Ecuмenicism is evil. It puts Christ on same level as false gods.  It offends God by breaking His Commandment of thou shall not worship false gods.  

This is why we are having trouble with terrorists and devil worshippers.  

Then what is ecuмenicism?

Then what is ecuмenicism?

Religious indifferentism is what Bergoglio and all the bishops in communion with him do.

Ecuмenism is the unity of all Christians in the same faith, the same sacraments, and the same head.  In other words, the conversion of all peoples to the Catholic Faith.

.

These are good answers (in the posts above).

One more thing that should be recognized is that a technique of Modernism is to take traditional Catholic words and use them repeatedly in a new way so that over time the meaning of the words are changed into meaning useful for the spread of Modernism.

Ecuмenism is actually a new word.  Before Vat.II, the prior 20 councils were called Ecuмenical Councils, so ecuмenical was a traditional Catholic word.  What made a council of the Church ecuмenical was when all the bishops of the world traveled to one place to meet, in response to being called to come there.  

You can say a Council is Ecuмenical when the Pope calls all the bishops, but it doesn't have to be the Pope who calls all the bishops, since several of the first Ecuмenical Councils of the Church were called not by the Pope but by the Emperor, and at some of those, the Pope never even showed up.  But they still became recognized as Ecuмenical Councils because later, the Pope recognized them as such.  

Therefore, to be ecuмenical is to be representative of the Church all over the world.  But what then is "ecuмenism?"  If it is true representation of the one true Church, it is Catholicism.  So why would we need another word, ecuмenism?

The Modernists introduced ecuмenism because they wanted a word that sounds better than indifferentism, especially since the latter had already been condemned by many good Popes in the past.  Consequently, ecuмenism is a made-up word that would be unnecessary unless it were for the purpose of deception and subterfuge, to destroy the Church.  

Modernists use "ecuмenism" in the same way that our language would use "indifferentism" except with one difference.  The proper use of "indifferentism" would make clear the fact that the Church does not condone it, and it is against the will of God, and it is evil.  But by using "ecuмenism" in the same place it can be made to seem that the Church is suddenly okay with it.

It's like a magic trick where something suddenly appears to be altogether different from what it had been before, and the gullible audience becomes acclimated to the new reality before their eyes, even if there may still be some lingering doubt.  

We are wont to say false ecuмenism to impart clarity to our words, but you will never see the Modernists use "false" in front of ecuмenism.  I suppose that means that you can more readily tell when the words are trustworthy on that basis.  Modernists abhor clarity and truth.

.

False ecuмenism is what the NO promote - dialog to get to know other faiths then fall all over them as if no matter what they do they'll get to heaven.

         Note:  Newchurch doesn't say "false ecuмenism," they say "ecuмenism"
          but it's up to us to discern how FALSE it is!

For example, +Cushing said at an interfaith meeting: "When I get to heaven and I don't see you there, I'll know you're not dead yet."

True ecuмenism is good - that's where the Church dialog consists of bringing the lost sheep into the fold by telling those of other faiths where salvation is to be found and the truths of salvation.  

What a nice place it is to have the simple faith described here by Stubborn.  If only Church dialog would consist of bringing the lost sheep into the fold, etc.

That's what the Church does in her NORMAL state, when things are properly ordered.  And it should be our every-day effort to bring about the proper order of things.  

Maybe by saying "true ecuмenism" in proper context, this preferred ideal can be promoted, in fact.  

It seems to me that all the while we should recognize and not forget what we're up against, and that is, that in our modernist world when they say "dialogue" they're talking about something else, because dialogue is what happens when various people get together to talk about their religious faith and to discover the truth, PRESUMING FROM THE START that no one present already HAS the truth. That is the "even playing field" of false ecuмenism, and it is what makes it false.  

The truth is that the Catholic Church has the truth, and always has.  And when Our Lord promised to always be with us, He was saying that the true Church will always have the truth, because He IS the Truth.

.

[Ecuмenism] is evil. It puts Christ on same level as false gods.  It offends God by breaking His Commandment of thou shall not worship false gods.  

This is why we are having trouble with terrorists and devil worshippers.  

Thanks for correcting my error.

You really knew all along by way of your Catholic sense, what you were talking about, VCR.  Your OP is right on target.  You shouldn't blame yourself for feeling confused, since Newchurch promotes this false concept, and it's all over the place today.  

Rest assured that your sensus catholicus is intact, and if these other fine members of CathInfo can be of any aid for your peace, all the better!

You were only missing one word, "false."

False ecuмenism is evil.  It puts Christ on the same level as false gods.  It offends God by breaking His Commandment of Thou Shalt Not Worship false gods.  This is indeed why we are having trouble with terrorists and devil worshipers.

God bless you, Viva Cristo Rey. Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!

.

.

These are good answers (in the posts above).

One more thing that should be recognized is that a technique of Modernism is to take traditional Catholic words and use them repeatedly in a new way so that over time the meaning of the words are changed into meaning useful for the spread of Modernism.

Ecuмenism is actually a new word.  Before Vat.II, the prior 20 councils were called Ecuмenical Councils, so ecuмenical was a traditional Catholic word.  What made a council of the Church ecuмenical was when all the bishops of the world traveled to one place to meet, in response to being called to come there.  

You can say a Council is Ecuмenical when the Pope calls all the bishops, but it doesn't have to be the Pope who calls all the bishops, since several of the first Ecuмenical Councils of the Church were called not by the Pope but by the Emperor, and at some of those, the Pope never even showed up.  But they still became recognized as Ecuмenical Councils because later, the Pope recognized them as such.  

Therefore, to be ecuмenical is to be representative of the Church all over the world.  But what then is "ecuмenism?"  If it is true representation of the one true Church, it is Catholicism.  So why would we need another word, ecuмenism?

The Modernists introduced ecuмenism because they wanted a word that sounds better than indifferentism, especially since the latter had already been condemned by many good Popes in the past.  Consequently, ecuмenism is a made-up word that would be unnecessary unless it were for the purpose of deception and subterfuge, to destroy the Church.  

Modernists use "ecuмenism" in the same way that our language would use "indifferentism" except with one difference.  The proper use of "indifferentism" would make clear the fact that the Church does not condone it, and it is against the will of God, and it is evil.  But by using "ecuмenism" in the same place it can be made to seem that the Church is suddenly okay with it.

It's like a magic trick where something suddenly appears to be altogether different from what it had been before, and the gullible audience becomes acclimated to the new reality before their eyes, even if there may still be some lingering doubt.  

We are wont to say false ecuмenism to impart clarity to our words, but you will never see the Modernists use "false" in front of ecuмenism.  I suppose that means that you can more readily tell when the words are trustworthy on that basis.  Modernists abhor clarity and truth.

.

Nice post Neil.  Although I have always seen Ecuмenism as a false teaching of the post Vatican II church, I had never seen anyone describe the word as made up to actually represent religious indifferentism in disguise.

Those modernists sure are sneaky fellas.

For Kant, totally opposed to the Truth known and taught by the Catholic Church, the world as it is "in-itself" is unknowable and it is only human reason the source of morality. This necessarily leads to the dangerous notion of "subjective" individual truths (contrary to the Catholic objective TRUTH) which are nothing less than a despairing collection of falsehoods.

"(...) Truth, it is said, consists in the agreement of cognition with its object. In consequence of this mere nominal definition, my cognition, to count as true, is supposed to agree with its object. Now I can compare the object with my cognition, however, only by cognizing it. Hence my cognition is supposed to confirm itself, which is far short of being sufficient for truth. For since the object is outside me, the cognition in me, all I can ever pass judgement on is whether my cognition of the object agrees with my cognition of the object. The ancients called such a circle in explanation a diallelon. And actually the logicians were always reproached with this mistake by the sceptics, who observed that with this definition of truth it is just as when someone makes a statement before a court and in doing so appeals to a witness with whom no one is acquainted, but who wants to establish his credibility by maintaining that the one who called him as witness is an honest man. The accusation was grounded, too. Only the solution of the indicated problem is impossible without qualification and for every man. (...)"[71]