No Ecumenism of Return?


#1

What is Ecumenism of Return?

I heard that Pope Benedict spoke to Protestants and said NO Ecumenism of Return.

What does that mean?


#2

Karl Keating deals with this in an e-letter right here on the Catholic Answers website: the ecumenism of return. Just scroll down to the ending: THE DOG THAT DIDN’T BARK to read all about it.


#3

I always thought that the Ecumenism of Return was “converting Protestants.”


#4

It is, but it’s about what Protestant may and may not bring with them into the Church. They cannot bring in false doctrine or dogma, but they can certainly bring in their heritage and other things peculiar to them, as Karl Keating’s article cited.


#5

I read the bottom of the article, but I am still confused. A Lutheran Poster showed me a speech about the Ecumenism of Return and said that I should listen to the Pope and stop trying to convert Protestants.


#6

The Lutheran minister probably read into the pope’s comments what he wanted to see there, as anyone who doesn’t want to face the thought that his church might be wrong about some doctrinal issues would likely do.

We may certainly share our Catholic faith with Protestants and anyone else. Besides, it is the Holy Spirit that brings non-Catholic Christians home to the Church not just our words and actions. :slight_smile:


#7

You’re right, I guess he was wrong.:slight_smile:


#8

Image,

There may also have been a Lutheran poster who pointed you to the Pope’s statements, but I certainly did so. And as you could tell if you bothered to look at the statement of affiliation at the bottom of each of my posts, I am not a Lutheran (though my church is currently in full communion with the ELCA).

You are quick to agree with Della’s comforting suggestion that I am wrong, but neither you nor Della has pointed out how I am wrong.

With respect, Della, you do not have the right to explain why I am wrong until you have shown *that *I am wrong.

As for Keating’s article–it’s a valiant effort to explain away a very clear and cogent statement by the Pope. The Pope has defined what he means by “ecumenism of return”–he means the denial and rejection of our respective traditions. Now that is what Protestants who convert to Catholicism as individuals are doing. They can no longer share communion with their previous community; they will most likely no longer worship with that community on a regular basis; they will not be able to use the liturgical forms proper to their tradition; they will probably be unable to enjoy many of the traditions and spiritual riches characteristic of the heritage in which they were baptized. (Compare the Methodist or Episcopal hymnals with any of the equivalents commonly in use in American Catholicism, for instance.) This flies in the face of the Pope’s statement.

I don’t see how you can treat the Pope’s statement with any respect and continue to insist that Protestants convert as individuals. (I welcome arguments to the contrary–it should be a fruitful discussion.) The claim that individual Protestants can bring the riches of their traditions with them into a Catholic parish is a blatantly false, even dishonest claim. It doesn’t work like that. If it did, you would not hear so many converts regretting what they have given up.

I am not talking about doctrine that contradicts official Catholic teaching. So Keating’s argument is a red herring. (With regard to my argument, that is–I know that there are plenty of liberals on both sides who don’t care about doctrine and would be happy to let it slide; but I’m not one of them.)

The Pope holds out the hope that by dialogue we can overcome our disagreements and find unity not in some wishy-washy avoidance of doctrine *and *not in the outright renunciation of one side’s heritage, but in a common commitment to the fullness of the truth in Christ.

This is long, and slow, and painful. It’s very un-American. But it is what the Pope is calling us to do.

I stand by my original claim, and I am happy to engage specific, substantive refutations that treat the Pope’s words seriously and explain how they do not mean what I think they mean.

Edwin


#9

I would like to apologize for calling you a Lutheran, then.

You are quick to agree with Della’s comforting suggestion that I am wrong, but neither you nor Della has pointed out how I am wrong.

With respect, Della, you do not have the right to explain why I am wrong until you have shown *that *I am wrong.

Della’s reply was not in anyway “comforting.” It is in fact rude that you would say that I find comfort in seeing my way fit. I did not come to Della for comfort, but for clarity. If you read my first post you will see that. I did not know what Ecumenism of Return was so I came to get clarifying on the topic. Rather than assuming that our main goal is to prove you wrong, see our main goal by asking us.

As for Keating’s article–it’s a valiant effort to explain away a very clear and cogent statement by the Pope. The Pope has defined what he means by “ecumenism of return”–he means the denial and rejection of our respective traditions. Now that is what Protestants who convert to Catholicism as individuals are doing. They can no longer share communion with their previous community; they will most likely no longer worship with that community on a regular basis; they will not be able to use the liturgical forms proper to their tradition; they will probably be unable to enjoy many of the traditions and spiritual riches characteristic of the heritage in which they were baptized. (Compare the Methodist or Episcopal hymnals with any of the equivalents commonly in use in American Catholicism, for instance.) This flies in the face of the Pope’s statement.

I don’t see how you can treat the Pope’s statement with any respect and continue to insist that Protestants convert as individuals. (I welcome arguments to the contrary–it should be a fruitful discussion.) The claim that individual Protestants can bring the riches of their traditions with them into a Catholic parish is a blatantly false, even dishonest claim. It doesn’t work like that. If it did, you would not hear so many converts regretting what they have given up.

As I have stated before, I was more into be clarified of the Pope’s Statements rather than mainly disagreeing in them. If the Pope has said that there is no need of conversion of Protestants, then let that be, I will surely try to obey him. As I can see change is hard, but I will certainly make an attempt to amend my ideas for the Church. In fact, I do respect the Pope’s comments and now that I think I understand them clearer, I will look to them.

I am not talking about doctrine that contradicts official Catholic teaching. So Keating’s argument is a red herring. (With regard to my argument, that is–I know that there are plenty of liberals on both sides who don’t care about doctrine and would be happy to let it slide; but I’m not one of them.)

The Pope holds out the hope that by dialogue we can overcome our disagreements and find unity not in some wishy-washy avoidance of doctrine *and *not in the outright renunciation of one side’s heritage, but in a common commitment to the fullness of the truth in Christ.

This is long, and slow, and painful. It’s very un-American. But it is what the Pope is calling us to do.

I couldn’t agree with you more. But the dialogue between us will never work until you stop assuming my intentions. Ever since we “spoke” on another thread, you have assumed my intentions. I will by all means tell you that I have never converted a single Protestant to the Catholic faith, I haven’t been able. If I give you my opinions about Lutheranism, which for the most part concur with the Catholic Teaching, it is not attempt to convert you, it is a bases of dialogue, so as to learn more about Lutheranism from Lutherans.

I stand by my original claim, and I am happy to engage specific, substantive refutations that treat the Pope’s words seriously and explain how they do not mean what I think they mean.

Edwin

I am glad you stand by your original claim. However, I am not glad about your personal claims about me. You do not know my intentions. For one, you immediately assumed I was trying to convert you. And while you may see no hurtfulness in this rash judgement, I do. I in fact, do treat the Pope words seriously, but if you and I are going to have ecumenical dialogue on this forum, you must treat me seriously by not attempting to assume my every move.:slight_smile:

Della might in fact be wrong, but I am greatly gratified that she did not attempt to jump at me with accusations.


#10

the dialogue between us will never work until you stop assuming my intentions.

The dialogure will never work while you lie and slander me.

I am fed up with being told I am a devil worshipper because I meditate on the price the Lord paid for my sins. That is seen by most Protestants as devil worship.

Similarly, catholics meditating on the love of God is seen by most protestants as devil worship. Then to add insult to injury, they quote bible passages at us which condemn idol worship. My mind boggles.

I have had mystical experiences while meditating on the immense love of God. But I suppose that would be called ‘demonic’ even though the Agent was the Holy Spirit. It begs belief


#11

Not all Protestants say this type of stuff. It is very important for you to pray for such people who say likewise. Lutherans, for example, might feel a little shaky about asking Mary for intercession, but they certainly do not think the like as what you have stated. As a Catholic, I have seen Protestants who believe such and some who do not.
Might arguement against Edwin, is that if he is not going to stop accusining me of trying to convert Protestants with misguided zeal, I am going to certainly go to someone else.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.