Ecumenism



Editor's note: The following letters are in response to “Letting Our Loves Meet: Ecumenism for Us Plain Old Laypeople.”

Mark,

I read your article, “Letting Our Loves Meet: Ecumenism for Us Plain Old Laypeople“, and while I agree with much of what you have to say, I found that you were rather silent on the second part of the dialogue that has to take place in ecumenism. Namely, if there is to be true dialogue we have to be open to seeing what is good and true in the other as well as espousing our own point of view. I am somewhat inclined to agree with the Catholic biblical scholar Raymond Brown who postulates that the apostles' original intent was never to have a single, monolithic church. Indeed, there are more than 20 different eastern churches following Byzantine rites within what we call the Roman Catholic Church. These Byzantine Christians have far more in common with our Orthodox brethren as do western Christians share a great deal in common with Anglican and Lutheran communions. Should they all become one? I suspect that is rather more a question for the Holy Spirit rather than for theologians, either professional or lay. Is it a scandal that we can't all share the meal that Jesus left us when he said, “take this all of you…”? Of course it is! As for me, I find that I usually get more out of a dialogue when I listen more than I talk.

Yours in Christ,

Patrick

Dear Patrick,

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I am postulating a monolithic Church. Certainly, one of the marks of the Church is that it is “one.” This comes from St. Paul himself. But one does not mean “monolithic.” However, at the same time, it is simply not the case that we can appeal to some vague “spiritual unity” while having communions which flatly contradict one another. Some kind of real unity in diversity is required and the teaching of the Catholic Church is that this fullness of revelation subsists in the Catholic Church. It would appear that you were not listening to me, but were instead imposing upon me an agenda I did not have. Ironic, no?

Mark Shea

Senior Content Editor

Catholic Exchange

Dear Mark:

Thought your recent article on CE was great. There was one phrase that I was not crazy about and you are not the only one to use it. The word Catholic Christian seems redundant and even problematic for Catholics. To be fully Catholic is to be Christian and to be fully Christian is to be Catholic. By using the word Catholic Christian it seems we are in a sense saying that Catholicism is just another form of Christianity when in reality it is the fullness of Christianity. I realize that is not what you are saying but I think too many “nominal” Catholics would perceive it that way since they are already confused about the status of the Church as it related to other Christian denominations. This plays into another phrase you hear “Your faith tradition” while this might be an appropriate term for protestants it is a very poor term to be used when referring to Catholicism.

Anyway, curious about your thoughts.

Brian

Dear Brian,

I understand your point and can only plead that language is an awkward tool sometimes. When you are talking to and about Protestants, you also have to guard against giving the impression that only Catholics are Christian. That's the breaks.

Mark Shea

Senior Content Editor

Catholic Exchange



Editor's Note: To contact Catholic Exchange, please refer to our Contact Us page.

Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange or its authors (regarding articles published at CE) become the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

MENU