian clergy on the basis of their sound Orders, but only after they had utterly renounced their error. The Catholic Church will always be small.
Click to expand...

Scottish Monk · Dec 19, 2012

Who builds the stumbling blocks against unity?

(a) Clergy
(b) People in the pews
(c) Secular leaders
(d) Others

mark1 · Dec 19, 2012

IMHo, it is clergy and local church "leaders" who are the primary stumbling blocks.

Scottish Monk said: ↑

Who builds the stumbling blocks against unity?

(a) Clergy
(b) People in the pews
(c) Secular leaders
(d) Others

Click to expand...

Scottish Monk · Dec 19, 2012

mark1 said: ↑

IMHo, it is clergy and local church "leaders" who are the primary stumbling blocks.
Click to expand...

Work at living in peace with everyone, and work at living a holy life, for those who are not holy will not see the Lord. Look after each other so that none of you fails to receive the grace of God. Watch out that no poisonous root of bitterness grows up to trouble you, corrupting many (Heb. 12:14-15; New Living Translation 2007).

Log in or Sign up

Ecumenism

Scottish Knight Well-Known Member

Old Christendom Well-Known Member

Toma Well-Known Member Anglican

Old Christendom Well-Known Member

Scottish Knight Well-Known Member

Scottish Knight Well-Known Member

Scottish Monk Well-Known Member

Aaytch Barton Active Member

Incense Active Member

mark1 Active Member

mark1 Active Member

Toma Well-Known Member Anglican

mark1 Active Member

Scottish Monk Well-Known Member

mark1 Active Member

Scottish Monk Well-Known Member