Jump to content

Talk:Ecumenism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Pope John Paul II

Was Pope John Paul II, or did he consider himself an ecumenist? He strove for and the unification of Christians (reversal of the Great Schism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.106.134 (talk) 12 April 2005

Not sure I understand what you are saying asking?

Though, to my knowledge, "reversal fo the Great Schism" usually means "converting the protestants to catholism". Which isn't ecumenism. Kairos (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the term "Great Schism" refers to the split between Catholics and Protestants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.196.254 (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

True True, "Great Schism" refers to the break between the Latin Western Church of Roam and the Greek Eastern Church of Constantinople in the 13th Century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.153.44 (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Pastor R

Merge May 2005 Ecumenical-Ecumenism

I merged Ecumenical w this page. See Talk:Ecumenical for past talk. Sam Spade 16:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Merge or develop cross references Jan 2006 Ecumenism-Interfaith-Interreligious relations

There is some overlap between this page, Interfaith and Interreligious relations. If they can be merged, cross referred, or repartitioned, can this be done, with appropriate links. Jackiespeel 16:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge Ecumenism-Christian ecumenism

Christian ecumenism should certainly be merged here. First, this would permit this important subject not to be reduced to the Wiktionary. Second, the term "Christian ecumenism" is NPOV & quite strange. I understand, of course, that it refers to the Christian conception of ecumenism, which is already arguably distinguished from religious pluralism (the differences between the two articles do not justify two different entries, as Wikipedia as no function of inventing words or changing denomination. It is my understanding that the Pope & the Protestant churches at least refers to religious pluralism as ecumenism, and not simply as "interfaith" or "religious" pluralism). However, before arguing the necessity to merge together ecumenism & religious pluralism, I will argue that Christian ecumenism must be merged here, as leaving the term "Christian" before and making it the most important article of the serie allows for the POV that ecumenism is mainly a Christian thing. Which is simply false. Apart from Judaism, both Islam & Christianity are universal religions which aims at world unification, at least in theory if not in practice. Tazmaniacs 13:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge done please read and edit as appropriate. -- Paul foord 15:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge Ecumenism-Religious pluralism

  • Do not merge - I see Religious pluralism needing an article in its own right, ecumenism as it is is a stub and does need to be expaned. I do not understand the statement '"Christian ecumenism" is NPOV & quite strange', within Christian ecumenical circles this usage would not be seen as a problem, Christians do not own ecumenism, but do have a Christian expression of it. Paul foord 13:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not merge Ecumenism with Religious pluralism: Christian ecumenism explains quite clearly why, for reasons of clarity, Religious pluralism and Ecumenism should be treated as two different concepts, basically, RP is about inter-faith dialogue, Ecumenism is about dialogue and reconciliation within one faith community.
This said, it seems to me that Ecumenism and Christian ecumenism could be merged (is there any noteworthy ecumenism outside Christianity? Just a question, I don't know; even if there is, I think the concept developed out of Christianity).
More importantly, the whole sprawl of articles related to Religious Pluralism should be connected better or merged: InterFaith, Interreligious relations, Interfaith dialogue. In fact, all of these articles talk about the same problem, and it is hard to draw boundaries. Another article which should be linked better to Religious Pluralism is Religious Toleration, although this is a different concept.

And then, there is an old proposal which I contributed to, slumbering somewhere in the archives of Talk:Religious Pluralism about a restructuring of this page.--Robin.rueth 21:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[3] for examples of this usage -- Chris Q2 08:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Old Believers

Old Believers are different from Old Calendarists. Old Believers started in the 1600s in opposition to New Russian Prayer books. They are Russians. "Old Calendarists" only go back to 1924 and are Greek. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheGOC (talk • contribs) 06:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Oriental Orthodox and Anglicans

The article states: "the Oriental Orthodox and Anglican Churches are in full communion." Is this accurate? Somehow, I doubt it. For years, Episcopalians swore that they enjoyed full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church. But this was erroneous (at least from the Orthodox point of view). I wonder if the statement in the article is a remainder of that mistake. MishaPan 17:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent editing of Coat of Arms

Looking at edits today, there seems to be more than one coat of arms floating around. At one point, the entire coat of arms was removed as redundant to the one on the flag. However, the one on the flag doesn't show enough detail. I recommend either replacing the flag image with one of higher detail or restoring one of the coats of arms. I don't have a preference which one, but if there was one on this page before the recent edits, we might as well stick to that unless there is a good reason to use another one. Official examples are on the Vatican web site. davidwr (talk)/(track) 19:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the one who removed the coat of arms. There really was no reason to have two representations of the Roman Catholic church on the same page. The flag was retained for consitency because other denominations (Greek Orthodox and Protestant) are represented by flags on the same page (the comapss rose has also appeared on flags representing the Anglican Communion). MishaPan 23:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
There are many Protestant symbols. The flag is only recognised in the USA. I never seen it anywhere else.

Meaning of the word Islam

after studying this i found 2 meanings of the word Islam:

  1. literal meaning: peace or give peace as a verb.
  2. implied meaning:submission and outward conforming with law of God <<Smart_Viral 01:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)>>

Islam

Why is islam even on this page? If there is a term for ecumenism in islam then it should have it's own page rather than trying to copy christianity. Lately islamic topics have turned up on many unconnected articles seemingly to gain converts. I am deleting it again. The reasons are due to its unrelatedness. Are we going to put every religions view on ecumenism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.130.77 (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In its broadest sense, the unity may refer to worldwide religious unity; here the vision advocates a greater shared spirituality across Christian, Jewish and Islamic faiths.

I am unfamiliar with Ecumenism, so I don't know the answer to this, but there are notable absences in this sentence in the intro. Does 'broad ecumenism' seek to encompass the Hindu & Buddhist faiths (amongst others)? If it doesn't, is it really world unity? Or are they planning to 'deal with' the other faiths in a different way? Thanks. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 21:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be an ecumenical matter. 122.61.157.138 (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The section "Three approaches to Christian Unity"

"There is no shame to using punctuation" (Norwegian proverb) In this section, there's a very, very long sentence: "Still, approaches to ecumenism varies, i.e. while generally Protestants see it as agreements on teachings about central issues of faith, an organizational unity with mutual accountability between the parts, for Catholics and Orthodox the Christendom unity is approached within their more concrete understanding of the Body of Christ metaphor, this ecclesiological matter being closely linked to key theological issues (i.e. the Eucharist), demanding full dogmatic agreement before full communion."

I find this sentence very "heavy" to read. It is way too long and the text should be divided into several clear and shorter sentences. My problem reading and comprehending this text may in part be caused by English not being my first language. But still, I would not be surprised if some English speaking people get the same impression while reading it (having to read it more than once, having to go back to start over while trying to really understand the content. I read it 3 times and still found it difficult to understand (And, IMHO, I don't think my English is that bad). I hope somebody can look through this sentence and then edit the sentence. Thanks a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.97.52 (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The section 'Attitude of some Evangelical Protestants'

This section is titled incorrectly. Within the section there is discussion of Pentecostalism, Fundamentalism, and Catholicism, all of which are not Evangelical. A distinction should be made as Pentecostalism and Fundamentalism are often confused with Evangelicalism. Martin thomasr (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not quite simple. Churches like the Indian Hills Community Church condemn ecumenism, but self-identify as evangelical churches, and do not self-identify as a fundamentalist church and neither do the declared fundamentalist churches such as David Cloud recognize such as fundamentalist churches. --JNZ (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The section 'Attitude of some Evangelical Protestants'

This section is titled incorrectly. Within the section there is discussion of Pentecostalism, Fundamentalism, and Catholicism, all of which are not Evangelical. A distinction should be made as Pentecostalism and Fundamentalism are often confused with Evangelicalism. Martin thomasr (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


The paragraph that begins, "A considerable number of Baptists within the United States..." is vague and unsound. What does a "considerable number of Baptists" mean? What churches believe that modern Bible translations are all heretical? A handful do, certainly, but "many"? These are examples; nearly every statement in this paragraph seems to represent a single opinion, not facts, and the source, "Jack Chick on The Vatican", is not a reliable site, but a personal site that only represents one person's opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.8.250.124 (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Regnocentrism

The article should maybe mention the notion of Ecumenism as connected to Regnocentrism, that is, the idea that the collaboration of religions is supposed to herald the Kingdom of God on Earth at a much faster speed. [4] ADM (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That would be an ecumenical matter. 80.7.232.54 (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

terminology for Roman Catholic

In an ecumenical context, the term "Roman Catholic" is well established, by that church's own usage, and it is improper in an ecumenical context to use the term "Catholic Church" alone, because of the implication that other churches are not Catholic. This is the point of view of the Bishop of Rome and those in communion with him, of course, but it is not neutral, and even that church itself avoids pressing its point of view in ecumenical contexts. In this article, therefore, it is improper. There is not consensus for the change to remove the adjective, and it must not be removed absent consensus. Tb (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised that you would revert all of my changes (twice) if you are only concerned with the name of the Catholic Church. I had also added a "See also" section in consultation with another editor. If you have no concerns with that, I will restore it.
With respect to the name of the Church I am concerned about the best terminology to use. The article Catholic Church has recently been renamed after a great deal of discussion. Essentially I would summarize that discussion as follows: "Catholic Church" is the name the church uses to refer to itself." A fuller explanation can be found here. You are right that there are some contexts in which it is clearer to refer to the "Roman Catholic Church" and you will note that I did leave that term in some cases. However, in general, an entity gets to name itself and the name used in the church's own constitutional documents is "Catholic Church." Sunray (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for my sloppiness. I have no objection to the see also entries. I do not object to the naming Catholic Church for that article, though it is hardly a recent renaming. It is simply not true that "Catholic Church" is the only name that church uses to refer to itself, and in particular in ecumenical contexts, it uses the name "Roman Catholic Church". It is the case that Catholic Church says, plainly and simply, "also known as the Roman Catholic Church," which is a good suitable lead, to which I have never objected. Notice that we are continually obliged to say "United States" whenever speaking of the Episcopal Church, indeed, The Episcopal Church is the name of that church, in its actual constitutional documents, and yet, we don't get to use that in all contexts. Likewise, the Orthodox have never accepted the Eastern vs. Oriental naming, except as a convenient historical tag. Notice, for example, that over on Orthodox Wiki (which is free to express the Eastern Orthodox POV) there is no article "Eastern Orthodox Church", it is, instead, "Orthodox Church" [5], for they do not recognize any other as Orthodox, whether the Diocese of Rome, the Oriental Orthodox, or anyone else. Yet, on Wikipedia, they must settle for "Eastern Orthodox", even this is not, and never has been, their name for their churches. When churches make totalizing claims, and then express those claims in their names, we will often have to use qualifiers. This is especially true in ecumenical contexts (this article is called Ecumenism, recall), and the Roman Catholic Church itself uses that name in such contexts, in organizations as official as you can get (such as, for example, ARCIC and ARC-USA. Tb (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you raise some important points. I do agree that the Catholic Church does, sometimes, refer to itself as the "Roman Catholic Church" for ecumenical purposes. On the other hand, we do need to be respectful of the name of an entity, as reflected in the article name. For example, to use the link Roman Catholic Church only causes a redirect to the article "Catholic Church." I would like to avoid blanket reference to the church in question as the "Roman Catholic Church." It seems to me that to do so would be POV. As I said before, I think it is important to consider the context that the term is used in. I am willing to do that with you. Sunray (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't care at all what the link target is, but only for what the user-visible text is. If you prefer a piped link [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholic Church]] that's fine by me. In general, I prefer the adjective whenever 1) the context or article is not specific to the church, 2) the context implies something specifically "Western" (for example, with reference to religious orders or canon law that only exists in the "Latin Rite"), 3) there is absolutely no implication that churches that regard themselves as Catholic (with a capital C) are not really such. These cases mean that, in general, in an article such as Catholic Church it is fine to use that term (though it is crucial that the lead continue to mention both), and in other articles, it is fine if a first reference says "Roman Catholic Church" and then later references in the same paragraph say "Catholic Church", or even "the church", just as with persons, where you use the full name, and then in later uses can use the surname alone. But in articles which mention many churches, it is generally really bad mojo to exclude the adjective "Roman" entirely. This is especially true, in spades, where we are talking in an ecumenical context, such as this article or List of Christian denominations. In practice, however, I prefer mostly leaving things alone. Tb (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The guidelines you set out strike me as just fine. In fact, most of the changes I made were consistent with them (except for the last three). Bad mojo? Perhaps that is a theological term I'm not familiar with in this context :) To be encyclopedic, I think it is particularly important not to express a POV either way. Invariable use of the adjective strikes me as an Anglican POV. No? So the question becomes bad mojo for whom? Best course is perhaps to use a guideline such as the one you propose in most articles (whether on ecumenism or not). What do you think? Sunray (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Invariable use of the adjective strikes me as an Anglican POV. How is that? If the church in question refers to itself as such, how is it an Anglican POV? And while I have stressed ecumenical contexts in this discussion, because that is the context here, it is hardly only such. The church in question refers to itself as such in, for example, stone church facades in Washington DC, official documents, historical documents, and a myriad of other places. I don't think we need a formal guideline; I think the status quo is ok. I do not seek to maximize the use of the adjective, and I object to attempts to minimize it. Since it is not incorrect in any way, it is not misleading, it is not offensive, and it is not unofficial, there is no reason not to use it. It is true that the church in question calls itself "Catholic Church"; it is also true that it calls itself "Roman Catholic Church". Neither is "more correct" or "better", though there are some contexts where the adjective is mandatory, and other contexts where the adjective is optional. I object, however, to any approach which says "drop it wherever it is not mandatory". I much favor the approach of simply leaving it alone. Tb (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The Church uses the adjective in specific ecumenical contexts. I am only suggesting that we do the same. Otherwise, the invariant use of the adjective seems to me to represent a particular POV. My intent in this discussion is to collaborate on finding a reasonable approach. Sunray (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
And the church in question uses the adjective in many many other contexts, including straightforward self-identification (for example, on the OCSO international website). I do not propose the "invariant use of the adjective", I propose instead leaving it alone except where it is necessary to add it. I cannot see what POV is expressed even if it were used invariantly, by contrast to the clear POV expressed by omitting it, but in any case, I have not proposed using it invariantly. I have proposed finding other things to work on, not removing it where it is, and not adding it without necessity. Tb (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to me that you are willing to negotiate or collaborate on this. Have I got that right? Sunray (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Nope, you have it wrong. I'm happy to collaborate and negotiate; I've explained what I think the right course is and what I propose. I have proposed questions as well. What POV is expressed even if the adjective were used in every case? I've asked that question multiple times. I addressed the specific case of use in this article; thus far, you have not addressed much of anything of what I've said afaict. I'm always willing to negotiate; what are the "two sides" here? It is clear that omission of the article raises POV problems except in limited circumstances; it is not clear that there is any reason to object to the presence of the article. (There are some Roman Catholics who cry foul, but their cries are, in practice, quite contrary to the established fact that the church in question uses the adjective itself all the time.) Tb (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've presented some evidence about how the Catholic Church refers to itself, which may be summarized as follows: the church refers to itself as the "Catholic Church" in its constitutional documents and refers to itself as the "Roman Catholic Church" in certain ecumenical contexts. Since it is usual custom, and Wikipedia policy, to refer to entities as they refer to themselves, I have proposed that we follow that line in this article (i.e., when we are referring to the church in general, we use "Catholic Church," and when we are referring to an ecumenical context or to distinguish it from other churches that claim catholicity, we use "Roman Catholic Church." You seem to be saying that in this article we must always refer to the Catholic Church as the "Roman Catholic Church." Please correct me if I am wrong. Sunray (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The church in question also refers to itself as "Roman" in its "constitutional documents" and in non-ecumenical contexts. Unlike entities with more recent legal foundations, it is not a trivial matter to declare how it refers to itself, since it does so in many different ways. You seem to be saying that in this article we must always refer to the Catholic Church as the "Roman Catholic Church." No, what I'm saying is that I prefer simply leaving things alone unless it makes a material difference in some particular case. It does not currently refer uniformly to "Roman Catholic Church", and I propose simply leaving it alone and working on more important things. And, I reject entirely your repeated and mistaken suggestion that the adjective Roman is used by the church in question only in ecumenical contexts. Those are relevant here, which is why I brought them up, but it is also used in a wide variety of other contexts. For example, the Constitution of the American-Cassinese Benedictines refers to the "law of the Roman Catholic Church"; the OCSO refers to itself as "in communion with the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church,"; the Society of Jesus in its FAQ says, "The Society of Jesus is a religious order of the Roman Catholic Church", and so forth. You are simply incorrect about the facts here: it is not true that "Catholic Church" is somehow the way this church refers to itself. It is one name among many which it uses, and the adjective "Roman" is extremely common not only in ecumenical contexts, but across the board. Tb (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
To try to clarify:
  1. You say "The church in question also refers to itself as "Roman" in its "constitutional documents" and in non-ecumenical contexts." If you have some evidence of this, please provide it. I've found none. While the word "Roman" does indeed appear in phrases such as "the Roman Pontiff," I haven't come across a reference to the "Roman Catholic Church" in any of the constitutional documents.
  2. I am talking about the church referring to itself, not about individual churches, which I agree, in English-speaking countries often do call themselves "Roman Catholic."
  3. I have not suggested that we invariably use "Catholic Church," only that we rationalize the use of the two names. If it is a case where the article is referring to the church itself, then "Catholic Church" often will make the most sense. If we are distinguishing between two churches, each of whom claim catholicity, then "Roman Catholic Church" makes more sense (e.g., ... the "Eastern Orthodox Church and the "Roman Catholic Church..."
I am willing to go through the references to the church in the article and make some suggestions. Would you be willing to discuss some examples with me? Sunray (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Not clear at all which documents you mean as "constitutional", given that popes in solemn apostolic constitution have used the name "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to the entire body of Christians in communion with them. There are many titles, and no statement of such importance which says "this is the right name, and Paul VI and Pius XI were wrong when they used a different one". Or, if there is, can you present it? Can you say please, just once, how it is the "Anglican POV" to say "Roman Catholic Church", and please include an explanation for why Pius XI should have been interested in adopting the Anglican POV in his own writing? I believe that the only rational approach is to find a name which is free of POV problems: the NPOV rule trumps a preference for using an organization's own name--and here, it isn't even "the" official name, it's only one of several. I will discuss examples if you can explain how the change improves the article by saying more than "we should remove 'Roman' as much as possible." (I suspect your goal is to minimize the cases where "Roman" appears. Is that true? If not, how about you also find some places where we should add the adjective?) Tb (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
In response:
If you look at the original Latin version of these documents you will see that Paul VI used the term "Catholic Church" when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council.
  • Most popes have used "Roman Catholic" in certain ecumenical contexts.
  • WP:NPOV refers to the policy on article titles for guidance on names. The policy says that the most common name is the one to be used.
  • I didn't say that we should remove "Roman" as much as possible. I spoke about context.
  • When you speak of "my goal" you are speculating. As an Anglican, I am very familiar with the view of the Anglican Church on the use of the name "Roman Catholic." My goal is to follow WP policies, especially WP:NPOV. However, my practice is imperfect and I value learning through discussion with other editors :)
Shall we try some examples? Sunray (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but none of those books say "this is the name of this church", and they indeed point to a plurality of titles, saying things like "the church is called this because ...; the church is called that because ...". I've been happy to talk about examples for a while. :) Tb (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

See also section

I had said here [6] that I was fine with the added "See also" links. A few of them, however, duplicate links already found in the article, which WP:ALSO says should not normally be done, so I removed those. Tb (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ecumenism as Heresy

The widely held view that ecumenism is heresy is not even mentioned by name in the article. The article is strongly in favour of Ecumenism, and marginalises criticism. For example 2 years ago six metropolitans (Panteleimon of Antinoes, Seraphim of Kythira and Antikythira, Kosmas of Etolia and Akarnania, Seraphim of Piraeus, Jeremiah of Gortyno and Megalopolis, and Artemios of Raskas and Prizrenis, Kossovo and Metohia), as well as 49 archimandrites, 22 hieromonks, and 30 nuns and abbesses, as well as many other priests and church elders wrote that "This pan-heresy of ecumenism adopts and legalises all heresies as 'churches', and insults the dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," says the group. "All boundaries the fathers set have been torn down; there is no longer a dividing line between heresy and church, between truth and fallacy." http://www.eni.ch/featured/article.php?id=3173 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That's totally right. In the "Opposition" section, the fierce opposition from traditional Catholics isn't even mentioned. It's not mentioned either that Msgr. Lefevbre ordained his four bishops because of the ecumenical meetings in Assisi (meetings not even mentioned either), nor that according to several previous apostolic letters and encyclicals, ecumenism is one of the manifestations of Modernism, which Pious X called "The mother of all heresies" (see, for example the encyclical "Notre Charge Apostolique"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:65:0:281:2C04:8658:5E54:1962 (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ecumenism/Archive_1&oldid=696293242"