Ecumenism? What do you think?

i agree with you Maria.Ecumenism is a trick of the new age...something like the trojan horse in church.we love all people yes thats true but we cant forget our Holy fatthers say about our faith. we must defend our religion

i agree with you Maria.Ecumenism is a trick of the new age...something like the trojan horse in church.we love all people yes thats true but we cant forget our Holy fatthers say about our faith. we must defend our religion

well, when it comes to protestants, I think it's pretty much impossible. Maybe some of the older ones like Episcopal, but I don't know. With the Catholics, it's totally different, though. Fact is, most Catholic churches (with the exception of some of them in America...) haven't changed much at all since the time of the Great Schism. Back then, and even as far back as the 6th Century (and possibly older). This was perfectly acceptable with the Church then, and there is no reason it couldn't be now, too (like Western Rite Orthodox). There were plenty of other differences between the East and the West back then, many of which still exist today, but they didn't cause a problem back then, and there's no reason they should now.Of course there are other issues too: The Filioque, for one. This would have to be dropped by the Catholic Church. It started in the 4th Century, by some bishops in Spain, but all the Popes condemned it until about 1000 A.D. Another thing the Catholic Church would have to drop is Purgatory. This is a rather difficult subject, because it's not very clearly defined. Pope John Paul II defined purgatory not as a place, but more as a state of existence. However, the general Catholic belief is that it is a third place in between heaven and hell. It first originated with the idea of praying for the dead, that it would help them, which Judas Machabees did the Old Testament. It was further complemented by St. Paul's epistle to the Corrinthians: If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Although the idea of a third place, purgatory, had not yet come into existence, these ideas are what it sprung from, sometime in the 3rd-4th Century. Papal supremacy was the other main reason for the split. There are many reasons why the Pope shouldn't be higher than the others, and all it will take is a Pope who is humble enough to see that. Christ wanted his church to be Universal, and while we are all split, we don't make much of a message to the world. There are a few obstacles to overcome, but all it takes is people who are willing to try to do it!

I think 'ecumenism' is a word that Orthodox Christians shudder at - about the same way as Evangelical protestants shudder when they hear about 'venerating an icon' Like Maria said - there's nothing wrong with dialogue. Likewise there's nothing wrong with working together to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the widows and orphans. There is no compromise of faith when giving a cup of cold water in Jesus' name along side of someone who does it for personal recognition and self promotion. I have many friends who have not embraced Othodoxy as I have. They are OK with my decision, but since salvation is a highly individualized thing in Protestantism, they recognize this as MY decision - and tell me that it's not necessarily for them. (I secretly say to them: well, it's not your decision YET.) I always find comfort when this scripture from John 10 is read: 14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

actually, grelihm, they haven't changed much at all. Their services haven't changed at all, really, and last I checked, repentance was still neccisary for salvation in the Catholic church. What ehavior are you talking about? Be more specific. But believe it or not, I have met lots of Catholics (and even Protestants) who are much more spiratual and serious about their faith than many Orthodox people I know. You can't really have a true oppinion on something until you look at it from a completely unbiased point of view.

I didn't say they hadn't changed at all, it's just that they haven't changed a whole lot since the Schism. I just don't think it's so far out that reconciliation is out of question. I try not to make preconceptions, I'm just trying to find the truth in everything here. you knew my mom? lol, that's kinda funny. I'll tell her I ran across you, but I doubt she remembers you...

Thanks for that article, grelimh. It was a very interesting read. Unfortunately most Catholics (and most Orthodox too) don't search deep enough into their faith to find things like this. The article you posted in your previous post (orthodoxinfo) is basically what I believe from beginning to end. That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness. That sounds exactly like what the Orthodox say about their church, though. I believe that the Orthodox Church has made errors over the centuries, and to reunite with Rome, the Orthodox Church would have to be humble enough to admit their faults, as well as accept Rome's apology.

Just what kind of errors are you referring too? Doctrine? Behavior? Please be more specific.

mostly behavior. Orthodox Doctrine is very sound.

There has never been any major or Church-wide abuse. The Church has never justified theologicaly or otherwise anything of the kind that has been seen in the West. Those bishops who have sanctioned such behavior have been generally held accountable. Patriarch Nikon is an example. He openly imitated the western church, burning Old Believers at the stake, centralizing his power etc. For his sins he was dethroned and Anethematized at a Church Council. No post schism pope has ever been held accountable, though many are guilty of far more extensive sins. In Christ, John

Alright, you know much more about the Catholic church than I do, I'll admit that you're right. However, that does not stop me from being a firm supporter of ecumenism, no matter how unlikely it may be.

The problem with ecumenism as we and I, currently understand it, is that at some point there will come the subtle but definite insistence, that there be a commonality of beliefs. The unspoken chaffing here is the call for the Church to present a \"united front\" to society so as not to be relegated to the bearable nuisance category with it\'s insistence upon salvation in Jesus Christ.

Thanks, Lizabeth for this great information!

Wouldn\'t a widespread understanding and compliance with the teachings of the Seven ECUMENICAL Councils be a good place to start for catholicity with the West? And an Orthodox evangelism which included a thorough Orthodox response to the ALLEGED other fourteen councils of Roman Catholicism? If the Orthodox stated what is Orthodox in these papal councils, and what is not, it could heal some difference between the Orthodox Patriarchs and the Patriarch of Rome? Also needed would be a council that dealt with at least most of the Protestant catechisms and confessions, such as 1 LUTHERAN 2 ANGLICAN 3 CALVINIST PRESBYTERIAN REFORMED 4 METHODIST 5 BAPTIST Take care. Always, SCOTT HARRINGTON

People are vague about \"ecumenism.\" I am going to avoid the word, and hopefully I will make myself clear. I think we should always be willing to sit and break bread with anyone. Christ celebrated the Passover with Judas, and Judas wanted to kill Christ. Paul condemned Peter to his face because Peter wouldn\'t sit with people who held different beliefs than him (i.e., circumcision doesn\'t matter), even though Peter held those beliefs at one time. The Gospels do not teach that we merely hold particular beliefs, but that we bear fruit, and that you can know a tree by its fruit. We can thank God for not making us like the Catholic, Protestant, New Ager, or we can beg God to have mercy on *us*.