A rare case of REAL ecumenism...

[Mornac]

• Tweet

Thanks to Pope Benedict XVI and Francis Cardinal George:


A Tale of Reconciliation
Ex-schismatic Christ the King Monastery unites with the Church.

BY JOSEPH PRONECHEN
5/27/11 

There was an added joy in the Diocese of Birmingham, Ala., during Lent and the Easter Octave as the members of the formerly schismatic Christ the King Monastery in Cullman were reconciled with the Catholic Church.

After years of discussion between Birmingham’s bishops and the monastery, on May 1 Bishop Robert Baker received the two remaining monks’ vows as Benedictine hermits.

The road hasn’t been without its difficulties.

Christ the King Abbey was founded around 1984 by Benedictine Father Leonard Giardina, formerly a member of the St. Bernard Monastery in Cullman. In the 1980s he had contact with the Society of Saint Pius X but ended the association in late 1989, then explored other avenues, but was never formally linked with the St. Pius X Society.

Bishop Baker describes the schismatic abbey as being sui generis — a community of their own kind.

Now because of the community’s reunion with the Church after fulfilling all the requirements expressed by Bishop Baker in consultation with the Vatican, the faithful may have access to worship at the monastery. This community will continue celebrating Mass in the Latin Tridentine form, known since Pope Benedict’s 2007 motu propio letter Summorum Pontificum as the extraordinary form of the Roman rite.

To Bishop Baker’s knowledge, this is one of the first such schismatic groups in the United States to be formally reunited.

“It is somewhat unique as an effort at reconciliation,” he explained. “The discussions leading to this reconciliation were very delicate and complex and took place over a number of years with both Bishop (emeritus) David Foley, my predecessor, and myself, aided by a canon lawyer who had worked for the Vatican, Msgr. Anthony La Femina.”

“We had much prayer and good will on both sides going into this effort,” Bishop Baker reflected. “We all listened to the Holy Spirit, and now we are seeing the fruits of our efforts.”

For one, attendance at the traditional Latin Mass celebrated daily at the monastery has nearly tripled, according to one of the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius who were invited by Bishop Baker to help with the transition. The Cullman church is in the country, yet now 20 or more faithful attend the daily 7am Mass.

“In the short time we’ve been there, as word of mouth spreads, we’re getting more and more,” finds Father James Isaacson of the Canons Regular, who celebrates the Masses for the monks and the people coming to the monastery chapel.

Along with two Canons Regular brothers, he was sent by Father C. Frank Phillips, pastor of St. John Cantius in Chicago, at the request of Bishop Baker, to help the monastery seeking readmission to the Church until something permanent could be established.

“You see how the Holy Spirit works in the life of the Church,” Father Phillips said. “Ten or 20 years ago we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Thanks to the generosity of the Holy Father and of the bishops in obedience to the Holy Father, many people are reconciled in the faith.”

Brother Sebastian Glentz and Brother Michael ¬Sauntner are the two monks who reconciled with the Church. Both have been at Christ the King over 20 years and for a period of time were functioning as priests. However, since there is a question about the validity of their ordination, they do not presently function as priests and have taken the title of “Brother” as canonical hermits of the diocese.

Ongoing visits to the abbey began with Bishop Foley and then continued with Bishop Baker. In December 2010, seeing the divisions within the community, Abbot Leonard gave Brother Sebastian permission to contact Msgr. La Femina about reconciling with the authority of the Church.

Over the years the abbey grew to a maximum of 11 monks and five sisters. Both sedevacantists and those who believe in valid papal succession were part of the community or among those attending services at the monastery. Sedevacantists believe papal succession stopped after Pius XII’s 1958 death or after John XXIII’s 1963 death.

“Abbot Leonard was never a sedevacantist,” Brother Sebastian Glentz explained. “We did not discuss the issue; we prayed about it. Behind the scenes, our community was divided.”

By December 2010 three of six monks had left: two unreconciled sedevacantists and one who chose to reconcile with the Church on his own. There also were three sisters. All three left, one to reconcile with Rome.

Although the monastery is in the Bible Belt and not a hub of sedevacantist activity, most of the 60 to 100-plus people attending the later of the two Sunday Masses were of sedevacantist mindset. 

As the abbot approached death, the increasing divisions motivated Brothers Sebastian and Michael to seek reconciliation. But any reconciliation was put on hold because of a sudden decline in his health and his subsequent death in January 2011.

In early March, the two remaining monks closed the church to the public, placing a statement about their intended reconciliation in their last bulletin.

Bishop Baker makes special note of “the humility and cooperation of these two men.”

Father Phillips gives both monks great credit for living out the vow of obedience and also the great humility they have displayed in submitting themselves to the local bishop.

“In an age when everyone wants to do what they want, here is an actual example of an obedient servant, of knowing and living the humility of the saints themselves in making this type of decision,” said Father Phillips, who also pointed to the gracious permission given the Canons by Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George to help in Alabama.

“That all ties to the idea you can’t do anything by yourself, but everyone is subject to higher authority. We were then able to help Bishop Baker,” he said.

“None of this is by chance. It’s by the promptings of the Holy Spirit,” he added. “You can boil it down very simply: not my will; thine.”

The Vatican requested as a condition of their reconciliation that the two monks return to the canonical status they had before receiving their ordination.

They chose to be accepted as canonical hermits under the canon governing hermits in the Code of Canon Law, while the Holy See examines the validity of their ordinations.

Msgr. La Femina, who was an official of the Roman Curia for 26 years, began visiting the abbey with Bishop Baker two years ago. He noted the big step these two men took. He added, “We are praying now that the sedevacantist congregation returns.”

The monks hope the Vatican eventually recognizes the ordinations, but they are prepared to fully accept whatever the Vatican decides.

Brother Sebastian explained that he and Brother Michael’s “whole Lenten season was a real Lent” because they had to cease functioning as priests as they came under Rome.

“But because of obedience it makes it easier,” he said, looking to the example of Padre Pio. “Not that we are any way near Padre Pio, but he was told not to say public Mass or hear confessions, and he obeyed. We look upon our obedience as the obedience he gave the Church.”

Charles Rumore, president of the chapter in the Birmingham Diocese of Una Voce, a lay association promoting the traditional Latin Mass, sees further good growing from this reconciliation. “This is a huge deal because this is tangible fruit of the tree of Summorum Pontificum,” he said, referring to Pope Benedict’s letter “On the Use of the Roman Liturgy Prior to the Reform of 1970.”

There are only two churches in the diocese that weekly celebrate the extraordinary form of the Mass, necessitating long drives for some. Now the reunited monastery church makes a third.

Rumore expressed thanks to Bishop Baker in this regard. “This humble bishop has responded in an authentic and generous way to Pope Benedict’s document to re-establish our connection to the traditional liturgy and has removed some of the obstacles.”

He also sees this reconciliation as tangible proof of the point Pope Benedict made in the May 13 instruction Universae Ecclesiae on the application of Summorum Pontificum.

“What this does is set an example for others to return, whether they be lay or religious,” Rumore said.

In fact, the Pope’s moves on the liturgy had a constructive bearing on this reconciliation.

“We could see he’s trying to put a sense of the sacred back into the faith of the people,” Brother Sebastian said. “We know that will not happen overnight. We hope our coming over will assist in that.”

In fact, Brother Sebastian said he hopes this move will inspire others to consider reconciliation. The monastery has already received some inquiries.

Bishop Baker points to the providential timing of the monks’ return: They entered the Church in the season of Lent and on Divine Mercy Sunday received their vows — “in the reconciliation pattern of Lent and Mercy Sunday.”

Brother Sebastian sees the same significance. In fact, if Divine Mercy Sunday hadn’t fallen on May 1, the day would be the feast of St. Joseph the Worker, to whom the monks are very devoted.

He noted that that Sunday’s Gospel tells of Our Lord giving the power to forgive sins, and “it was very significant with us coming back into the Church, going to confession.”

Since it was also the first day of the month of the Blessed Mother, Brother Michael crowned the Blessed Mother at the end of Mass.

“All of it had to be done on that day without electricity because of the tornado,” Brother Sebastian noted. “But after the ceremony was over and Mass over, our power came back on.” 

Surely it was heaven lighting up with joy.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/a-tale-of-reconciliation/

If they can manage to bring the schismatics home in such an orderly fashion, maybe there's still hope for the heretics.

[ivanm]

I got lost in the tedium of the article, but the picture did look familiar.  I take it the ladies are the heretics.

IMO true ecumenism means that all faiths and all the sects within a faith learn to cooperate and accept each other in spite of their differences. You don't convert a person to your faith or draw him in by brow beating and criticizing him.

[Mornac]

I got lost in the tedium of the article

--In short, it describes how a community of monks excommunicated themselves from the Church and are now asking for (and receiving) help to return. It is the authentic meaning of the term “ecumenism”. That is, reuniting those who have strayed away from the Church founded by Christ.
 

but the picture did look familiar.  I take it the ladies are the heretics.

--I believe they are. The gentleman friend of johnhp’s on the left most certainly is.
 

IMO true ecumenism means that all faiths and all the sects within a faith learn to cooperate and accept each other in spite of their differences.

--Be that as it may, the term “ecumenism” has a precise meaning that has nothing to do with your opinion. Christ’s Church has attached the adjective “ecumenical” to twenty one councils beginning in AD 325. That’s about eleven centuries before Protestantism even got under way. Ecumenical councils were convened for the purpose of defining Church teaching for those who had some misunderstanding or arguments about it which lead them in directions away from the Church. The goal of ecumenism is, and always has been to re-unite stray Christians under Christ’s Vicar on Earth. Defining terms based on one’s opinion is a uniquely sola scripturist idea. It doesn’t make sense to logical people.
     

You don't convert a person to your faith or draw him in by brow beating and criticizing him.

--Of course not. That’s one thing that has always bothered me about some evangelical sects as well as sword wielding Muslims.

[ivanm]

As usual, you are stuck in the dark ages with your definitions.  In modern usage the term ecumenism takes in a wider scope of believers than the ancient  Catholic definition does.  Or does the Catholic Church also write the modern dictionaries and dictate the current usage and meaning of the English language?

You must stay under the bed a lot because the modern world is just too much for you.  You can fight it or you can live with it. Me,  I prefer to go with it unless something is threatening my well being.  The only thing that is threatening to you is an assault on your ego.

[Mornac]

As usual, you are stuck in the dark ages with your definitions.

--I’m stuck with definitions in the context of the English language and frankly, I like it that way. If definitions all relative to the persons using them, the world would be a doomed Tower of Babel. If Johnny answered “no” to the ten questions on his test and the teacher said that the answers should all have been “yes”’ Johnny need only say that in his opinion “no” is an affirmative. The teacher would have to capitulate and then Johnny would be on the road to the White House.
 

In modern usage the term ecumenism takes in a wider scope of believers than the ancient  Catholic definition does.

--That’s only because the sola scripturists redefined it to suit their needs just like they did with our scriptures. No surprise there.
 

Or does the Catholic Church also write the modern dictionaries and dictate the current usage and meaning of the English language?

--The Catholic Church has always published dictionaries with Catholic terminology in them. That’s how they keep order in the Church. Opening up everything to individual opinion is a Protestant idea. Look how well that’s turned out.
 

You must stay under the bed a lot because the modern world is just too much for you.

--Every era has its trials and challenges. I’m ready, willing, and quite capable of meeting those of my era.

You can fight it or you can live with it.

--I’ll live with the parts that are in accordance with Christ’s mission and fight those which are not.

Me,  I prefer to go with it unless something is threatening my well being.

--Like hell for example?

The only thing that is threatening to you is an assault on your ego.

--An assault on my ego would be the least threatening thing to me.

[ivanm]

You keep forgetting, Hell is a figment of the imagination IMO.

As to your beloved dictionary, many works in the English language have roots in ancient cultures such as the Greeks and pre-Christian Latin.
The old Romans were so afraid of your religion that they fed your ancestors to the dogs. 

If world peace is dependent on accepting your Catholic dogma then I am afraid we are out of luck. Down thru the ages the differences in doctrine have been part of some major and very long wars.  The Protestants recognize that, hence their wish for ecumenism across all sects and faiths, and not just within a given sect like the Cathoics do. If you folks cannot get your house in order then that is little concern of those who are not Catholic, so your lamenting is falliing on deaf ears.

Might you be a victim of your own stubborness and ignorance?

[Mornac]

You keep forgetting, Hell is a figment of the imagination IMO.

--You’re wrong. I am well aware of what Hell is in your opinion. I think you keep forgetting that I deal with fact and that your opinion has no bearing on whether or not something is a fact.

As to your beloved dictionary,

--Why are you describing it as my “beloved” dictionary? You’re the one who asked if such a thing exists. I was just answering your question. For my troubles I get no gratitude but rather a false characterization of the thing as something which is “beloved” by me.
 

many works in the English language have roots in ancient cultures such as the Greeks and pre-Christian Latin.

--I am aware of that. Thank you.

The old Romans were so afraid of your religion that they fed your ancestors to the dogs.

 
--I am aware of that also. Thank you.

If world peace is dependent on accepting your Catholic dogma then I am afraid we are out of luck.

--World peace is not dependent on accepting Catholic dogma. World peace does not exist in Catholic dogma. World peace is an unattainable fantasy cooked up by secular humanists who use it as a carrot to dangle in front of governments, international organizations, protestant churches and other religious sects in order to manipulate them into doing things the secular humanist way instead of God’s way.
 

Down thru the ages the differences in doctrine have been part of some major and very long wars.

--That’s not our fault. We’ve had only one, unchanging, Christ-given doctrine from square one. The trouble began when others decided that they didn’t care for Christ’s doctrine and decided to make up some of their own. We’ve had numerous Ecumenical Councils to heal the problem. Some of these have been very successful, others less so. There are too many people who simply turn up their noses at ecumenism. That doesn’t keep us from persevering though.  Just in the past few months, the Pope has founded a  new ordinariate in England to accommodate the scores of Christians who are currently fleeing the doomed Anglican heresy and running back to Rome. We’re happy that they came home and we patiently await their fallen brethren who are rapidly becoming fed up with the relativist doctrinal idiocy that eventually destroys all heresies.
 

The Protestants recognize that, hence their wish for ecumenism across all sects and faiths, and not just within a given sect like the Cathoics do.

--Ecumenism is a play for unity. The only way “all sects and faiths” can be unified is if they have a common belief, hence a common doctrine. There are plenty of beliefs and doctrines housed in various churches, mosques, temples, etc. The only true goal of someone who describes himself as an ecumenist can be to decide which of these embodies the Truth and which are merely opinions of men.

If you folks cannot get your house in order then that is little concern of those who are not Catholic,

--Our house is doctrinally in order. It has been from the day it was founded.
 

so your lamenting is falliing on deaf ears.

--Lamenting? Where have I lamented here?

Might you be a victim of your own stubborness and ignorance?

--No, I’ve already gone through the stubbornness and ignorance phase. When I  was finished I came back to the Church.

[ivanm]

"You’re wrong. I am well aware of what Hell is in your opinion. I think you keep forgetting that I deal with fact and that your opinion has no bearing on whether or not something is a fact.


Describe Hell to me.  Have you been there, have you seen it?  Hell is a state of being and not a physical location. If someone is eternally condemned with no hope of redemption, according to relilgious doctrine, then he is living in Hell.

You deal with what fact? A 'fact' is what you believe to be such, and I have no intention of trying to change your mind because it is closed to the reality of the issue. I am just trying to help you to see how ridiculous you look to those who do not share your beliefs. Ypu provide them no credible basis to understand what you believe, let alone accept it as being right for them.

The fact that it might be the "truth" or not seems to be secondary to me because people take religious doctrine on faith alone for the most part. Whether you care to believe me or not, you seem to be doing that very thing. 

I am glad you have a faith that pleases you and serves your emotional needs, but when you start knocking another person's  faith that pleases him and serves is needs then you are out of line IMO. If his way of believing works for him then why should you care if it is not like yours?
 
I drive a Chevy and my neighbor drives a Ford, and we both get to where we want to go. The same can be said of religious sects.

[dagon]

"You’re wrong. I am well aware of what Hell is in your opinion. I think you keep forgetting that I deal with fact and that your opinion has no bearing on whether or not something is a fact.


Describe Hell to me.  Have you been there, have you seen it?  Hell is a state of being and not a physical location. If someone is eternally condemned with no hope of redemption, according to relilgious doctrine, then he is living in Hell.

You deal with what fact? A 'fact' is what you believe to be such, and I have no intention of trying to change your mind because it is closed to the reality of the issue. I am just trying to help you to see how ridiculous you look to those who do not share your beliefs. Ypu provide them no credible basis to understand what you believe, let alone accept it as being right for them.

The fact that it might be the "truth" or not seems to be secondary to me because people take religious doctrine on faith alone for the most part. Whether you care to believe me or not, you seem to be doing that very thing.  

I am glad you have a faith that pleases you and serves your emotional needs, but when you start knocking another person's  faith that pleases him and serves is needs then you are out of line IMO. If his way of believing works for him then why should you care if it is not like yours?
 
I drive a Chevy and my neighbor drives a Ford, and we both get to where we want to go. The same can be said of religious sects.

i'll give it up to you ivan.  you have been pleasant and understanding in the face of this nonsense but i think you are now coming face to face with the mornac that some of us have known for a very long time.

it's as simple as this.  ANYONE who claims that the existence of an other-dimensional reality of torment called hell is an indisputable fact is CRAZY!

and there is no sense in discussing anything with them on any matters of observable reality;  that includes politics as well.

peace

[ivanm]

He does seem to be set in his ways.  
Strong convictions and steadfastness are both virtues but one must be realistic about what he can accomplish.  If I remember correctly there are about 500,000 Catholics that share his viewpoints, up against millions that don't if you include the Protestant viewpoints.

Given the arcaneness of the traditional Catholic pov I doubt he will attract a sizeable number of converts. The acid test is what his pov can do versus what the more moderate pov can do for a person.  Both povs point in the same direction, and differ primarily in the ritual  that is involved.

So does one pay reverance to the traditions of the Church or does one worship Christ and God the Father? I think that is the bottom line.

[dagon]

He does seem to be set in his ways.  
Strong convictions and steadfastness are both virtues but one must be realistic about what he can accomplish.  If I remember correctly there are about 500,000 Catholics that share his viewpoints, up against millions that don't if you include the Protestant viewpoints.

Given the arcaneness of the traditional Catholic pov I doubt he will attract a sizeable number of converts. The acid test is what his pov can do versus what the more moderate pov can do for a person.  Both povs point in the same direction, and differ primarily in the ritual  that is involved.

So does one pay reverance to the traditions of the Church or does one worship Christ and God the Father? I think that is the bottom line.

i think you're missing mornac's real motivation.  he likes his outsider status and he's not really looking for converts.  i've seen this with a lot of born-again evangelicals.  they revel in the fact that they are a small group that is "in the know"  and get a glow about them when telling others they are wrong and will pay for it in hell (or purgatory or whatever nonsense nether realm they can come up).

it's a personality type that imo is solace for not being deemed worthy in this life;  which can manifest itself from many sources.

bottom line,  he gets off thinking he will be singing with the angels while the rest of us rot.

peace

[Mornac]

Describe Hell to me.

--Hell would be the state of eternal suffering.

Have you been there, have you seen it?

--No. One has to die in order to do that.

Hell is a state of being and not a physical location.

--That would be my guess.
 

If someone is eternally condemned with no hope of redemption, according to relilgious doctrine, then he is living in Hell.

--Bingo.

You deal with what fact?

--Fact in general.  When it comes to the philosophy of existence, I have no use for opinion. Things either are or they are not.
 

A 'fact' is what you believe to be such,

--No, that is the definition of an opinion. A fact is something that either is or is not. A man either drives a Chevy or he does not. If I say that it is my opinion that a man driving a Chevy is actually driving a Ford, it does not change the fact that he is driving a Chevy.

and I have no intention of trying to change your mind because it is closed to the reality of the issue.

--My mind is open to anyone who wishes to make the case that the facts are other than what I believe them to be.
 

I am just trying to help you to see how ridiculous you look to those who do not share your beliefs.

--In what way would that be helping me insofar as I don’t care how ridiculous I look to those who do not share my beliefs?

Ypu provide them no credible basis to understand what you believe, let alone accept it as being right for them.

--They need only ask. I don’t proselytize but I do have the courtesy to answer questions.

The fact that it might be the "truth" or not seems to be secondary to me because people take religious doctrine on faith alone for the most part.

--I worry about those who take religious doctrine on faith without making a reasonable effort to prove to themselves that it is based on truth. This should seem primary to you, not secondary.
 

Whether you care to believe me or not, you seem to be doing that very thing.

--That’s fine. I have my convictions and I use them as a basis to answer anyone’s questions. Whatever that “seems” like to anyone has no bearing on the matter to me.

I am glad you have a faith that pleases you and serves your emotional needs, but when you start knocking another person's  faith that pleases him and serves is needs then you are out of line IMO.

--You misunderstand. I have a faith that I understand to be the truth. If others believe in something different I have no recourse but to recognize their beliefs as false. If I say so it is because I am standing up for my own beliefs. That is something far different from “knocking another person’s faith.”

If his way of believing works for him then why should you care if it is not like yours?

--It would be uncharitable for me to allow someone to eat a bowl of arsenic believing that it was chocolate pudding. That said, I must quickly admit to being a most uncharitable person since I do not proselytize. I’ve noted before that I don’t know how to go about it and that I’d likely make a bigger mess out of things if I tried. I find it better just to defend my own beliefs with the hope that someone will become interested enough to ask a few questions from time to time. Logic has its own way of appealing to people.
 

I drive a Chevy and my neighbor drives a Ford,

--Is that an opinion or a fact? If your neighbor says that it is his opinion that he drives a Chevy, will that make it so?

and we both get to where we want to go.

--What about the guy driving the Yugo?

The same can be said of religious sects.

--Sure. Anything can be said about religious sects. That doesn’t make it the truth. It makes it one man’s opinion. I deal in fact – not opinion.

[Mornac]

He does seem to be set in his ways.

--I turned a lot of corners before I got to where I am. I’m open to turning more if someone’s capable of shining the light of reason on one.
 

Strong convictions and steadfastness are both virtues but one must be realistic about what he can accomplish.

--What is it you believe I’m trying to accomplish and why do you believe that?

If I remember correctly there are about 500,000 Catholics that share his viewpoints,

--What “viewpoints” are those? I believe 100% of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. If every Catholic in the world is sincere in reciting the Creed that he does every Sunday, than there are no less than 1.15 billion people who share my viewpoints.

up against millions that don't if you include the Protestant viewpoints.

--Okay. 1.15 billion of us against millions of others (if you include the Protestant viewpoints).

Given the arcaneness of the traditional Catholic pov

--The “traditional Catholic pov” is the ONLY Cathoilc pov. We don’t entertain the relativism that Protestants sects do.
 

I doubt he will attract a sizeable number of converts.

--That’s fine. He’s not trying to.

The acid test is what his pov can do versus what the more moderate pov can do for a person.

--There is only the Catholic pov and the dissenting pov. I hold the Catholic pov which has brought billions of souls to salvation. The dissenting pov has been a danger to all who hold it.

Both povs point in the same direction, and differ primarily in the ritual  that is involved.

--While there are many Catholic rites, theer is only one Catholic pov.

So does one pay reverance to the traditions of the Church or does one worship Christ and God the Father?

--A person cannot do one without doing the other.

I think that is the bottom line.

--Indeed.

[ivanm]

--In short, it describes how a community of monks excommunicated themselves from the Church and are now asking for (and receiving) help to return. It is the authentic meaning of the term “ecumenism”. That is, reuniting those who have strayed away from the Church founded by Christ.
  --I believe they are. The gentleman friend of johnhp’s on the left most certainly is.
 --Be that as it may, the term “ecumenism” has a precise meaning that has nothing to do with your opinion. Christ’s Church has attached the adjective “ecumenical” to twenty one councils beginning in AD 325. That’s about eleven centuries before Protestantism even got under way. Ecumenical councils were convened for the purpose of defining Church teaching for those who had some misunderstanding or arguments about it which lead them in directions away from the Church. The goal of ecumenism is, and always has been to re-unite stray Christians under Christ’s Vicar on Earth. Defining terms based on one’s opinion is a uniquely sola scripturist idea. It doesn’t make sense to logical people.
     --Of course not. That’s one thing that has always bothered me about some evangelical sects as well as sword wielding Muslims.

The fundie Christian sects have probably done more to  turn me off on religions than anything else. 

Over time the usage and meanings of words change, and ecumenalism is apparently no exception.  I think the Protestant usage and understanding ot the term is appropriate regardless of what you may think.  If Christ wanted us to all march to his drumbeat someday  then the Protestansts, for the most part, are simply out gathering the flock by promoting understanting and harmony across all faiths.

By the way, not all Protestant sects support ecumenalism the way the more progressive and moderate ones do. Some of the fundie sects are so bull headed that they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces when it comes to promoting world peace and harmony amongst the religions.

I look at it this way.  You cannot win someone over by insulting him and belittling his beliefs, but if you extend the olive branch you might gain a new friend and ally for your work. Here in this little town we have an all faith effort to promote harmony in the city, and it is successful except for a few holdouts. I think the differences come about largely because of the personality of the pastors.  Some are popular and civic minded and some are so bull headed that they seem to live on a separate plain avbove and beyond the needs of real people.

In case you are wondering, the Catholics are very well received in the community, and that is the case all up and down the river valley.  Once again, the personality of the priests have a lot to do with it.  The guy here in Abilene is a real treat and is adored by most everyone regardless of their sect.

[Mornac]

The fundie Christian sects have probably done more to  turn me off on religions than anything else.

--They have a difficult time understanding that about themselves. I suppose that their heart is in the right place though.

Over time the usage and meanings of words change, and ecumenalism is apparently no exception.

--No doubt. The word “Christian” has suffered the same fate.  However there are definite definitions – different though they be. Whenever I use a word, I stand ready, willing and able to give the legitimate definition corresponding to how I am using.
 

I think the Protestant usage and understanding ot the term is appropriate regardless of what you may think.

--Sure. It’s appropriate to the Protestant objective. I won’t deny that. However, there are other, more firmly established meanings of the word which are not invalid just because Protestants have introduced a new one.
 

If Christ wanted us to all march to his drumbeat someday  then the Protestansts, for the most part, are simply out gathering the flock

--They are not out gathering the flock, they are out gathering flocks.

by promoting understanting and harmony across all faiths.

--You jest! Protestantism began when certain men mis-understood and went about spreading their misunderstanding to others. Once the first Protestants made inroads with their misunderstanding, others decided that they had some misunderstandings of their own which were different from the misunderstandings of the first Protestants. Today there are thousands of Protestant sects each encouraging its own particular misunderstanding over the other Protestant misunderstandings (which they of course, decry as errors). In what way can this situation possibly be described as “promoting understanding and harmony across all faiths”?
 

By the way, not all Protestant sects support ecumenalism the way the more progressive and moderate ones do.

--Those would be the more admirable. At least their beliefs are firm enough that they regard ecumenism as folly.

Some of the fundie sects are so bull headed that they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces when it comes to promoting world peace and harmony amongst the religions.

--If their mission is “promoting world peace and harmony amongst the religions” then they have much larger problems than ecumenism.

I look at it this way.  You cannot win someone over by insulting him and belittling his beliefs,

--I look at it that way too. I think I’ve mentioned that already.
 

but if you extend the olive branch you might gain a new friend and ally for your work.

--Olive branches are for those who are at war. We’re not at war with Protestants. We just seek understanding with them. As for gaining friends and allies for our work, we have many strong alliances with certain Protestants when it comes to defending the life of the unborn.

Here in this little town we have an all faith effort to promote harmony in the city, and it is successful except for a few holdouts.

--Promoting harmony within a city has little to do with faith. It is a matter of civility. I’m sure that the atheists  right here would be on board for promoting harmony within their communities.

I think the differences come about largely because of the personality of the pastors.  Some are popular and civic minded and some are so bull headed that they seem to live on a separate plain avbove and beyond the needs of real people.

--Again, you’re speaking of civil goals. Anyone, lay or cleric, Protestant or otherwise, can be a good leader in this area.
 

In case you are wondering, the Catholics are very well received in the community, and that is the case all up and down the river valley.

--I’m glad to hear that. It’s not always the case and sometimes it is the fault of the Catholic community itself.

Once again, the personality of the priests have a lot to do with it.  The guy here in Abilene is a real treat and is adored by most everyone regardless of their sect.

--I’m sure that’s true. A good priest can do a world of good for his own flock and by extension, the larger community. On the other hand, a poor priest can be a disaster for everyone.