Pope Leo's Message for Ecumenism this week

[Stella]

"In the year 325, bishops from across the known world gathered in Nicaea. In affirming the divinity of Jesus Christ, they formulated our creedal statements that he is “true God from true God” and “consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father.” Thus, they articulated the faith that continues to bind Christians together. That Council stood as a courageous sign of unity amidst difference – an early witness to the conviction that our shared confession can overcome division and foster communion.

A similar desire animated the 1925 Conference in Stockholm, convened by the pioneer of the early ecumenical movement, Archbishop Nathan Söderblom, then Lutheran Archbishop of Uppsala. The gathering brought together around 600 Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant leaders. Söderblom’s conviction was that “service unites.” He therefore called on his Christian brothers and sisters not to wait for agreement on every point of theology, but to unite in “practical Christianity” – to serve the world together in the pursuit of peace, justice and human dignity.

While the Catholic Church was not represented at that first gathering, I can affirm, with humility and joy, that we stand with you today as fellow disciples of Christ, recognizing that what unites us is far greater than what divides us."

https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/ ... colma.html

[Highlander]

I am encouraged by this. I hold that the concept of Christendom has faded and warrants renewal. For example, the Church should be, at least, extremely vocal about the ongoing martyrdom of Christians around the world.

HST, should the Church, in its various agencies, join in Christian ecumenical activities, it should assiduously avoid co-option by other agendas and other motivations.

[Doom]

I am encouraged by this. I hold that the concept of Christendom has faded and warrants renewal. For example, the Church should be, at least, extremely vocal about the ongoing martyrdom of Christians around the world.

HST, should the Church, in its various agencies, join in Christian ecumenical activities, it should assiduously avoid co-option by other agendas and other motivations.

This statement should not surprise us at all because the Church became irrevocably committed to ecumenism over 60 years ago, before I was born. I am old, but I am not quite old enough to predate Vatican II. But especially in this era, when Christianity is under violent assault even in the West (what are all the transgender shooters shooting up churches, if not modern-day persecution?) it is stupid for Christians to fight among ourselves. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Highlander]

...it is stupid for Christians to fight among ourselves. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Let me quibble ... with a serious element. I am in accord with your assertion that Christians should not fight with each other -- after defining "fight". Internecine conflict, with the purpose of somehow triumphing over another Christian denomination or sect is indeed stupid. Reasoned and civil disagreement, while acknowledging our Christian commonality and while joining in Christian activity, is not stupid.

A step further. Being aware that some "Christian" sects are arguably not Christian can be wise. Thus the enemy of my enemy can also be my enemy. It is more complicated that that bald statement, but I propose that the Church, in its dioceses, parishes, and agencies, should be prudent in engaging in "ecumenical" activities ... lest it actually engage in non-Christian, even heretical, actions.

A friend observed, after we both left our previous denominations, that we had moved from a church run by priest and bishop shaped objects, but without priests and bishops. Personally, I would be more at ease working with Fundamentalists, as strange as that might seem to me, than working with other denominations that are seemingly linked to the Church's practices and traditions.

[Doom]

...it is stupid for Christians to fight among ourselves. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Let me quibble ... with a serious element. I am in accord with your assertion that Christians should not fight with each other -- after defining "fight". Internecine conflict, with the purpose of somehow triumphing over another Christian denomination or sect is indeed stupid. Reasoned and civil disagreement, while acknowledging our Christian commonality and while joining in Christian activity, is not stupid.

A step further. Being aware that some "Christian" sects are arguably not Christian can be wise. Thus the enemy of my enemy can also be my enemy. It is more complicated that that bald statement, but I propose that the Church, in its dioceses, parishes, and agencies, should be prudent in engaging in "ecumenical" activities ... lest it actually engage in non-Christian, even heretical, actions.

A friend observed, after we both left our previous denominations, that we had moved from a church run by priest and bishop shaped objects, but without priests and bishops. Personally, I would be more at ease working with Fundamentalists, as strange as that might seem to me, than working with other denominations that are seemingly linked to the Church's practices and traditions.

Imagine if, during World War II, while both were trying to fight Germany, the USA and the Soviet Union had been engaged in a war against each other at the same time. Would that have been wise? Just as the existential differences between FDR and Stalin were put aside for the sake of destroying Nazism, so Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox need to stop warring against each other and unite against the secularists and Muslims who are trying to exterminate use all.

[Highlander]

Imagine if, during World War II, while both were trying to fight Germany, the USA and the Soviet Union had been engaged in a war against each other at the same time. Would that have been wise? Just as the existential differences between FDR and Stalin were put aside for the sake of destroying Nazism, so Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox need to stop warring against each other and unite against the secularists and Muslims who are trying to exterminate use all.

Several points.

First, I very much appreciate your comments. This exchange is much more like the old DCF than the more recent version.

Second, I don't believe that the WWII analogy holds. It does hold only partially until roughly the summer of 1944 in Europe. By which time, the West is already examining how to deal with a victorious USSR and the USSR is calculating how it can create a Europe that consists either of Soviet client states or states dominated by the Soviet agenda. It does not hold when considering the Soviets giving no credit for the Combined Bomber Offensive and little credit for the massive aid provided by the West and no credit for North Africa or Italy -- incessantly demanding boots on the ground in NW Europe while actively discouraging operations in the Balkans and Greece. And it does not hold at all in the Pacific, where the US, facing the cost of invading Japan and/or fighting Japan on the mainland, is eager for the Soviets to join the war. Until the bombs, when the US pivots to minimize the movement of Soviet armies into Manchuria, China, and, especially, the Kurils and the southern half of Sakhalin. Korea is, IMO, the best example of the enemy of my enemy becoming my enemy.

Parenthetically, the real existential differences were between Churchill and Stalin and neither put them aside. It can be argued that Roosevelt, with his anti-colonial beliefs, functioned as a fellow traveler.

Third, I agree that the CPO should maximize their essential Christianity and agree to disagree on their various theological disputes. The Muslim threat is real; witness the genocide in Syria and Iraq and Iran and Nigeria and Somalia and Libya and Eritrea and and Yemen. And the Hindu genocide in India. And the state persecution in North Korea and Dearborn. And the streets of Paris and the English village. Abetted by the secular notion that Christianity is part of the patriarchy and since Christianity isn't on board with the woke agenda, it doesn't deserve protection.

A particular concern is that some "Christian" denominations and sects have metamorphosed into secular organizations with the traditional appearance of their Christian origins and which conduct activities similar to Christian practice, but are theologically empty. The tragedy is that many faithful Christians still attend and participate in such "churches", unaware of the rot around them. Thus not an ecumenical ally.