Ecumenism is the opposite of pornography, easy to define but you are never sure when you are actually seeing it.
Last week a group of Jewish leaders were gnashing their teeth because the Church said that the one of the purposes of ecumenism is sharing the gospel.
Jewish groups said they interpret the new document to mean that the bishops view interfaith dialogue as a chance to invite Jews to become Catholic. The Jewish leaders said they “pose no objection” to Christians sharing their faith, but said dialogue with Jews becomes “untenable” if the goal is to persuade Jews to accept Christ as their savior.
“A declaration of this sort is antithetical to the very essence of Jewish-Christian dialogue as we have understood it,” Jewish leaders said in a letter to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The signers were the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and rabbis representing the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform movements.
The statement fueling the tension was issued by the bishops in June to clarify a 2002 document called “Covenant and Mission.” The bishops said the earlier document mistakenly played down the importance of sharing the Gospel and was therefore misleading.
The temptation to say “so what?” is very great as the dissatisfied in this case are a perennial crop. Leaving them aside, perhaps it is time to better define ecumenism so that in the future we can recognize it when we see it. In a recent interview Monsignor Brunero Gherardini lamented a …
“misguided ecumenism, in search of what unites, rather than of what divides. … We entered into a new spirit of conciliation, adaptation, resignation, wary of other people’s preconditions, almost as though we believed, perhaps without admitting it, that the truth was on the other side.
Amen, what passed for ecumenism the last years was far from it. Right thinking ecumenism clarifies differences, it does not blur them.
Let me put it in this simple way. Ecumenism is like building bridges. When many people think of bridges they think of a support structure designed to get people from one side to the other, from their side to yours. This is certainly a key goal of ecumenism for those headed generally in the same direction. But bridges also serve another critical function. They enable those going in a completely different direction to pass under or over safely without crashing into you. This is an equally worthwhile purpose. So too ecumenism.
So that is the dual purpose of Ecumenism. To enable those headed in your direction to find their way across the divide or for those going in a completely different direction to pass by safely. Either way, it is important that everyone agree on which side of the road we should all drive.
August 26, 2009 at 4:13 am
In this connection there is a recent article in HPR that is interesting. Here is an excerpt:
'What, then, is supersessionism? The word designates the traditional Christian belief that the covenant between God and the People of Israel, established through the mediation of Moses at Mount Sinai, has been replaced or superseded by the “New Covenant” of Jesus Christ. This implies that the Mosaic covenant, with its ritual and dietary requirements, Sabbath observance, etc., is no longer valid for the Jewish people, since God’s revealed will is for Jews, as well as Gentiles, to enter into the New Covenant by baptism and faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah.'
(Rev. Brian W. Harrison, “The Catholic liturgy and ‘supersessionism’”, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, June 2009, p. 20.)
August 26, 2009 at 4:54 am
Ecumenism can be very positive and constructive in the sense that it gives both sides to either validate or negate prejudices and preconceptions they were brought up with. If a Catholic were brought up to think that Jews believed Jesus never existed or if Jews believed Catholics thought all Jews were devils then this is a good place to start. But the end game from a Catholic point of view should NEVER have been "Hey, you believe in something that makes you feel good and happy, and so do we. So, see? We're all basically the same." Gratefully, it appears this errant message is now being thrown in the bin along with the liturgical dancewear.
What really upsets me is when Christians (Catholics among them) view Jews as some kind of protected minority that should never be approached, like some stone-age tribe in the Amazon that must be kept in their original state perpetually. Who cares if we now have medicine and aid to prevent countless deaths and diseases within that tribe? At least they're still quaint and anthropoligists can turn a buck making documentaries. Jewish culture has a lot of good in it, but a lot of bad as well (you know, the stuff Jesus wrote us about?) Letting them know that sins CAN be forgiven, that they don't need to rely on archaic laws that distroy families, that there is a higher morality that applies to the world/humanity and not just them as a group is also part of the gospel. Even if they just accept those pieces of it they would be better off.
August 26, 2009 at 8:32 am
On ecumenism and the ecumenical movement, let me paraphrase a homily by a visiting Maltese priest in San Francisco many years ago:
"Once upon a time, a Catholic priest, a Jewish rabbi, and a Protestant minister went on a mission to a remote island of cannibals to convert the natives.
The cannibals caught the missionaries soon enough, bound them in a single bundle, and plunked them into a caldron of boiling oil until they were fried crisp. All the people of the village came out to party, even inviting those from the neighboring villages. The deep-fried missionary dish was a hit and a good time was had by all.
The next morning, everybody in the village and their neighbors raced one another for the outhouses and the bushes.
That was a real ecumenical movement."
August 26, 2009 at 10:43 am
Why ecumenism?
“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me." (John 17: 20, 21) – imho
August 26, 2009 at 12:39 pm
You know, in my talks with Christians and even agnostics and atheists, I find that most don't have problems with the Church's teachings, mostly they problems with the misinformation being promulgated about the Faith.
How did Fulton Sheen say it?
"You can find 10,000 people who don't agree with what they think the Church teaches, but not even 10 to disagree with what the Church actually teaches."
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how Jews view Messianic Jews? Do they accept them with their beliefs? Or do they reject them? I've not heard the Jewish response to this religion, so I was just curious.
August 26, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Patty: It depends on the Jewish person and where he is in the spectrum of Judiasm i.e. orthodox, conservative or reformed and where he is at all i.e. USA, Israel, Brazil… – imho
August 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Patty from what I have seen the Messianic Jews and Orthodox/Chassidic Jews don't like each other one bit (in Israel I'm talking firebombing buildings). There are a number of youtube videos showing either side baiting or wronging the other. Personally, I think they are both brainwashed cults. The only Jews who seem to think with any rational or logical nature are the Reform and Conservative Jews. They tend not to carry "we're the chosen people so we can do what we want to others" type baggage.
August 26, 2009 at 7:57 pm
I do not know much about Reform or Conservative theology but to what extent are they "real" Jews? I mean, do they believe in the coming of a personal Messiah? The tough thing with Judaism is there is no magisterium (any more) to say what is what
August 26, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Seminarian, very true. Judaism is very much like Protestantism; you can find pretty much anything you want at one end of the spectrum or another. The "chief rabbis" (one for the Azkhenazim and another for the Sephardim) of Jerusalem settle all disputes on who is or isn't a "real" Jew as you put it (a very important question as it pertains to ones citizenship in Israel). But once they step out of Israel, their authority doesn't extend beyond their own noses. The other Jewish "schools" (i.e. Chassidic, Reform, Conservative etc) simply trace their teachings back to individuals who founded their congregations in their particular countries. And again, each country (or even city depending on the Jewish population) may have "chief rabbis" (once again, one for Azkenazim and one for Sephardim), but the post is merely titular. Meaning the Chassidim only recognize the authority of the leader of their particular community, and many times this is a blood decendent of the founder of the group which usually dates back a few centuries to somewhere in Eastern Europe. The Satmar community is the most notorious and "David Koresh-like" in their wacko beliefs, closed-off nature and tales of abuse. So, to answer you, each community has its own view of the coming Messiah. The Messianic Jews (formerly "Jews for Jesus") are convinced it was in fact Jesus, but they still think of themselves as Jews culturally, ethnically (this is a big deal) and religiously.
August 26, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Re: " how Jews view Messianic Jews? Do they accept them with their beliefs? Or do they reject them? I've not heard the Jewish response (Patty in CT)
…In response, Jews have created several organizations to combat Jews for Jesus and other messianic organizations.
“Jews for Judaism” and "“Outreach Judaism” are non-denominational organizations that fight against missionaries and cults who are seeking to convert Jews. These Jewish outreach organizations do not try to convert Christians to Judaism, but rather, they focus on educating Jews about their own heritage. The organizations offer classes, counseling, and another perspective for Jews who have been persuaded by Christian missionary organizations. "Jews for Judaism" uses some of its rival's tactics, and disproves the idea of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah by using excerpts from the New Testament.
The Israeli Supreme Court also made clear its feelings on Jews for Jesus as it applies to eligibility for aliyah. While all Jews are eligible to receive Israeli citizenship, the Supreme Court determined that Jews for Jesus are not actually Jews, as belief in Jesus as the Messiah is not a Jewish value. Rather, they said, Jews for Jesus "marks the clear separation between Judaism and Christianity" (1993).
Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Jews_for_Jesus.html
August 26, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Rick it's a bit more complicated than that. All anyone needs in order to make Aliyah is to prove they have a Jewish Grand-mother. That's it. They themselves can be Buddhist, Messianic, Christian or atheist (which about 35% are). The case you are citing has to do with people who claim aliyah solely due to their "conversion" or faith. Meaining, if a Christian decides to join "Jews for Jesus" and calll himself a Jew, the state of Israel would not accept this and grant citizenship. This is why I said being "ethnically" Jewish is a big deal there.
A case in point is the rash of Neo-Nazis in Israel that was in the news last year. In all cases, these neo-Nazis were "ethnically" Jewish in that they were born from a maternal Jewish Grandmother and thus their family could imigrate to Israel from Russia/Georgia/Ukrain/Romania etc, but were neither raised or self-identified as being Jewish.
Israel, like China, is set to implode within a few generations. All we can do is sit back and watch the fireworks when it happens.
August 26, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Here are my thoughts on "ecumenism":
http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/07/23/ecumenism-ecumenism/
Enjoy!
August 26, 2009 at 11:20 pm
When I first heard of the ecumenical movement and ecumenism it was the late 1960s. I was a college student, and still a Protestant at that time. Back then, it was understood that "ecumenical dialogue" occurred between Christians of different confessions. Dialogue between Christians and members of non-Christian religions was called "interfaith dialogue", and different rules and goals applied. Is this distinction no longer operative? It seems like a very useful one.
August 27, 2009 at 3:33 am
Wow! Thanks for the great info guys!
August 27, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Ecumenism doesn't have anything to do with our relationship with Jews.
Ecumenism is about the relationship between and among those who are Christians, who are called by Our Lord to be one as He and the Father are One.
There are valid issues and questions about the Church's relationship with the Jewish people, but these issues and questions don't fall under the heading of ecumenism.
Discussion with /relationship with Buddhists and Hindus is not ecumenism either.
Susan Peterson
August 28, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Ms. Peterson,
I think you are right that ecumenism is technically a term reserved for the "relationship" with other Christians; if my memory serves, "inter-religious dialogue" is the expression used for talks, etc., with non-Christian religions. But surely it is not such a problem if we sometimes use "ecumenism" is a shorthand, or synecdoche perhaps, for dialogue and relations with non-Catholics in general. In any case, even ecumenism in the strict sense still has lots of difficulty because even well-meaning ecumenically-minded Catholics sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that the unity of the Church is somethhing that still needs to be achieved: when in reality, the Church is alreay and essentially one. The fact that non-Catholics do not belong to the Church is a tragedy but that does not mean that the Church is not already one.
August 30, 2009 at 7:00 am
Seminarian
I don't like blurring the line between ecumenism and inter-religious dialog, because with Buddhists we can only hope to have peace and understanding, but with other Christians we can hope to be reunited.
I also disagree with your unqualified statement that "non-Catholics do not belong to the Church." It is very clear from the Decree on Ecumenism that while non Catholic Christians are not fully united to the Catholic Church, they are to some degree united to her by their baptism. Their churches and ecclesial communities are a means of grace for them. And I think you will see that if sanctifying grace is alive in their souls, if they are Christ's, they they are part of His Body, which is the Church.
Susan Peterson
August 31, 2009 at 3:24 am
Dear Ms. Peterson,
"I don't like blurring the line between ecumenism and inter-religious dialog, because with Buddhists we can only hope to have peace and understanding, but with other Christians we can hope to be reunited."
I am confident that both among Protestants and among Buddhists – or Jews or atheists or anyone else – there are rational people of good will who could be convinced of the claims of the Catholic Church. Thus I hope for "reunion" with all of them, not just peace. Within the context of civil society no doubt there are many good things on which Catholics and non-Catholics can cooperate; but on the spiritual plane I am sure we all agree that we wish for Protestants and Buddhists and everyoe else to become Catholics. It is, I think, important to underline this truth taught by Pius XII: "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing" (Humani generis, 27). Individual Protestants certainly in virtue of their baptism and their "faith in Christ" may have a certain orientation to the Church, which – assuming they are invincibly ignorant of the truth – may suffice to save them, when joined with an act of perfect contrition. But I think it is essential to underline the fact that non-Catholic DENOMINATIONS, as such, are not part of the Church. I worry that ecumenism leads some people to conclude that it is possible to achieve "reunion among Christians" by a CORPORATE union of the Catholic Church (which IS already "the Church" all by herself) with Protestant denominations. I admit with the Orthodox churches the situation is somewhat different, as one could negotiate in favour of a corporate union (as was already tried at Lyons II, I think, and Florence), since those Churches have a validly ordained hierarchy which could indeed be "grafted back" on to the Church, from which they separated so long ago. But when it comes to Protestantism, the only way for "reunion" to be effected is for individual Protestants to become Catholics.
"Their churches and ecclesial communities are a means of grace for them." I think the proper way to understand this would be with this phrase of Newman's : "We do not think it necessary to carp at every instance of supernatural excellence among Protestants when it comes before us, or to explain it away; all we know is, that the grace given them is intended ultimately to bring them into the Church, and if it is not tending to do so, it will not ultimately profit them" ('Anglican Difficulties', Lecture 3).
August 31, 2009 at 3:29 am
"I also disagree with your unqualified statement that 'non-Catholics do not belong to the Church.'"
Yes, the expression "belongs to" is unfortunately vague and I should have avoided it. I should have said, "non-Catholics are not MEMBERS of the Church". St Robert Bellarmine explains, in a formula admitted into the magisterium by Pius XII in 'Mystici corporis', that only they are to be considered as "members of the Church" those who are baptised, profess the Catholic faith, and are in union with the legitimate hierarchy.
In order to be saved a person must appertain to the Church "in fact or in desire". Only actual members, as defined above, belong to the Church "in fact"; but under certain circumstances Protestants may "appertain", as it were, to the Church through desire, and thus be saved.
August 31, 2009 at 5:30 am
"For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. "
"all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,"
"some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, "
"The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace…
These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation."
"It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation"
I freely admit that I have omitted some qualifying phrases which say that these graces properly belong to the Catholic Church and lead towards it.
I did so, so that what is asserted in these sentences from the Decree on Ecumenism,-the teaching of an ecumenical council-would stand out more clearly.
I don't see the word "appertain" anywhere.
Susan Peterson