Ecumenism Vs. Dialogue
What's the difference?

"Ecumenism"... I'm sick of the word of it. More often than not, it's usually connected with the sell-out and/or watering-down of Catholicism at the expense of groveling to various heretics and apostates. But every so often, I hear of "dialogue". Is there a difference? Turns out there is.

The textbook Catholic definition of ecumenism is quite simply, anything dealing with the world-wide Catholic Church. With that in mind, remember that Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have never considered each other heretical... in schism (separated), yes... but never heretical. And in light that we consider each other to have valid orders and Sacraments, we all know that in certain cases, we could be granted Last Rites, Penance, etc, from an Orthodox priest (Russian, Ethiopian, Serbian, Greek, Syrian, etc.), and of course, vice versa.

Looking at the history of ecumenism, we have the examples of both the Councils of Lyon and Florence, in which some bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Churches participated. Not just observed... but participated in. Just like His Holiness recently stated, the Eastern Orthodox are our Sister Churches.

Can the same be said of Protestants? No. They're not only schismatic, but heretical. We don't engage in ecumenism with Protestants, but rather, dialogue.

So what's the difference between ecumenism and dialogue? In a word: validity. It's simply impossible for Catholic leaders to engage in ecumenism with those who deny the Sacramental Priesthood, Sacramental Confession, The Real Presence of Christ in The Eucharist, etc. Dialogue, yes. But ecumenism, no.

That is, unless those same Catholic leaders deny any or all of the above.