Comments on: Ecumenical Anti-Jihad? http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/10/31/ecumenical-anti-jihad/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ecumenical-anti-jihad n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:25:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: jgress http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/10/31/ecumenical-anti-jihad/comment-page-1/#comment-34034 jgress Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:48:31 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=10234#comment-34034 Thanks, Mr Larison, for this post. I think it's high time there was a more thorough discussion of this new 'conservative' ecumenism that has arisen in recent decades. The sources are twofold: the erosion of traditional theology by the original ecumenical movement, which teaches that doctrine is of secondary importance to visible unity; and the internal secularization that afflicted all parties to the ecumenical movement simultaneously, shortly after the original ecumenical movement established itself securely through the creation of the World Council of Churches. This secularization created a split within the ecumenist churches between 'conservatives' and 'progressives'. Neither party, of course, maintained traditional doctrine, since both shared the assumptions of ecumenist theology, which had been adopted at an official level by all these churches. The 'conservative/liberal' distinction is restricted to moral and political issues. Thus, the 'progressive' ecumenists came to dominate the WCC, especially under the influence of Eastern Orthodox members under communist control. The 'conservative' ecumenists, with the Vatican in the vanguard, arose as a counterbalance: the aim is obviously to unite all 'conservative' Christians under the Pope, who historically has always been willing to subordinate doctrinal differences to sacramental union (viz all the Uniate churches in Eastern Orthodox territories). Of course, the conservative/liberal distinction is not watertight: Patriarch Bartholomew shares the characteristics of both camps, for example, in his moral conservatism on the one hand, against his environmentalism on the other. But largely this is a useful distinction that students of the ecumenical movement should bear in mind more than they have been doing hitherto. Thanks, Mr Larison, for this post. I think it’s high time there was a more thorough discussion of this new ‘conservative’ ecumenism that has arisen in recent decades. The sources are twofold: the erosion of traditional theology by the original ecumenical movement, which teaches that doctrine is of secondary importance to visible unity; and the internal secularization that afflicted all parties to the ecumenical movement simultaneously, shortly after the original ecumenical movement established itself securely through the creation of the World Council of Churches. This secularization created a split within the ecumenist churches between ‘conservatives’ and ‘progressives’. Neither party, of course, maintained traditional doctrine, since both shared the assumptions of ecumenist theology, which had been adopted at an official level by all these churches. The ‘conservative/liberal’ distinction is restricted to moral and political issues. Thus, the ‘progressive’ ecumenists came to dominate the WCC, especially under the influence of Eastern Orthodox members under communist control. The ‘conservative’ ecumenists, with the Vatican in the vanguard, arose as a counterbalance: the aim is obviously to unite all ‘conservative’ Christians under the Pope, who historically has always been willing to subordinate doctrinal differences to sacramental union (viz all the Uniate churches in Eastern Orthodox territories).

Of course, the conservative/liberal distinction is not watertight: Patriarch Bartholomew shares the characteristics of both camps, for example, in his moral conservatism on the one hand, against his environmentalism on the other. But largely this is a useful distinction that students of the ecumenical movement should bear in mind more than they have been doing hitherto.

]]> By: M.Z. Forrest http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/10/31/ecumenical-anti-jihad/comment-page-1/#comment-34032 M.Z. Forrest Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:27:58 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=10234#comment-34032 People have a tendency to interpret Pope Benedict's statements on contemporary events as initial reflections rather than an application based upon a long body of work. I confess to not having studied Benedict's corpus extensively, but I know that he has explicated on Christian Unity many times and that issues of doctrine should be worked out under unity rather than outside it. Even understood under the rubric of Vatican policy, this still shouldn't be surprising. The Vatican has publicly and directly said that the Anglicans are moving further away from being able to unite with the Catholic Church. I think it was a statement 2 or 3 years ago that was especially blunt. As for Islam, the Vatican hasn't been a shrinking violet. Saudi Arabia in particular has been party to condemnation over its suppression of the rights of Christians within its borders. While I appreciate Douthat's desire to understand and bring forth in policy discussions the Catholic Church's policies, I really wish he would take the time to understand them by the American conservative catholic lens. The Vatican has its own policy prerogatives, and they are not subordinated to US thought. People have a tendency to interpret Pope Benedict’s statements on contemporary events as initial reflections rather than an application based upon a long body of work. I confess to not having studied Benedict’s corpus extensively, but I know that he has explicated on Christian Unity many times and that issues of doctrine should be worked out under unity rather than outside it. Even understood under the rubric of Vatican policy, this still shouldn’t be surprising. The Vatican has publicly and directly said that the Anglicans are moving further away from being able to unite with the Catholic Church. I think it was a statement 2 or 3 years ago that was especially blunt. As for Islam, the Vatican hasn’t been a shrinking violet. Saudi Arabia in particular has been party to condemnation over its suppression of the rights of Christians within its borders.

While I appreciate Douthat’s desire to understand and bring forth in policy discussions the Catholic Church’s policies, I really wish he would take the time to understand them by the American conservative catholic lens. The Vatican has its own policy prerogatives, and they are not subordinated to US thought.

]]>