Ecumenism Among Christians and Mainstream Religions

peakpilgrim

In an increasing Secular Society Ecumenism among Christians, and Mainstream Organised Religions should be a priority.

Personally I think so but how do we go about it?

philologos

Ecumenism only refers to Christianity. Interfaith dialogue for the rest. I think it's a good idea, not because we are in a "secular society", I'm becoming more and more convinced that we live in a multi-faith pluralism rather than a secular society, but because we are called to do as Christ did relate to people and to share the Gospel in a meaningful way.

secularism - "of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations"

When we engage interfaith dialogue, and when we engage in ecumenism we aren't seeking to reject religion or religious considerations, rather we are seeking to celebrate it, and it's role in providing for positive relations and a positive environment around us.

postcynical

peakpilgrim wrote: »

In an increasing Secular Society Ecumenism among Christians, and Mainstream Organised Religions should be a priority.

Personally I think so but how do we go about it?

Agreed. I find this forum quite helpful. Ecumenism will arise naturally from Christians giving witness to each other sincerely. My faith is challenged and often brought to better intellectual maturity by many of the views I read here from Protestant posters.

This will have a spill-on effect in the real world.

Apart from Judaism, I've no faith-based interest in other religions so I disagree with that part of your assertion. Politically though, I guess it could be a good thing for society.

peakpilgrim

postcynical wrote: »

Agreed. I find this forum quite helpful. Ecumenism will arise naturally from Christians giving witness to each other sincerely. My faith is challenged and often brought to better intellectual maturity by many of the views I read here from Protestant posters.

This will have a spill-on effect in the real world.

Apart from Judaism, I've no faith-based interest in other religions so I disagree with that part of your assertion. Politically though, I guess it could be a good thing for society.

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that other Christian Faiths and Mainstream Religions are alternative routes to God.

A Moslem, for instance, brought up in the Islamic tradition may hear about the Catholic Church but their family tradition, and political considerations, will prevent them from joining the Church.

They are, then, capable of gaining Eternal Life through 'Invincible Ignorance' as it is called; having a pure heart and a clear conscience.

philologos

peakpilgrim wrote: »

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that other Christian Faiths and Mainstream Religions are alternative routes to God.

A Moslem, for instance, brought up in the Islamic tradition may hear about the Catholic Church but their family tradition, and political considerations, will prevent them from joining the Church.

They are, then, capable of gaining Eternal Life through 'Invincible Ignorance' as it is called; having a pure heart and a clear conscience.

I think many would disagree with you here.

I personally would hold the view that there is only one way to God the Father, and that is through His son Jesus Christ. (John 14:6)

You claim that if a Muslim hears the Gospel and rejects it they will receive eternal life through "Invincible Ignorance". However if they have heard the Gospel, they are no longer ignorant, they know full well what Christianity is and what the options are for them. (Mark 16:15-16)

We are also told that others who try to find a way to eternal life by a different path will be found to be a thief and a bandit. (John 10:1)

It's important that we get the message across without compromising it in my view. I'm just wondering, if you hold the views that you do, how can you justify them in light of the current Scriptures in favour of an alternative view to your own?

peakpilgrim

Jakkass wrote: »

I think many would disagree with you here.

I personally would hold the view that there is only one way to God the Father, and that is through His son Jesus Christ. (John 14:6)

You claim that if a Muslim hears the Gospel and rejects it they will receive eternal life through "Invincible Ignorance". However if they have heard the Gospel, they are no longer ignorant, they know full well what Christianity is and what the options are for them. (Mark 16:15-16)

We are also told that others who try to find a way to eternal life by a different path will be found to be a thief and a bandit. (John 10:1)

It's important that we get the message across without compromising it in my view. I'm just wondering, if you hold the views that you do, how can you justify them in light of the current Scriptures in favour of an alternative view to your own?

The views I have expressed are those of the Catholic Church as I understand them.

The sections of scripture that you quote have to be taken in context and can be interpreted differently.

For instance the laws pertaining to Catholics regarding excommunication apply to catholics only; Baptised in the Faith.

If you have a clear conscience about what you have stated above then you are entitled to that view; but I disagree with you.

What you are asking the Moslem to do is to betray his family and his traditions to listen to your interpretation of scripture. Why would God have put him in this position?

This is similar to the Amazon Head-Hunter who has never met anyone from the outside world and has never heard The Truth of Christ; he is one of God's children too. Why would God have put him in this position; especially if the individual was pure of heart and had a clear conscience?

However; this is a classic example of where difference of opinion between Christians could interfere with Ecumenism; in which case we would have to agree to disagree and move on to the next subject; for the time being at least.

philologos

I'm just curious as to what other interpretation Jesus would have had for them?

The rules of Catholicism may pertain only to Catholicism, I don't have an issue with that. However, I do believe what Jesus says is the truth, and is binding on those who hear it. As for why the Muslim was put in that situation, it's also clear that they have means of getting out of that situation with missionary contact. I would agree that those who do not hear the Gospel at all will be judged on the merits of their actions. I don't see how God could possibly apply judgement on those who haven't known or heard. However if people have heard, they have an opportunity to accept or reject the Gospel surely?

Interfaith dialogue is important, however I don't believe Christians should compromise the Gospel while doing so.

postcynical

I echo Jakkas' query here. Also, the case of somebody rejecting Christ's message for cultural reasons is different to that of the "ignorant headhunters". Most practicing Christians reject the cultural norms of our friends and family to follow Christ.

Matthew 10:34 wrote:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

PDN

As far as ecumenism is concerned, I'm all for Christians of different traditions attempting to understand one another and learn from one another. I believe many different churches and denominations have strengths and emphases that we alll can learn from. What I wish to avoid like the plague is the kind of ecumenism where we all try to be the same and lose our distinctives in a bland fluffy kind of lowest-common-denominator Christianity.

I see little point in inter-faith stuff since different religions have mutually contradictory ideas of God. Jesus Christ is the only way to God, so why pretend otherwise?

peakpilgrim

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm just curious as to what other interpretation Jesus would have had for them?

The rules of Catholicism may pertain only to Catholicism, I don't have an issue with that. However, I do believe what Jesus says is the truth, and is binding on those who hear it. As for why the Muslim was put in that situation, it's also clear that they have means of getting out of that situation with missionary contact. I would agree that those who do not hear the Gospel at all will be judged on the merits of their actions. I don't see how God could possibly apply judgement on those who haven't known or heard. However if people have heard, they have an opportunity to accept or reject the Gospel surely?

Interfaith dialogue is important, however I don't believe Christians should compromise the Gospel while doing so.

My understanding of that verse, as far as Catholics are concerned, is that you cannot 'cherry-pick' Catholism; ie; accept some parts of The Church and not others; the road is the road for Catholics.

peakpilgrim

PDN wrote: »

As far as ecumenism is concerned, I'm all for Christians of different traditions attempting to understand one another and learn from one another. I believe many different churches and denominations have strengths and emphases that we alll can learn from. What I wish to avoid like the plague is the kind of ecumenism where we all try to be the same and lose our distinctives in a bland fluffy kind of lowest-common-denominator Christianity.

I see little point in inter-faith stuff since different religions have mutually contradictory ideas of God. Jesus Christ is the only way to God, so why pretend otherwise?

Hi PDN; and how are you today?

I disagree with you concerning 'Interfaith Dialogue' as it is called (Surprise! Surprise!)

But you are entitled to your opinion if those views are sincerely held?

philologos

peakpilgrim wrote: »

My understanding of that verse, as far as Catholics are concerned, is that you cannot 'cherry-pick' Catholism; ie; accept some parts of The Church and not others; the road is the road for Catholics.

Let us assume that is true. Why would people be regarded as thieves and bandits for trying to enter the Kingdom of God by another path?

Also what does Matthew chapter 7 mean when it refers to the following:

Matthew 7:13-14 wrote:

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

I'm just confused at your reasoning from a Biblical level.

peakpilgrim

postcynical wrote: »

I echo Jakkas' query here. Also, the case of somebody rejecting Christ's message for cultural reasons is different to that of the "ignorant headhunters". Most practicing Christians reject the cultural norms of our friends and family to follow Christ.

I take your point; especially in modern times it is difficult to keep on the straight and narrow with so many outside influences.

however; for the Moslem, for instance, unless he is searching for something missing in his life Christianity is, often, just going to be lot of background noise; especially if he is happy in his family's tradition and has been turned off from investigating further due to, say, political mistrust; you are not going to get through to him and thats not his fault; thats the fault of the environment in which he has grown up; which he has no reason to mistrust.

So the parallels are very similar to the Head-Hunter.

peakpilgrim

Jakkass wrote: »

Let us assume that is true. Why would people be regarded as thieves and bandits for trying to enter the Kingdom of God by another path?

Also what does Matthew chapter 7 mean when it refers to the following:


I'm just confused at your reasoning from a Biblical level.

Thieves and Bandits: They only take what they want from The Catholic Church not what God wants which is their full commitment to the teachings of The Church.

The Big Gate/ Narrow Gate : Christianity is not, necessarily, an easy path.

Húrin

peakpilgrim wrote: »

What you are asking the Moslem to do is to betray his family and his traditions to listen to your interpretation of scripture. Why would God have put him in this position?

Jesus called many people away to follow him. Look at what Paul did. He gave up everything to follow Christ and his life on earth in many ways became hell for it.

This is similar to the Amazon Head-Hunter who has never met anyone from the outside world and has never heard The Truth of Christ; he is one of God's children too. Why would God have put him in this position; especially if the individual was pure of heart and had a clear conscience?

This is completely different. The Bible doesn't tell us what happens to such people. We don't know. It is pointless pretending that we do.

postcynical

peakpilgrim wrote: »

however; for the Moslem, for instance, unless he is searching for something missing in his life Christianity is, often, just going to be lot of background noise; especially if he is happy in his family's tradition and has been turned off from investigating further due to, say, political mistrust; you are not going to get through to him and thats not his fault; thats the fault of the environment in which he has grown up; which he has no reason to mistrust.

So the parallels are very similar to the Head-Hunter.

There is very little value in inter-faith dialogue with the hypothetical Moslem that you describe.

I have enjoyed amicable and illuminating conversations with Moslems, especially in Palestine. I admire their devoutness and their respectful attitude to Jesus but I'll leave it to God/Allah to sort out our theological differences as they are fundamentally irreconcilable.

peakpilgrim

PDN wrote: »

As far as ecumenism is concerned, I'm all for Christians of different traditions attempting to understand one another and learn from one another. I believe many different churches and denominations have strengths and emphases that we alll can learn from. What I wish to avoid like the plague is the kind of ecumenism where we all try to be the same and lose our distinctives in a bland fluffy kind of lowest-common-denominator Christianity.

I see little point in inter-faith stuff since different religions have mutually contradictory ideas of God. Jesus Christ is the only way to God, so why pretend otherwise?

Hi

This is a link to a Theological Argument on The Catholic Church's position on
'Salvation outside The Church'.

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.5/coverstory.html

Though you may disagree, which you are entitled to do, would you still maintain that this is 'fluffy'.

peakpilgrim

Húrin wrote: »

Jesus called many people away to follow him. Look at what Paul did. He gave up everything to follow Christ and his life on earth in many ways became hell for it.


This is completely different. The Bible doesn't tell us what happens to such people. We don't know. It is pointless pretending that we do.

What about 'Invincible Ignorance'?

Why did God put them there and leave them ignorant of Christ?

Would it not be unchristian to condemn them?

Surely Salvation for these people is not impossible because nothing is impossible to God?

peakpilgrim

postcynical wrote: »

There is very little value in inter-faith dialogue with the hypothetical Moslem that you describe.

I have enjoyed amicable and illuminating conversations with Moslems, especially in Palestine. I admire their devoutness and their respectful attitude to Jesus but I'll leave it to God/Allah to sort out our theological differences as they are fundamentally irreconcilable.

I agree that the theological differences are considerable; and I am interested that you have actually discussed theology with them; but The Catholic Church's position, as I understand it, is that Salvation for these people is not impossible because nothing is impossible for God.

PDN

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Hi

This is a link to a Theological Argument on The Catholic Church's position on
'Salvation outside The Church'.

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.5/coverstory.html

Though you may disagree, which you are entitled to do, would you still maintain that this is 'fluffy'.

You seem to be confusing two separate issues.

One is that of ecumenical cooperation between different denominations. I have attended a few of these events in the past (comprising Catholic priests, Church of England vicars, and sundry non-conformist clergy) and found them to be more fluffy than a lamb's backside. Lots of polite people smiling at each other, trying dreadfuly hard not to refer to anything doctrinal in case they offended somebody else, and never achieving anything or saying anything worthwhile.

The other issue is that of whether you believe people who have the temerity not to join your own particular church are saved. My own view is that salvation is a result of one's faith in Christ, so you should expect to find true Christians in all kinds of places. I am quite happy in the knowledge that most true Christians are not a part of my particular church or denomination - and I see no need to try to issue any theological justification for something so self-evident.

The Roman Catholic Church's position on this is different in that they have taught for much of their history that people like me (non-Catholic Christians) are heretics and denied the salvation and knowledge of Christ that is only found in the RC Church and only entered into through RC baptism. Now the RC Church has decided that I am a 'separated brother' who, through my obstinate refusal to join their church, experiences a defective form of Christianity where I miss out on much of the true experience of a Christian, cannot be sure that I'm actually saved, but may scrape into eternal life because my Christianity may be valid to the extent to which vestiges of the true Church (Roman Catholicism) linger on in my faith. 'Fluffy' is not a word I would use to describe such a doctrinal position. Patronising and condescending - yes. But fluffy - no.

wolfsbane

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Hi

This is a link to a Theological Argument on The Catholic Church's position on
'Salvation outside The Church'.

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.5/coverstory.html

Though you may disagree, which you are entitled to do, would you still maintain that this is 'fluffy'.

Yes, a good article. It confirms what I had gathered from my reading of The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994). Invincible ignorance and good living in the light of natural law are an alternative way of salvation to repentance and faith in Christ. To be fair, I think it is implied that such folk would have had repentance and faith if they had the opportunity to hear the gospel.

Sounds a very good way to save all the good-living people, the decent folk in every society. But it is not the gospel revealed in the Bible.

The Bible reveals man as wicked, every one of them, and in need of actual repentance and faith. It reveals the world without the gospel as being without God and without hope:
Ephesians 2:12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

If one can be saved without the gospel, there is no need to spend great efforts and sacrifice lives to reach the heathen.

As to the OP, I consider ecumenism ( the sort that is usually meant by that term) to be a compromise of the gospel. It is a making common cause with various sorts of false teachers, something repeatedly condemned in the Bible:
2 John 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

We should only make common cause or join in fellowship with those who truly follow Christ. They may differ from us in many doctrines and practises, but if they hold to the fundamentals of the faith and walk worthy of their calling, then we can call them Brother/Sister.

From what I see of most of the denominational leaders in Britain and Ireland, few are truly Christian. Most have rejected some of the key doctrines of Scripture. We even have so-called Evangelicals like Steve Chalke labelling the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ as 'cosmic child abuse'. Liberalism and unbelief on one side and ritualism on the other. Imagine the apostles having ecumenical gatherings with the Pharisees and Sadducees!

peakpilgrim

PDN wrote: »

You seem to be confusing two separate issues.

One is that of ecumenical cooperation between different denominations. I have attended a few of these events in the past (comprising Catholic priests, Church of England vicars, and sundry non-conformist clergy) and found them to be more fluffy than a lamb's backside. Lots of polite people smiling at each other, trying dreadfuly hard not to refer to anything doctrinal in case they offended somebody else, and never achieving anything or saying anything worthwhile.

The other issue is that of whether you believe people who have the temerity not to join your own particular church are saved. My own view is that salvation is a result of one's faith in Christ, so you should expect to find true Christians in all kinds of places. I am quite happy in the knowledge that most true Christians are not a part of my particular church or denomination - and I see no need to try to issue any theological justification for something so self-evident.

The Roman Catholic Church's position on this is different in that they have taught for much of their history that people like me (non-Catholic Christians) are heretics and denied the salvation and knowledge of Christ that is only found in the RC Church and only entered into through RC baptism. Now the RC Church has decided that I am a 'separated brother' who, through my obstinate refusal to join their church, experiences a defective form of Christianity where I miss out on much of the true experience of a Christian, cannot be sure that I'm actually saved, but may scrape into eternal life because my Christianity may be valid to the extent to which vestiges of the true Church (Roman Catholicism) linger on in my faith. 'Fluffy' is not a word I would use to describe such a doctrinal position. Patronising and condescending - yes. But fluffy - no.

I am certainly not confused

I take it your not into Ecumenism or Inter-faith Dialogue unless people conform to your own interpretation of Scripture.

Anyone who has been unable to hear The Truth of Christ, as you interpret it, is damned? - Yes?

I must admit that I have been brought up in The Catholic Church; one of the reasons for going on-line is for me to understand other Churches.

We in the Christian Faith have far more in common than we disagree on, as recently outlined by The Holy Father; yet we often end up concentrating on those disagreements; with disastrous results for society.

It is small wonder that some people conclude, quite erroneously, that we would be better off without religion.

I have friends who are Muslims and friends who are Protestants; I know them to be good people of good will.

If I was brought up in religion that was prejudiced against other cultures, creeds and points of view and damned all these people to hell because they didn't follow my own narrow interpretations of Scripture then I wouldn't be able to stay with that Church.

These people are all Gods Children; He put them on earth for a reason.

With respect to your continuous attacks on The Catholic Church, you obviously didn't read the article; the areas of dispute in the past have been explained quite clearly in the context that they arose, yet, you continually attack The Church's policies with derogatory remarks.

While you are entitled to your opinion I would appreciate if you would keep your derogatory remarks to yourself.

JimiTime

peakpilgrim wrote: »

With respect to your continuous attacks on The Catholic Church, you obviously didn't read the article; the areas of dispute in the past have been explained quite clearly in the context that they arose, yet, you continually attack The Church's policies with derogatory remarks.

While you are entitled to your opinion I would appreciate if you would keep your derogatory remarks to yourself.

Just curious, but what in PDN's post misrepresented the RCC doctrine? I may be ignorant, but as far as I'm aware, he accurately described the RCC doctrine on the matter at hand?

peakpilgrim

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, a good article. It confirms what I had gathered from my reading of The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994). Invincible ignorance and good living in the light of natural law are an alternative way of salvation to repentance and faith in Christ. To be fair, I think it is implied that such folk would have had repentance and faith if they had the opportunity to hear the gospel.

Sounds a very good way to save all the good-living people, the decent folk in every society. But it is not the gospel revealed in the Bible.

The Bible reveals man as wicked, every one of them, and in need of actual repentance and faith. It reveals the world without the gospel as being without God and without hope:
Ephesians 2:12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

If one can be saved without the gospel, there is no need to spend great efforts and sacrifice lives to reach the heathen.

As to the OP, I consider ecumenism ( the sort that is usually meant by that term) to be a compromise of the gospel. It is a making common cause with various sorts of false teachers, something repeatedly condemned in the Bible:
2 John 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

We should only make common cause or join in fellowship with those who truly follow Christ. They may differ from us in many doctrines and practises, but if they hold to the fundamentals of the faith and walk worthy of their calling, then we can call them Brother/Sister.

From what I see of most of the denominational leaders in Britain and Ireland, few are truly Christian. Most have rejected some of the key doctrines of Scripture. We even have so-called Evangelicals like Steve Chalke labelling the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ as 'cosmic child abuse'. Liberalism and unbelief on one side and ritualism on the other. Imagine the apostles having ecumenical gatherings with the Pharisees and Sadducees!

You have made an intelligent and coherent response here and I am glad that you have actually read The Article.

However, not surprisingly, while I respect your views, I disagree with you fundamentally.

The sections of Scripture which you quote have to be interpreted in the context in which they were delivered; as has been outlined in earlier posts on this thread.

It does not follow that, even if Salvation is possible without the Gospel, we should not try.

It is The Catholic Church's view, as I interpret it, that the clearest route to God, though not an easy one, is through the Church; the alternative is wilderness; alternative roads are full of 'pot-holes', bends, traffic, poor road-signs and those 'pesky' speed cameras; its easier to get lost and end in the wilderness.

I wish you well on your way.

peakpilgrim

JimiTime wrote: »

Just curious, but what in PDN's post misrepresented the RCC doctrine? I may be ignorant, but as far as I'm aware, he accurately described the RCC doctrine on the matter at hand?

'fluffy, patronising and condescending, lazy, absurd, turkey' ..need I go on?

Hey I can get abusive too and, when required, I can be very good at it.

Do we want to reduce this Forum to a slagging match?

JimiTime

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Do we want to reduce this Forum to a slagging match?

Certainly not.

'fluffy, patronising and condescending, lazy, absurd, turkey' ..need I go on?

This is not personal, but I happen to agree with the 'fluffy' description. Also, to a non-catholic Christian, the RCC view on me 'is' quite patronising. Thats not me being derogatory, thats me expressing accurately my feelings about a certain doctrine of the RCC.

Hey I can get abusive too and, when required, I can be very good at it.

PDN's one of the good guys, I think you may have just got off on the wrong foot. Maybe a bit of misunderstanding?

Its good to have another christian contributor here, and if you stick around, I think you'll find it pleasent enough, but with a bit of heat now and again.

philologos

peakpilgrim wrote: »

It does not follow that, even if Salvation is possible without the Gospel, we should not try.

Nobody is saying that we shouldn't try. That's why missionaries exist, so that people can have the opportunity to accept the Gospel as a basis for their lives while they still live. Everyone IMO, should have this opportunity, and I consider it a right.

I don't think wolfsbane was saying we shouldn't evangelise, rather he was saying that if you reject the Gospel upon hearing it you will be made accountable for your sin on the final judgement. If you believe in the Gospel, your sins will be wiped away by the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong wolfsbane.

wolfsbane

Jakkass wrote: »

Nobody is saying that we shouldn't try. That's why missionaries exist, so that people can have the opportunity to accept the Gospel as a basis for their lives while they still live. Everyone IMO, should have this opportunity, and I consider it a right.

I don't think wolfsbane was saying we shouldn't evangelise, rather he was saying that if you reject the Gospel upon hearing it you will be made accountable for your sin on the final judgement. If you believe in the Gospel, your sins will be wiped away by the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong wolfsbane.

I think you misread peakpilgrim's point. I said there was no point evangelising if heathens could be saved without the gospel (which he and the RCC believe). He made the case that it would be easier for them to be saved by hearing the gospel than by the alternative means.

postcynical

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Hi

This is a link to a Theological Argument on The Catholic Church's position on
'Salvation outside The Church'.

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.5/coverstory.html

Though you may disagree, which you are entitled to do, would you still maintain that this is 'fluffy'.

Interesting, but it's only an opinion piece. Is this also your opinion?

postcynical

Here is part of the official Catholic position on other Christian churches.

RCC Catechism wrote:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

Notice the distinction between the usage of 'the one and only church of God' and 'Catholic Church'.

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

(My usage of bold-face). For those skimming the thread, this is my understanding of my church's position. And I understand baptism here not as ritualised paedobaptism but as anyone who willingly accepts Christ.

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines 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, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."

Now if only the penultimate sentence above read 'God's one true church' as opposed to 'Catholic church', my thesis would hang together nicely:rolleyes:

postcynical

The Eucharist is an obvious barrier to unity. However, I think it is productive for all Christians to share in our relationships with Christ. I don't see why we should differ in our fundamental calling to place Christ at the centre of our lives and to live our lives through Him, with Him and in Him.

I accept my church's teaching on the Eucharist, even those aspects with which I am not familiar or cannot understand yet. However, were I to be stranded on a desert island I would not fear for my salvation because I would have to live without the sacraments. So I reject any theory that the sacraments are necessary for salvation.

I'd hate to be stranded as the only man with a load of hot women to whom I wasn't married though...:pac:... or would I;)

PDN

peakpilgrim wrote: »

I take it your not into Ecumenism or Inter-faith Dialogue unless people conform to your own interpretation of Scripture.

No, that isn't true at all.

I think everybody has different interpretations of Scripture on one issue or another. I would happily engage in ecumenical activities where Christian churches recognised and reaffirmed one another's strengths instead of going for a lowest-common-denominator approach. It would be difficult, however, to see how such activities can work if one of the churches involved insists that they are the only true Church and that everybody else's church is invalid.

Interfaith dialogue is a different kettle of fish because you are dealing with other religions, not Christians. It could be useful in addressing social issues, but no more so IMHO than dialogue with atheists or agnostics.

Anyone who has been unable to hear The Truth of Christ, as you interpret it, is damned? - Yes?

No, that is not my position at all - as I have made clear numerous times in this forum. I have repeatedly said that we simply don't know what will happen to people who have never heard the Gospel.

A first step to dialogue would be to listen to what others actually believe instead of foisting your stereotypical assumptions on them.

I must admit that I have been brought up in The Catholic Church; one of the reasons for going on-line is for me to understand other Churches.

In that case you should listen to what they actually believe instead of accusing them of being derogatory because they answer your questions in a way that doesn't agree with you.

If I was brought up in religion that was prejudiced against other cultures, creeds and points of view and damned all these people to hell because they didn't follow my own narrow interpretations of Scripture then I wouldn't be able to stay with that Church.

Neither would I. However, I was brought up as an atheist.

With respect to your continuous attacks on The Catholic Church, you obviously didn't read the article; the areas of dispute in the past have been explained quite clearly in the context that they arose, yet, you continually attack The Church's policies with derogatory remarks.

While you are entitled to your opinion I would appreciate if you would keep your derogatory remarks to yourself.

You ask me a question about what I think of something and then get upset when I answer it truthfully. Given the past history of the RC Church and other forms of Christianity I think I my comments are fairly restrained.

And, speaking as a moderator here, don't you dare try to tell me or any other poster what we can or cannot say on this board!

fluffy, patronising and condescending, lazy, absurd, turkey' ..need I go on?

Not much point in going on if you're not going to be honest.

Of those six terms I can only think of two which I applied to RC teaching ('patronising' and 'condescending') - and that was in response to a direct question where you asked my opinion. 'Fluffy' was directed at ecumenical activities in general, 'lazy' was in reference to tired old media stereotypes about American Christianity, 'turkey' was referring to an atheist who was attacking the Catholic Church and claimed they had burnt Copernicus at the stake, and 'absurd' was addressed at the generalisation that says religion should not mix with politics.

You are entitled to disagree with my posts, and are free to argue against them if you wish. But please try to be truthful when you do so.

postcynical

PDN wrote: »

I think everybody has different interpretations of Scripture on one issue or another. I would happily engage in ecumenical activities where Christian churches recognised and reaffirmed one another's strengths instead of going for a lowest-common-denominator approach. It would be difficult, however, to see how such activities can work if one of the churches involved insists that they are the only true Church and that everybody else's church is invalid.

In the case of the RCC (and I realise from some of your postings that you are not a fan), how do you feel about the position that other churches are 'deficient'? Where deficient here means that they do not recognise the sacraments. Accepting that the sacraments are not essential for all Christians, would you find such a position patronising also? Would you be able to engage in constructive ecumenical discussions with such an institution? Or with its members, who adhered to its teachings?

BTW I agree that the position to which peakpilgrim linked is condescending, but as you affirm above, everyone has their own interpretation of scripture and you would probably agree that everyone has their own understanding of their relationship with God.

philologos

I don't think PDN isn't a fan of the Catholic Church. He prefers his own denominational point of view to that of the Catholic Church. As do I. However, I respect Catholics and Catholicism to be under the greater umbrella of Christianity even if I disagree with a few things.

PDN

postcynical wrote: »

In the case of the RCC (and I realise from some of your postings that you are not a fan), how do you feel about the position that other churches are 'deficient'? Where deficient here means that they do not recognise the sacraments. Accepting that the sacraments are not essential for all Christians, would you find such a position patronising also? Would you be able to engage in constructive ecumenical discussions with such an institution? Or with its members, who adhered to its teachings?

BTW I agree that the position to which peakpilgrim linked is condescending, but as you affirm above, everyone has their own interpretation of scripture and you would probably agree that everyone has their own understanding of their relationship with God.

It would be accurate to say that I am not a fan of the Catholic Church.
I disagree with many RC doctrines and my studies of Church History cause me to be wary of many denominations. However, I feel the RC Church is frequently bashed unfairly by visitors to this forum and most of the outraged PM's I receive are for banning trolls who, in my opinion, were being bigoted and abusive against Catholicism. I also recognise that there are many good and sincere Catholic Christians.

I would engage in ecumenical activities with Catholics where our fundamental points of disagreement are not involved. For example, I have good dialogue with Catholic theologians where we discuss issues in biblical studies etc. However, I wouldn't see the point in, for example, cooperation in evangelism since we disagree on the fundamental issue of how people are actually saved. A fair number of practising Catholics also worship in my church services.

I myself would see churches as 'deficient' if they fail to adhere to fundamental Christian truths (eg the deity of Christ) - but I think that is different from saying that every other church except my own one is deficient. I don't think my own church is the only true church, in fact I don't even believe it is the best church - it's simply the church where I believe God has placed me.

peakpilgrim

PDN wrote: »

No, that isn't true at all.

I think everybody has different interpretations of Scripture on one issue or another. I would happily engage in ecumenical activities where Christian churches recognised and reaffirmed one another's strengths instead of going for a lowest-common-denominator approach. It would be difficult, however, to see how such activities can work if one of the churches involved insists that they are the only true Church and that everybody else's church is invalid.

Interfaith dialogue is a different kettle of fish because you are dealing with other religions, not Christians. It could be useful in addressing social issues, but no more so IMHO than dialogue with atheists or agnostics.

No, that is not my position at all - as I have made clear numerous times in this forum. I have repeatedly said that we simply don't know what will happen to people who have never heard the Gospel.

A first step to dialogue would be to listen to what others actually believe instead of foisting your stereotypical assumptions on them.


In that case you should listen to what they actually believe instead of accusing them of being derogatory because they answer your questions in a way that doesn't agree with you.

Neither would I. However, I was brought up as an atheist.

You ask me a question about what I think of something and then get upset when I answer it truthfully. Given the past history of the RC Church and other forms of Christianity I think I my comments are fairly restrained.

And, speaking as a moderator here, don't you dare try to tell me or any other poster what we can or cannot say on this board!


Not much point in going on if you're not going to be honest.

Of those six terms I can only think of two which I applied to RC teaching ('patronising' and 'condescending') - and that was in response to a direct question where you asked my opinion. 'Fluffy' was directed at ecumenical activities in general, 'lazy' was in reference to tired old media stereotypes about American Christianity, 'turkey' was referring to an atheist who was attacking the Catholic Church and claimed they had burnt Copernicus at the stake, and 'absurd' was addressed at the generalisation that says religion should not mix with politics.

You are entitled to disagree with my posts, and are free to argue against them if you wish. But please try to be truthful when you do so.

Yes, PDN, some of those comments referred to what, I thought, were pertinent questions regarding extremist Christian views.

I had another answer prepared for you which , I thought, was pretty good; even quite humorous.

I decided, however, not to post it as it would only serve my own 'ego' and drag this conversation further into the gutter. But it would, also, bring the subject of Christianity with it too.

peakpilgrim

postcynical wrote: »

Interesting, but it's only an opinion piece. Is this also your opinion?

There are many in The Catholic Church who would not agree with this opinion; as there are still many in The Catholic Church who still hold to the Creationist view about the origins of Mankind.

You can only argue for this, in my opinion, from the point of view of 'Invincible gnorance' ( This sounds condescending but thats because its an historic concept, mentioned in the article.) because the theological differences are often so large.

For my own part it's enough for my conscience, as a Christian, that these people have some small chance at Salvation. The rest is up to them, their conscience and God; as it is for all of us.

wolfsbane

I don't see how any honest interpretation of the Bible can allow for anyone being saved on account of his/her morality.

The heathen will not be condemned for rejecting the gospel, but they will for rejecting the witness of creation: they refuse to seek after the One who they know in the conscience is there, and instead worship that which is not God. They will be condemned for their false worship and individual sins.

Consider the heathen Paul addressed in Athens:
Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:

TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.
Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

They worshipped God - but in ignorance and alongside false gods. God does not accept such worship - but He wants the heathen to seek Him, to forsake their idolatry and believe the gospel. So He sends the gospel to them, as He did in this occasion by the apostle Paul.

There is no easy and hard way of salvation. All must be saved by repentance and belief in Christ. Natural light is enough to condemn every man; Revelation ( the gospel) alone is enough to save them.