/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>611175

Cooperation on things all Christians can get behind should be full. On things where you must profess a truth to the masses, then no, it should not be considered.

A denomination can and should convert all others they feel they should be, if they believe they have the Gospel, we are told as Christians to proclaim it.

Closed communion is more than fine, and all other sacraments.

Christians should be ecumenical to the point that is reasonable (Catholics will never open their sacraments to non-Catholics, and few will agree to hold services and convert alongside the Mormons) to that specific group. Some will go along with all, and others make a hardline stance.

No

>>611175

Ecumenism only applies to the church. Anyone who does not have valid orders is outside of the church, so prots don't count only romans, easterns, orientals, Assyrians and random schismatics

>>611175

I support the Catholic approach used up to the 1960s.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos.html

>Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost:[15] has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself?

>10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.

>>611175

> ecumenism on /christian/

nah, any anon here who preaches for that garbage needs to go back to plebbit

>>611175

>What is your stance on ecumenism?

The apostolic Churches must be reunited.

Protestants can do whatever they want among themselves.

>How much should a denomination cooperate with other churches in its area

Orthos collaborate with lutherans and catholics on humanitarian projects.

That's cool and doesn't require dogma to happen.

>like a Baptist and Catholic church on a missionary project

Common missionary work makes no sense.

Yes, Jesus is God an the Bible is our Holy Book.

Everything beyond that is denom specific, and you can't really teach others when you 2 can't agree on basic stuff.

I'm all for ecumenism between Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, and other Christians. Orthodox, Catholic, Oriental, Assyrian, etc. because the time is ripe to reach a common interpretation of history, and so of doctrine, and besides God must have kept these schisms and heresies alive next to the Church without destroying them for a reason. So I'm all for attending each other's services, studying the history together, having our bishops talk often, and not treating one another like archeretics in dire need of immediate conversion.

The case with Protestants is rather that they should be converted away from their nonsense. At the very least, they can learn something from us and change from the inside. Evangelicals and Charismatics are the main offenders though.

>>611175

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, anon.

>>611594

This. To Hell with cooperation. To Hell with Jesus praying, "That they may all be one" We must stay in our little camps.

Ecumenism is to faith what lung cancer is to lungs.

>>611677

We know form the Apostles that heresy and false teaching is a thing. We can't say 'well we don't really know the truth, anyone's guess is equally good so let's just all be one'. How can we be one when we don't agree on what sacraments are, how to go to Heaven, etc.? Apples and oranges can't be one, just like in the past Christianis taught by the Apostles weren't one with all the heretics who believed Christ was God, but were heretics nevertheless. St. John didn't even want to enter the same bathhouse where a heretic Marcion was.

>>611762

> How can we be one when we don't agree on what sacraments are, how to go to Heaven, etc.?

What if we agree?

Like what happens for example when we have multiples agreements, between the orientals and chalcedonian christianity, that they confess the same thing.

What happens when both sides have written in ink that:

"We have inherited from our fathers in Christ the one apostolic faith and tradition, though as churches we have been separated from each other for centuries."

Or Chieti being a stepping stone between East and West, as well.

Can we show no flexibility then?

>St. John didn't even want to enter the same bathhouse where a heretic Marcion was.

Waaay different.

Marcion was a dualistic gnostic heretic that believed OT God was the Demiurge.

Tiny bit different.

>>611808

It's not really a problem for Apostolic Churches. The division there is mainly political in my opinion. The doctrines are 99% the same too. As for protestants, it's impossible to agree with them, the differences are just too big.

You know what Bible says about heresy, nowhere does it say 'it's okay if you agree on 50% of the stuff'. There's one truth as taught by the Apostles, period.

>Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction.

>>611175

Ecumenism is the globalism of religion. In some aspects it's mandatory to reach some sort of dialogue. But, the way I see it only can be:

1. All Christians share the essential aspects of the faith, so most of them are saved (all of them, if you believe in sola fide).

2. All Christians share the essential aspects of the faith, so very few are saved (because the narrow path, etc).

But I don't want to be excessively jealous and close the path of salvation. That would be anti Christian. God knows and I don't know anything. He will judge our intentions and He knows better.

>>611875

That's not what sola fide means

>>611876

Forgive me.

Once you accept Christ as a the Messiah, you are saved, always saved. Is not correct?

>>611877

Yes, but protestants believe that the person who rejects salvation - by Christ's grace through faith to the glory of God - exclusively is damned.

So the person who adds extra ingredients to that recipe contradicts sola fide.

An ecumenical spirit is well and good within the church (reformed/protestant Nicene Christianity). Heretical sects outside the church (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Romanism and it's eastern offshoots, etc.) must be strictly separated from.

>>611930

This is some celestial bait.

>>611770

I don't think they have a bishop? Therefore they do not have the church and are outside it.

>>612155

Thanks.

>>611930

Extra Luther nulla salus

>>611823

Ah, believed you were talking in general.

As for apostolic/prottie ecumenism, as i said here >>611619, it makes no sense.

>>611930

Why don't you agree with the infallibility of the bishop of Rome? It's just like what the apostles taught.

I highly agree, one Church under one Pope.

>>612529

Ah ah, no.

It’s never gonna happen. I’m Catholic but not a fool who believes in such meaningless false hopes.

Fuck ecumenism. The J man said he came with division. We got it. I don't understand but if God has a plan I'm rolling with it.