Does anyone have a concise definition of the two types of ecumenism?
I know that false ecumenism (loosely), could be any one, or more, of the following:
*]the “acceptance” of false religions as having elements of truth (and ignoring, or placing less emphasis on, the elements of false-ness)
*]“as long as you believe in Jesus Christ, then you’re ok”
*]“Catholicism is just one way to Heaven”.
And true ecumenism would be:
*]accepting that we all have free will, and as such, can follow any path to heaven or hell that we like
*]if we want to be sure of following the right path to heaven, then the only way is Catholicism, undiluted
*]its possible to get to heaven, if you aren’t officially a Catholic, but it would be in spite of your official religion, rather than because of it. Whereas if a Catholic were to get to heaven, then it would be because of his religion, and the graces channelled through to his soul through his religion.
*]Dialogue is fine, but Catholics should leave no doubt, ever, that anything other than Catholicism is anything better than false. Like, its ok to say “yes we believe in the same God”, but instead of wasting time and energy on “wow, we believe that too!”, we should be focussing on convincing people that, where the difference arise, the Catholic way is the only way.
Has anyone got more concise, more exact, more complete definitions?
The reason I am asking, is because I know someone who knows someone with connections to the Taize community, and after reading bits and pieces about it, I smell a rat. I just want to have things set straight in my head, if a discussion where to come up.
Thanks in advance.