www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ecumenism, Diversity, and Political Correctness

I have hopes that this thread will flourish and help me to remove the cloud that surronds me in this, but if it is deemed to be off topic for this forum or of bad taste then please do close it and let me know why.

That being said, now to the question at hand for me.

The word ecumenical is defined in the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictonary as;

1: worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application
2 a: of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches
b: promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation

Can someone tell me how the Church can carry on an ecumenical dialogue with those who are not Christian? or are Christian in name but not belief?

I know that the Holy Father has said that Islam and Christians follow the same God. Is this binding on all Catholics? I know of many who do not believe this. Was this just the opinion of the Pope or is it the teaching of the Church?

It appears to me that some of the "ecumenical" activity has the appearance of political correctness. That is we are doing this to look and feel good, not because it is the Truth.

This is just my two cents and if I am wrong I do expect to be corrected and taught what the Truth is, as I said in the beginning, I am in a fog on this one.


In Christ,
David

Dear David,

I understand where you are coming from.

The Pope really has precious little to do with this.

The fact is that Islam, Judaism and Christianity are the world's great monotheistic faiths.

Do we worship the same God? Yes and no.

Yes, we believe that there is one Divine Nature and this we share will all the children of Abraham.

But we also believe God is a Trinity and that the Second Person, God the Son, became Incarnate in Jesus Christ.

So we share some things with Muslims and are quite far apart on other things.

To say we don't have anything in common is just plain wrong, don't you think?

I also agree that there are different perspectives on ecumenism, some which I like, others I don't like.

The very real temptation, to which some give in, to be relativistic about their Catholic-Orthodox faith in discussions with other Christians and non-Christians is simply wrong. Such ecumenism advances no one's cause.

But I think we've matured since Vatican II and have come to see that there are no quick solutions to the issue of church unity.

It was Blessed Pope John XXII who suggested that we should each follow Christ to the best of our ability within our respective Churches and traditions.

If we can do that, eventually we will heal the divisions in His Body which is the Church.

Merry Christmas.

Alex

David,

Your confusion is understandable because the word "ecumenical' is often misused. Strictly speaking, I'd think it would mean "relations within the universal Church', like between different apostolic Churches in one communion. Its commoner right meaning is "relations between Christians'. The right word for Christian dialogue with non-Christians isn't "ecumenical' but "interfaith'.

In the days of the eastern Roman Empire (what we now call Byzantine), "ecumenical' was an adjective attached to the city of Constantinople, the center of the oikoumene or empire, perhaps perceived, rightly or wrongly, as the earthly center of Christendom. This is why the patriarch of Constantinople uses the title "ecumenical patriarch' — he is not the earthly head of the Orthodox communion (a sort of alterna-Pope). Rather, his title reflects his see's former capital and imperial standing.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

P.S. David, you wrote:

I know that the Holy Father has said that Islam and Christians follow the same God. Is this binding on all Catholics? I know of many who do not believe this.

I don't know if that opinion of the Pope is binding on all Catholics. Fr Seraphim Rose, an Orthodox writer, was one of those who held that Muslims and Christians don't worship the same God. I think that's a little harsh — after all, Jews reject the Trinity, yet from Judaism came Christianity. So we all worship the same God; it's just that Christianity understands Him better.

Alex, yes, Jews, Muslims and Christians are fellow "People of the Book' but still, as you may agree, the word for dialogue between them is "interfaith', not "ecumenical'. Islam, like Mormonism, has been described convincingly as a Christian heresy, but both are non-Christian.

http://oldworldrus.com

Who is God? Have you seen God? Do you know what God's name is? To say that the God of Islam is not the God of the Christians is to speak as if you know God. Nobody knows God. With that said then how can we know that our God is the true God?

We have faith and that is all we have. We have faith that our forefathers were correct we have faith our Bible is correct. Without faith we have nothing! So if we have faith in God then we must have faith that God knows what He is doing. God could give Islam a sign saying it is true or false. But we have no such sign. We place our faith in what Christ said, "Love your neighbor as yourself". What better way to express our faith then to have ecumenical dialog with those who are not of our faith. Only through dialog can we truly learn to love our neighbor as ourself. Jesus said take board out of your eye so that you can remove the splinter in your brothers eye.
Muslims are our brothers and we have no room to judge or discredit them because we have yet to remove the board from our eyes.

I think you need to reread my post and question.

You are jumping to conclusions as to where I stand. I never told you that.

I am not judging anyone.

This kind of reply is the reason why I keep most of my questions to myself around here.

I will make myself more clear Ecumenical dialog is a necessity if you are a Christian. If you do not like the word Ecumenical then take it out and replace it with just dialog.

Once again, where have I said that I am against any such dialog.... I am trying to understand what is meant by "ecumenical" and where dialog should be.

So let me ask, how has your replies helped me clear the fog?

David

[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: DavidB ]

Dear David and Serge,

Yes, relations with non-Christian religions is definitely "inter-faith" although I've also heard ecumenists refer to it as "ecumenism" in a broader sense.

I will also say that the way ecumenism is practiced by Catholics can sometimes be construed to be an exercise in religious relativism.

One way this happened vis-a-vis other Christians was when my Catholic high school used a Bible of Protestant provenance in a Catholic edition with the additional deuterocanonical books added.

We had some Protestants attending the Catholic school, and when this issue came up, the priests said that they were, "by denomination," Protestant this or that.

In every which way, the ecumenical effort then seemed to want to cast Catholics as one denomination among many in Christendom.

When I was attending Benedictine Oblate training sessions, we had a wonderful Lutheran lady who also wanted to join the Benedictines and did.

But she was most violently against the veneration of saints and don't even mention the Rosary to her . . .

I thought this was somewhat funny that CAtholics had to remain silent about the veneration of saints in a CAtholic association so as not to offend others. Am I being silly? Do you think Kurt will think so?

Ecumenism can't be the "I'm O.K., you're O.K." version of the past.

Ideally, I think it could be a forum where Christians share their ideas about social concerns and moral ideals.

It could be about sharing in the spiritual insights of each other's traditions, as long as they don't contradict what we already believe.

It could also be about seeing where we could find unity on points that historically have served to break us apart.

My idea of true ecumenism is when the Armenian Catholicos-Patriarch had an Armenian Khatchkar Cross set up on the Church of the Transfiguration in Moscow in time for the glorification of the New Martyrs last August.

No compromise on faith, no premature concelebration etc.

Alex

Slava Isusu Christu!

Dear David:

First, you are not obligated as a matter of faith to believe in the Pope's doctrine on interfaith or ecumenical relations. Nor do you have to agree with his decisions on meeting with those of other religions such as Assisi 86' or the up and coming Assisi 2002. Post-Conciliar Pontiffs are perceived as having and maintiaining a striking difference in politial doctrine then Popes before John XXIII,; Pope St. Pius X's Social Kingship of Christ the King doctrine is for sure different then Pope John Paul II's new world socio-political paradigm. But there really is no infallible political doctrine. Several popes have condemned political movements based on their Anti-Catholic teachings or tendencies such as Communism, Marxism et al. But in this new era Rome has seen fit to be more savvy in inter-government relations. Imagine Pope John Paul II speaking at the United Nations about the Social Kingship of Christ the King, he would have no voice and would be made inneffective. By utilizing his particular socio-polital synthesis of the Church's stand on Life and her new post-coniliar doctrine on modern relations with those of other religions and political perviews he can promote the Catholic Church and her rights as well as the right to life and equality of those of all humanity. He has been accused of subscribing to ideals of freemasonry. Well it must be pointed out that thos ideals are those that founded our country and currently are the party line in today's political world. The Second Vatican Council anticipated this and developed a polital doctrine to deal with it and work in the Societies that maintian those doctrines of the Novus Ordo Seculorum. Obvoiously the Holy Father has developed a very concrete way of dealing with the world in which we live, which neither compromises nor waters down Catholic dogma and praxis.

The Holy Father is a deeply complex individual ,theologically, and one thing can be assured he most definately crosses his "t's" and dots his "i's", canonically, in regard to relations with other Christians and those of other religions. His deep complexity and wisdom, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, moves him to do things for not only the welfare of the Catholic Church, but also those of the whole world. I would dare say his role as a universal leader has drawn him to address issues outside of the Catholic Church. I think the many people of the earth have dubbed him their Father even though His Holiness is of a different Faith then them; nevertheless, he is regarded with deep filial piety by many - even atheists. So I think His Holiness is striving to meet the challenge of being a world leader by unifying the world's religions for peace, not to found a world ecumenical religion, as some have blasphemously proposed i.e. the sedevacantists et al, but, in the unique spirit of common sense that His Holiness has, to unify for peace to help bring down the walls that have caused war and brutality. This Pope has been regarded as the "Pope of Life" and I think it is in that vein that His Holiness works ecumenically, not because he wants people to remain without the fulness of Catholic Truth or to present the false thesis that every religion leads to the same Goal, but to preserve life by utilizing as many people, regardless of their faith, for that purpose.

I think the best thing to do is to contextualize. That is a very important principle in trying to understand anyone's actions and beliefs. And the best way to contextualize the Pontiff's actions and beliefs is to read his writings and those of the Second Vatican Council keeping in mind as well those of his predecessors until John XXIII. There are many resources of the web as well as through your local library or inter-library loan that can help one do this. It is interesting that many who criticize the documents of Vatican II have either never read them or only read sections, already with a pre-disposed agenda, without considering the whole. Of coarse there are those who have read them and disagree with some of the Social Doctrines and ways of presenting Catholic dogma and doctrines, and that is fine. Because the aim of the Council was to make the Church effective to meet the demands and problems of the modern age and to unite her with it to actively evangelize the world, not of course the spirit of the age, and to proclaim the Gospel with that in mind. And since the Council was not necessarily apolegetic, as was Trent and VI, and was clearly and mostly a pastoral Council, you will find that is what the Post-Conciliar Church is pre-eminently addressing. Now we have seen a shift toward the left instead of balance and we have seen many hurt Catholics who have either left the Communion of the Church based upon a need for prior usages or have remained within her bosom, but yet are in deep pain.

I think what Pope John Paul II is trying to do is create a grand synthesis of the pastoral and the dogmatic: i.e. balance. To meet the modern world with a relevant Church and yet to remain ever dynamically Orthodox. That I believe has been his apostolate ever since the beginning of his Pontificate.

I hope that helps you some with the seeming perplexities involved here, and be assured of my prayers for your peace of mind.

In Mary,

Robert

[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: Robert ]

David,

I am sorry if some of us are having trouble understanding you. Let me give it my best shot.

yes, the term "ecumenical" refers to dialogue among Christians. It gets misused in the popular press sometimes. I find in official statements they are quite percise, using the term 'interfaith' with the Muslims.

You are right that the Holy Father has said that Islam and Christians follow the same God. You ask "Is this binding on all Catholics?" What does binding mean? Will the Holy Inqusition be sent into your home if you say to the contrary? No. Both Muslims and Christian believe in one God. This seems a self-evident statement.

In addition to not understanding your use of the term "binding", I don't understand "political correctness". What does that mean?

We do know that ecumenical activity is the Truth, because Christ prayered that all may be one.

K.

Dear All,

I believe that we must be true to who we are and are called to be. We cannot bear witness to others if we lose who we are. To me that means we must be honest about our likenesses and differences.

Most of us who post here, have been told over and over that we are alive to try grow in love. As Christians we are challenged to allow God make us more like Christ who loves us.

We have to be honest; we are required to love the others with whom we share the pilgrimage, as Jesus does. We are commanded to do it in a way that shows that we love ourselves so that we can love others as we love ourselves.

It is appropriate to know what it is that we engage in. Dialogue can be ecumenical or inter-faith. It is good to know that. But the reality of what we do is greater than what we call it.

In reality, it is important that we speak with eachother in a way that shares the truth that makes us who we are. We can disagree about the truth that we share, but we should not belittle the truth sharer by mocking the truth that makes him to be him or the religion that teaches it to him.

God is sharing His Truth; it is Infinite Truth. It is not relativism to say that each of the major religions represented in our discussions here makes the claim that it is the final and best expression of that Truth. It is relativism to say that truth is equally represented in each case. We Catholic Christians and Ortrhodox Christians and Protestant Christians know by faith that God became man and speaks to us in Jesus, the Christ. That does not mean that God cannot show Himself to us in the person of our brother or sisters of other communities or even in the behavior of communities besides our own. We are limited to our truth; God is not. God is working everywhere.

St. Benedict opens his rule with the word Asculte, listen! When we listen in love, we are enabled, ISTM, to hear the God whom we know to the degree that He has given each of us the ability to know Him.

When we dialogue and speak the truth that makes each of us to be who we are; when we listen to our sister in love; God might be leading us to see more clearly the Truth that He is. He can use ecumenical and interfaith dialogue to His advantage. The bottom line is the love with which we speak to each other.

It is truly sad to think that some people will not dialogue with eachother and say that they refuse to do so in His name. It is even more sad when one who does engage in dialogue does so simply to speak and prove a point and does so at the expense of another religion. I'm not sure that God has a chance to be heard then.

It is hard to listen without forming our answer before the speaker has finished speaking. It is the only way to Listen to God. He is the Truth and speaks to us in many ways.

Ubi amor, ibi deus est!
(Where there is love, God is there!)

In Christmas Joy! Merry Christmas!
Steve

Roman Catholic,

Nobody knows God. With that said then how can we know that our God is the true God?

Could you elaborate? I'm fairly certain that I do not agree, nor does the Church. But, please explain.

Dan Lauffer

As'salam aleikhum!

I, for one, know full well that Catholics, Orthodox, and other Christians believe that their faith is the true faith. I understand that and certainly never argue the point since it would be a senseless act.

It seems to me that His Holiness bacame more active with interfaith relations with Muslims during and after the bloody and genocidal Yugoslav/Bosnian war. I believe he, like almost all Europeans and many North Americans, was almost incredulous that the evil spirit of ethnic cleansing could reappear in Europe. It must have seemed to His Holiness that the lessons of WWII and Hitlerism were lost on at least some Europeans. He must have been grieved beyond measure to see a part of his European homeland ( and a Slavic one ) sink into such barbarity.

Those who claim that His Holiness is part of a grand conspiracy to create a syncretistic "One World Religion" are rediculous and paranoid. He certainly believes that Catholicism is--unequivically--the True Faith. But he also knows that Europe, America, even Latin America, have rapidly growing Islamic communities (even in Italy) and his dream is that we begin to speak to one another NOW so that we might live together--in peace--in the FUTURE.

May the One True God save us from repeating the lethal mistakes of the past. We must learn to live together.

Thank you for your hospitality.

Abdur

[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: Abdur Islamovic ]

Dan Lauffer

Oh Please! The Pope relies on faith that Pope Clement actually lived and was really a Pope. Somebody could have forged documents in 300 AD that claim they where written in 100 AD. Basically, we must trust somebody some where in the chain. This all boils down to faith. If we had HARD physical evidence for the Church then there would not be any other religions. (The closest thing the church has was the shroud which Carbon 14 dates to the middle ages.)

Don't turn this arguement into something it is not please...