Comment (27)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiIs inter-faith dialogue faltering?
The culture wars are bad enough. Now the Vatican says that Protestant churches aren't real churches. What's going on?
"If it isn’t Roman Catholic then it’s not a proper Church, Pope tells Christians" was the provocative headline for a front-page article in the London Times last month. The Vatican had just released a brief but meaty document to clarify what it regarded as mistaken views on interfaith dialogue.
The reaction was predictable. Protestant spokesmen welcomed Vatican honesty while criticising its "lust for power". Comments from the pews came thick and fast. "The Babylonian mystery religion is live and well in Papal Rome," wrote a Canadian. It was "self-serving exclusivism by the Pope," according to a reader in Seattle and "offensive and insincere" in the eyes of a reader in Melbourne.
Is Pope Benedict trying to revive the almost forgotten days of a Cold War of bigotry and intolerance between Catholics and Protestants? A closer reading of the 16-page document suggests that this is not the case at all. Let me explain.
When I was brought up I was taught that when saying in the Creed: "I believe (...) in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" I was saying that I believed that this Church exists and that it is to be found in "the Catholic Church", which we understood as identical to "the Roman Catholic Church". My world was made up of Catholics (members of this one Church) and Protestants (who might be very good but were not members of the Church). We prayed for their conversion and were very happy when we heard of people – of whom there were many – who had asked to join the Church.
After the Second Vatican Council, especially perhaps in its immediate aftermath, things became more complex. It became unfashionable in the Catholic media to promote conversions. The buzz word was "ecumenism", often presented as dialogue between Christian communities without any real search for unity. What was sought was understanding, perhaps especially on the part of us Catholics: we had to learn to see all the good things which Protestants had. I remember my surprise at hearing of a German theologian actively dissuading a Protestant from becoming a Catholic, on the theory that it was better for him to remain (at least for the time being) a Protestant.
In part this change was justified by a tiny change in wording in a document from the Second Vatican Council. Before 1964, Catholics used to say that the Church founded by Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church. After 1964, they said that it subsists in the Catholic Church. Tiny? Yes. Momentous? Most emphatically. Almost immediately the change was interpreted as a sign that the Catholic Church was retreating from its claim that it was the authentic heir of Christ's legacy of doctrine and morals.
This was not true. All of the post-Vatican II popes have constantly reaffirmed the unique status of the Catholic Church. Why then had the phrase "subsists in" been adopted if it gave rise to such widespread misinterpretations?
We have to remember that Vatican II aimed, among other things, to be a Council open to the world and also, therefore, to Christians of other denominations. Anyone with a minimum of intelligence must recognise that many elements of Christianity are clearly to be found outside the strict limits of the visible Roman Church. The Council decided that it was good to state this publicly. This decision opened the door to cordial dialogue with those other communions.
Has this been fruitful? I think the answer is Yes. It has helped Catholics to open up to the riches of the Orthodox Churches and also to a better realisation that many Protestants are in good faith, have a great appreciation for much of Christ’s teaching and share many things with Catholics. In my own case, I remember discovering that 17th Century Anglicans had made extensive use of the works of mystics like St Teresa and St John of the Cross. And practical advances, like being welcomed, as a priest, to Anglican cathedrals; the introduction of Catholics to Anglican and Methodist hymns; the beautiful words of the Church of England marriage rite, and so on. Non-Catholics, for their part, have become much more willing to recognise the Pope as a world spiritual leader.
But there is also a down side. Seeing the good in other denominations (a good thing) has often led Catholics to think "we are all much the same" (which may be true, inasmuch as we are all sinners; but the difference, for Catholics, is that they believe they belong to a Church which is holy in spite of being made up of sinners) and then to adopt less demanding ways of behaviour of some non-Catholics (infrequent attendance at Church; acceptance of divorce and abortion and so on.).
This is one reason why Pope Benedict has asked his theologians (as did Pope John Paul II before him) to reiterate that the teaching about the nature of the Catholic Church has not changed. The Pope sees this not as a "put down" to non-Catholic Christians, but a stimulus. We still believe wholeheartedly in the Church, and that Christ has not failed. His Church still is on earth; still subsists.
For Protestants (and indeed for Orthodox), if they come round to admitting that Rome is not Babylon but a force for good, it means that they have "out there" a group of people who still carry the banner of the true Church, and the world is not confined to Christians groping around for unity and wondering whether Christ’s foundation has managed to survive.
Some consequences of the formulation "subsists in" are that the term "Church" (which previously was used by the Roman Catholic Church almost exclusively as referring to herself) can now be used, in a narrower sense, of those portions of the Church (including those not in full communion with Rome) which retain the Apostolic succession (the episcopate and with all the powers deriving from it).
Although the document says that the denominations resulting from the Protestant reformation cannot be deemed Churches from the point of view of Catholic doctrine, it is simply stating a logical consequence of their respective doctrines. Their notion of "Church" is different from the Catholic notion. Catholics respectfully recognise that Protestants freely decided in the 16th Century that the Catholic notions of priesthood and of the visible Church had no Biblical justification.
Finally, could we have saved ourselves a lot of trouble by not getting involved in what some see as a hornet’s nest with the phrase "subsist in"? This is a tenable opinion. Pope Benedict himself is reported as saying this summer that back in the days of the Second Vatican Council the enthusiasm of those involved was such that they didn’t realise that, as well as all the positive things emerging from the Council documents, there would also be a good number of negative ones.
However, we should not underestimate the good that has come from the ecumenical contacts of the last 40 years. The trust that Catholics have in the Popes should surely lead them to the conclusion that the best course is to keep hold of all the advantages flowing from Vatican II while remembering that what was taught before it remains true today. The two are not opposed and can go ahead together.
Father Andrew Byrne is a Catholic priest in London
One of the problems is the difference between official Roman Catholic doctrine that is (a) clearly stated and (b) not clearly stated and popular Catholic practice. Prior to the Secodn Vatican Council, the Catholic church said it was THE Church and the complete revelation of our Lord. After the Council this was fudged both officially and unoffficially. The word subsists has produced so much confusion and has been the subject of so much debate and several official documents it seems to have been a dangerous novelty or ambiguity. Popular Catholic practice of ecumenism has given the impression that there is little if any difference between the RCC and others. i was told in 1975 by an Irish Catholic priest in Armagh not to convert to Catholicism because we are all basically the same “Look at what Vatican II says”. I did convert under the influence of “traditionalist Catholics” [tridentine rite] I have read the relevant Vatican II documents and the recent (July) document several times and it all seems to be words,words words, and very confusing. We know that there are good things outiside the Catholic church, but these have all come from and flow from the Catholic tradition, or have survived from that church. The Compendium of the (new) Catechism [2005] point 168,Who belongs to the Church ? seems a fog. My parents,both Anglicans would never have wanted or claimed to be “ordered” towards membership of the Church. The post-Vatican II teaching seems too complicated and convoluted to be of much help.As far as I understand it,looking at Athe pre-conciliar books, classic teaching on the Church was straight forward,if not always popular. “Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay”
Alan Robinson
I am disappointed that no one has replied to my query to Lucas re: sects, cults & Anglicanism. On another subject [o.k. Webmaster?]
Can someone tell me the official, latest [Council of Trent?]
pronoucements on transubstantiation? I want to see if I can figure out how the doctrine of the Real Presence fits in there. Charles Nixon
The Truth need be told, though painful, despite years of gradual accumulation of nice assumption (in the name of Ecumenism) to relieve the issue. The Holy Father is rather promoting the unity and Ecumenical effort, definitely not otherwise. The Roman Catholic Church is not just one more but IS the Church. fragments of Truth can be in these other communions, but 100% of it is to be found ONLY in Roman Catholic Church.
An Engineer from Ibadan
Oh, Lucas!
A “sect”?
Anglicanism?
You will find that we are not even called protestants in the pre-amble to the Vatican II documents. This is up a notch from “departed brethern”.
Do you agree? Perhaps not.
Walter Martin in his Kingdom of the Cults describes one of the hallmarks of a cult as regarding ALL others as beyond the pale. I don’t know if this says anything about Roman Catholics. Charles Nixon
This topic has`gone very cold, however, just a couple of closing points.
First,I want to begin by stating very emphatically that I generally favor both dialogue and toleration. I say that so that my subsequent remarks will not be in any way misconstrued or misunderstood.
Jesus, in the Gospel, did not say to His disciples to go out into the world and dialogue. I think that the words that are appropriate in our Lord’s last instructions to us in greek are mathutusein and didaskein, which mean “go out and make disciples,” and “go out and teach.”
Now let me be the first to say, that at times, dialogue is a very effective method to make disciples, and can be an excellent pedagogical method as well. However, a method is not, in itself, a goal or an end, but rather a means to achieve an end.
The second limitation, as I see it, is that when the Church and/or Catholics in the Church engage in dialogue, they have no guarantee that this process will always result in the emergence of truth. We all know that there is no guarantee in any kind of dialogic discussion, truth will be the victor.
There are many on this thread who will suggest that the Catholic Church already has the truth - and thus - why would there be any need for dialogue at all. Further, they would suggest that things can be so ordered that consensus and good feeling are the major outcomes desired in dialogues, and therefore, there can be a normal human tendency to trivialize things that are relatively important for the sake of compromise and consensus.
So, all in all, if our dialogue is faltering, that may be a good thing. If the Holy Spirit is not behind and driving our discusions, then perhaps they should not take place.
Each one of us must ask in our hearts, Is the Spirit behind us? How can we discern?
For my part, I still believe that the dialogue is God’s will. Jesus still prays that we might be one
I hope that we can, one day, do God’s will.
Ah, Lucas: you missed the point. Charles Nixon
finally, real Catholics will have to get out of the closet and think, do we really have all the truth? where did the bible come from? Is it consistent for anyone to claim to be Christian and follow the Bible while dismissing the claims of the Roman Catholic church and its pontiff.
Iam sorry for the promoters of ecumenism but I personally think they have greatly contributed to the exodus of Catholics especially the young to “real christianity” as in pentecostalism. At least that’s the way it seems in Uganda where pentecostal pastors preach with a lot of enthusiasm that they have the Truth and the Catholic church is a “cult” or unchristian belief.
For me, I think Catholics need to be told the truth about their Church and why it is not an equal of other “churches” and ecclesial communions.
Will we all be one pond in heaven, sure - but let’s not forget that there are many ‘lilly pads’ (read rooms) in that pond.
Let’s get back to the subject.
Is inter-faith dialogue faltering?
The responses to date suggest that the answer is yes.
Now, is that good or bad?
I’m left with two opinions.
1) Bad because it goes against the prayer of Jesus
Bad because the Devil takes advantage of our PRIDE
Bad because it is a poor evengelization tool
The world see us fighting one another
- not following our own words
Bad - because if we - who have so much in common
can not get along - is theer any hope that we can
get along with non Western traditions - is there
any hope for peace - an end to terrorism
2) Good because if we pretend that the talks are being
successful - we only delude ourselves. Perhaps we
need to fall far enough, allow the devil to gain more
ground - wait till our pond is so small that it will
not sustain life - perhaps only then will we fall
far enough that we will join in prayer and turn to
Jesus to find a real inter-faith dialogue.
In the mean time, how many little one are falling into hell. We are not giving them so much as a cup of water. What can we think Jesus response to us will be? We can say I’m a Catholic, or I’m a protestant, or I’m a Jew - but will Jesus admit to ever knowing us?
Charles
Sorry Lucas but I have many times read and studied deeply these few phrases & they are still do not in any way shape or form appoint the Roman Catholic church as the one true Church nor substantiate Peter as the so-called first pope. The Rock upon which the true Church & our salvation rests is Jesus & He alone is our hope & our deliverer & our redeemer not the Roman Catholic Church, or any Church for that matter. Our salvation & our eternal future is found only in the Cross of Calvary & the shed blood of the Lamb. NO Church is the narrow way to salvation. This is the great freedom that Jesus bequeathed us through His atoning death! We do not need a man or any institutional self-serving edifice to save us but only a repentant relationship with the Author of life - the Lord Jesus Christ. My hope is that you know Him in a deep & personal & saving relationship - that is your ONLY hope & your best hope as well. Bless you.
...yet another hurting Truth, ...this time from: Matthew 10:34-35, when Jesus said to His disciples, “[34] “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. [35] For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law...;”
“People are constantly concerned with themselves, and act above all for their own satisfaction, which can endanger their eternal salvation where they cannot avoid being unhappy even in this life. “
“Only if a person forgets himself and gives himself to God and to others as in any other aspect of life, can he be happy on this earth, with a happiness that is a preparation for, and a foretaste of, the joy of Heaven” ([St] J. Escriva, “Christ Is Passing By”, 24). Clearly, Christian life is based on self-denial: there is no Christianity without the Cross.”
Our Pope is just bringing it on…
ck :-)
Sheila Cameron said, “I find all this discussion rather inane, and for this reason: My “church” is The Christ, and not a building or any group of people.”
I couldn’t agree more with you, Sheila. However, as St Paul reminds us, the Church (ecclesia meaning “assembly” in Greek) is the Body of Christ and this Body finds concrete expression in the people around us with all their gifts and imperfections. Indeed, as Jesus reminds us, we find him in our neighbour and in responding to our neighbour’s needs, we respond to Jesus himself. Moreover, different parts of this Body have different roles – some to prophesy, some to interpret, some to heal, and (though St Paul doesn’t say this explicitly) some simply to “be there.”
Benedict XVI with all his frailties is part of the Body of Christ, which interprets. Of course, to believe this, you need faith. My faith in this aspect may be misplaced – I will know with certainty only when I die. Far more fundamental however is my faith that Jesus died for our sins and rose again from the dead. If this is not true, then again, as Paul reminds us, our present discourse is utter inanity.
Said Charles Nixon, “We should get back to faith, hope and love, eh?”
Indeed we should. And to truth.
Bravo Benedict XIV and those on all sides of the ecumenical divide who refuse to euphemise themselves out of existence.
The Truth hurts. And last Sunday’s Gospel from Luke 13:22-30, reminds us with emphasis, “[23] And some one said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, [24] “Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.”
Is inter-faith dialogue faltering, then? It must not. All of us must help one another get through the narrow door. For Catholics, salvation is not through ones own merit, but through an “apostolic church.” It is the narrowest door. The Pope is just reminding himself of his duty, ...to show and help as many of us the way through the narrow door.
“All of which is not for God’s love, however, is “vanity of vanities;” every second, which is not a loving motion towards God is worthless.” The Faith Applied, ---Jean Daujat
ck :-)
Just a few quick comments regarding the previous entries:
1.-Charles Nixon in his entry of August 22 is right, but just whenever the Pope is not talking about faith and morals (ex-cathedra), if this is the case, then it is “so”… If you don’t consider it “so” then there is no objective truth and we have no guidance, pretty much what happens to the thousands of Protestant sects, being the Anglican sect just one more of those.
2.-Don Humphrey is going a little too far with the asseveration that Vatican II being a valid Church Council cannot be wrong and therefore, it is above even what the Pope says. Councils form part of the Magisterium of the Church and cannot be wrong if they are defining, along with the Pope, dogmas of faith and moral. Vatican II was self-defined as a “pastoral” council and did not define any dogmas.
3.-To John Burgess, please, read St. Mathew 16:15-19 honestly, without any prejudice derived from the actions of human princes wanting material wealth or divorce (e.g. to be able to “marry” 6 “wives”).
And finally, paraphrasing Charles Burton, the Church is the only pond created by God, ecumenism should be understood as that pond being open to all frogs, and such a pond is so sweet, as sweet as the Truth!
Looking forward to seeing you all in the Church,
Lucas
I find all this discussion rather inane, and for this reason: My “church” is The Christ, and not a building or any group of people.
Page 1 of 2 : 1 2 >