Vatican II & Ecumenism

  • Thread starter Thread starter JSmitty2005
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JSmitty2005

Guest
In February of 2001, Cardinal Kasper stated that “ecumenism of return…was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.” On what basis does he make such a statement? Where in Vatican II does it say that? His full quote is below:

“Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics’… each church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved, and not in the fact that we should become ‘Protestants’, or that the others should become ‘Catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism. This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.”
 
I should think that Domine Jesus would have answered the Cardinal’s apparent misunderstanding.
 
With deference to the good Cardinal this is flat wrong as usual. I still don’t know why he is kept around.
 
In that case, why did the Pope reiterate the same point last year:

“On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!”

Yes, I understand that he may have meant something different by it–that he might be saying, as most folks on this board would say, that one can convert to Catholicism as an individual without denying one’s own faith history.

But we do have in black and white (though, as he jokingly remarked at the beginning of that same speech, not ex cathedra!) that the current Pope believes that any reunion of the Church must respect the diversity of Christian theological traditions and must not consist of denying our own particular histories.

That’s exactly the issue I’m struggling with. Catholic apologetics in this country is working with a radically individualistic, American, anti-historical model. This is incredibly ironic given the nature of Catholicism, but it’s the way most Catholic apologists seem to think. It is not just a matter of charging out there as an individual and finding the Truth for oneself. That’s the very model that has led to the religious chaos within American Protestantism that drives people to Catholicism in the first place.

Edwin
 
40.png
Contarini:
In that case, why did the Pope reiterate the same point last year:

“On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!”

Yes, I understand that he may have meant something different by it–that he might be saying, as most folks on this board would say, that one can convert to Catholicism as an individual without denying one’s own faith history.

But we do have in black and white (though, as he jokingly remarked at the beginning of that same speech, not ex cathedra!) that the current Pope believes that any reunion of the Church must respect the diversity of Christian theological traditions and must not consist of denying our own particular histories.

That’s exactly the issue I’m struggling with. Catholic apologetics in this country is working with a radically individualistic, American, anti-historical model. This is incredibly ironic given the nature of Catholicism, but it’s the way most Catholic apologists seem to think. It is not just a matter of charging out there as an individual and finding the Truth for oneself. That’s the very model that has led to the religious chaos within American Protestantism that drives people to Catholicism in the first place.

Edwin
Click to expand...
The work of he apologist and the work of the evangelist and the work of an ecumenist are all different and distinct and are respected for their distinction. What the Holy Father is saying (if I may translate his brilliance) is that after the Second Vatican Council we no longer unite by necessity the work of evangelization and the work of ecumenism. Today we see these things are two separate issues. Further we treat ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue as two different things as well. So in effect we cannot engage in ecumenism with a Hindu because they are not Christians.

The work of ecumenism is not done with an eye of the primary motive being conversion - it is a component - but honest true dialogue only happens in true mutual understanding and love for the other. A relationship cannot occur between two persons that do not have mutual understanding and respect. Therefore, the work of ecumenism is the same as trying to enter into a new relationship with a person that you do not know well but would like to know better and so in time you become friends and in some cases family. This is the true work of ecumenism. It respects mutual understanding before conversion but it does not, as Cardinal Kaspar seems to think, abandon the work of conversion in toto.
 
40.png
mosher:
The work of he apologist and the work of the evangelist and the work of an ecumenist are all different and distinct and are respected for their distinction. What the Holy Father is saying (if I may translate his brilliance) is that after the Second Vatican Council we no longer unite by necessity the work of evangelization and the work of ecumenism. Today we see these things are two separate issues. Further we treat ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue as two different things as well. So in effect we cannot engage in ecumenism with a Hindu because they are not Christians.

The work of ecumenism is not done with an eye of the primary motive being conversion - it is a component - but honest true dialogue only happens in true mutual understanding and love for the other. A relationship cannot occur between two persons that do not have mutual understanding and respect. Therefore, the work of ecumenism is the same as trying to enter into a new relationship with a person that you do not know well but would like to know better and so in time you become friends and in some cases family. This is the true work of ecumenism. It respects mutual understanding before conversion but it does not, as Cardinal Kaspar seems to think, abandon the work of conversion in toto.
Click to expand...
VERY well put, Mosher! On the point of mutual understanding, I’ve often thought that if we could come to comprehend each other’s *vocabularies *(ie, this is what *WE *mean by this, what do *YOU *mean by this?), many Protestants would come to the point of asking themselves,“What exactly are we protesting against?” and many Catholics would find themselves saying,“Oh…that’s what they’re talking about.”
 
Contarini said:
“On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!”
Click to expand...

Notice that the very next sentence says this: “It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline.” Do you see what he excluded? DOCTRINE! I think that this pope is going to approach ecumenism much more reasonably than his predecessor, but we’ll see. I was glad that he didn’t accept the invitation to the mosque in Cologne. That was a good sign. 👍 Plus, he also recently said the following to the World Methodist Council (Dec. 9,2005):

“I have been encouraged by the initiative which would bring the member churches of the World Methodist Council into association with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, signed by the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999. Should the World Methodist Council express its intent to associate itself with the Joint Declaration, it would assist in contributing to the healing and reconciliation we ardently desire, and would be a significant step toward the stated goal of full visible unity in faith.”

Back to my original topic. Does Vatican II actually call for such an approach to ecumenism?
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
VERY well put, Mosher! On the point of mutual understanding, I’ve often thought that if we could come to comprehend each other’s *vocabularies *(ie, this is what *WE *mean by this, what do *YOU *mean by this?), many Protestants would come to the point of asking themselves,“What exactly are we protesting against?” and many Catholics would find themselves saying,“Oh…that’s what they’re talking about.”
Click to expand...
👍 This was done in the nearly thirty-year dialog between Catholic theologians and Lutheran theologians that lead to the promulgation of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.**4.1 Human Powerlessness and Sin in Relation to Justification **

19.We confess together that all persons depend completely on the saving grace of God for their salvation. The freedom they possess in relation to persons and the things of this world is no freedom in relation to salvation, for as sinners they stand under God’s judgment and are incapable of turning by themselves to God to seek deliverance, of meriting their justification before God, or of attaining salvation by their own abilities. Justification takes place solely by God’s grace. Because Catholics and Lutherans confess this together, it is true to say:

20.When Catholics say that persons “cooperate” in preparing for and accepting justification by consenting to God’s justifying action, they see such personal consent as itself an effect of grace, not as an action arising from innate human abilities.

21.According to Lutheran teaching, human beings are incapable of cooperating in their salvation, because as sinners they actively oppose God and his saving action. Lutherans do not deny that a person can reject the working of grace. When they emphasize that a person can only receive (mere passive) justification, they mean thereby to exclude any possibility of contributing to one’s own justification, but do not deny that believers are fully involved personally in their faith, which is effected by God’s Word. [cf. Sources for 4.1].
 
How does Cardinal Casper reconcile his statement with the first three sentences of the Vatican II document, DECREE ON ECUMENISM - UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO? The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.

Protestantism does indeed try to present itself as “the true inheritors of Jesus Christ”, and Protestants as a whole are not united in anything except in their rejection of the truth that that the Catholic Church is one church founded by Jesus Christ. Protestantism is the scandal of thousands of bickering and contentious denominations that can’t all agree on any article of faith - except their unanimous rejection of the truth that the infallible teachings of the Magesterium of the Catholic Church are preserved by the Holy Spirit from all error.

With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. Acts 17:30-31). This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that **mentality of indifferentism ** “characterized by a **religious relativism ** which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another’”. If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.

"
ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCHDOMINUS IESUS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top