Cardinal asks dialogue partners if an ecumenical catechism might work
By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — A Vatican official has floated the idea of a shared “ecumenical catechism” as one of the potential fruits of 40 years of dialogue among Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and members of the Reformed churches.
“We have affirmed our common foundation in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity as expressed in our common creed and in the doctrine of the first ecumenical councils,” Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, told representatives of the churches.
Opening a three-day symposium at the Vatican to brainstorm on the future of ecumenism, Cardinal Kasper said it is essential “to keep alive the memory of our achievements” in dialogue, educate the faithful about how much has been accomplished and prepare a new generation to carry on the work.
He said the members of his council “proposed an ecumenical catechism that would be written in consultation with our partners,” but “we do not yet have any idea how such a catechism could be structured and written.”
One thing for sure, he said, is that there is a need for “an ecumenism of basics that identifies, reinforces and deepens the common foundation” of faith in Christ and belief in the tenets of the creed. The churches may hold those positions officially, but if their members do not hold firmly to the basics of Christian faith, the dialogue cannot move forward, the cardinal said.
Cardinal Kasper, a theologian who will be 77 in March and has led the council for nine years, also said that ecumenical dialogue “is perhaps in danger of becoming a matter for specialists and thus of moving away from the grassroots.”
He called for “a people-centered ecumenism” that would support and give new energy to the theological dialogues.
The symposium was a follow-up to the publication in October of “Harvesting the Fruits,” a book complied by Cardinal Kasper and his staff summarizing the results of 40 years of official Catholic dialogue with the Anglican Communion, the Lutheran World Federation, the World Methodist Council and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.
As for questions that still must be tackled in order for Christians to reach full unity and be able to share the Eucharist, the cardinal identified two basic areas: a common understanding of the church and its structure; and a common approach to applying the Gospel to modern social and moral concerns without falling into relativism.
Ethical issues, such as homosexuality and women’s equality, not only divide churches, he said, they raise more fundamental questions for modern and post-modern society, such as, “What is man, and what does it mean to be a man or woman in God’s plan?”
In the area of church structure and ministry, he said, the dialogues have seen progress toward a common agreement on the sacramental nature of ordination and on apostolic succession in the ministry of bishops, and have taken initial steps toward discussing the primacy of the bishop of Rome, the pope.
But on a more basic level, the dialogues must get into “not only what is the church, but where is the church? Has God given his church a specific structure or has he left the church to find its own structure, in such a way that a pluralism of structures is possible?” Cardinal Kasper asked.
The cardinal said the Vatican needs to better explain to its dialogue partners the Catholic conviction that “the Catholic Church is the church of Christ and that the Catholic Church is the true church,” even while “there exist many and important elements of the church of Christ outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church.”
The Catholic Church does believe “there are deficits in the other churches,” he said. “Yet on another level there are deficits, or rather wounds stemming from division and wounds deriving from sin, also in the Catholic Church.”
Ecumenical dialogue is the place where all Christians “learn to grow and mature in their faithfulness to Christ,” he said, and as each moves closer to Christ, they naturally will move closer to each other.
END
February 14th, 2010 | 9:28 am | #1
I don’t think any meaningful ecumenism can happen as long as Catholics bar Protestants from the Lord’s Supper. If there is so much agreement (including the acceptance of protestant baptism), why are we left awkwardly sitting there during communion?
February 14th, 2010 | 9:46 am | #2
@will
depends on your perspective. Many reformed churches historically limited communion to those whom the elders of the church approved for communion (including Calvin). The more modern approach in protestant churches of open to all believers was not the historical norm for most churches until quite recently.
February 14th, 2010 | 9:53 am | #3
And the Rev. can correct me, but I believe there are at least several Lutheran churches that limit communion to confirmed members also
February 14th, 2010 | 11:30 am | #4
The practice of closed communion is one common to the historic churches of both West and East. Those Lutheran churches that still adhere to the traditional doctrine of the Lutheran Church require a person to be thoroughly catechized in the Christian Faith and right confession of the Lord’s Supper before being admitted to the celebration of the Sacrament in our congregations.
February 14th, 2010 | 4:47 pm | #5
Catholics view shared Communion as the end of ecumenism rather than the beginning. To do otherwise implies a unity that, as yet, is not a reality.
February 14th, 2010 | 5:53 pm | #6
[...] Vatican Official Proposes Ecumenical Catechism 15 February 2010 No Comment http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/02/vatican-official-proposes-ecumenical-catechism/ [...]
February 14th, 2010 | 6:24 pm | #7
What function would such a catechism serve? i.e. How would it be used? Who would be the recipients of its instruction? What effect would such a catechism have on other catechisms?
February 14th, 2010 | 7:29 pm | #8
This is also the view of all historic communions in Christendom: West or East.
February 14th, 2010 | 9:35 pm | #9
Don’t we essentially have that in the documents of ECT?
February 15th, 2010 | 7:54 am | #10
Proper catechesis, of course, being the sole requirement in the NT for elegibility to the Lord’s table.
That’s how free the offer of the Gospel is, I guess …
February 15th, 2010 | 9:32 am | #11
[...] Read more . . . Comments (0) [...]
February 15th, 2010 | 9:35 am | #12
@frank
There are plenty of TR who would limit eligibility to those who they have determined are eligible too, and limit the use of the table to only those appropriately determined and approved offerers (God forbid a group of just common believers getting together and sharing the table prior to a meal)
Let’s face it – Jesus was all about knocking down established straight jacket, hierarchical religious practices, and the history of the church has been a consistent effort to build them back up.
February 15th, 2010 | 10:02 am | #13
The concept of restricting participation in the Supper to those who have been taught the Christian Faith (which is what “catechesis” means), is a strange concept to many American Evangelicals/Protestants.
It is however the traditional practice of the Church through the ages.
I would recommend the following book for those interested in learning more about this concept:
Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries, by Werner Elert. It is the definitive work on this subject.
February 15th, 2010 | 12:18 pm | #14
It is interesting to ponder precisely what this proposed “ecumenical Catechism” would be, and would do.
It seems to me we already have an “ecumenical catechism” in the form of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds.
How would Rome possibly consider a “catechism” on issues like the Lord’s Supper with church bodies that explicitly reject the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence would be one challenge that is difficult to conceive of being overcome.
Even in those churches that, on paper, still do affirm the Real Presence, they have through their own ecumenical arrangements surrendered the point, de facto, to the likes of the liberal mainline church the United Church of Christ.
February 15th, 2010 | 12:19 pm | #15
I’m not sure what it would look like, but as one of many who seek to cross the Tiber I yearn that it could be easier. I don’t fault the catholic church for fidelity to the faith, but it isn’t easy to convert. The requirement to annul prior marriages is one example that keeps some from committing to the true faith.
Surely there must be a middle road between unrooted membership requirements of many protestant faiths and the formalism of catholicism.
February 15th, 2010 | 12:33 pm | #16
I think Rev. McCain pointing at the issue of authority — who would have the authority to issue such a catechism and on whom would it be binding?
The only answer I can think of for both questions is “no one,” which makes me wonder what the point is in the first place.
February 15th, 2010 | 1:31 pm | #17
Somebody from the Roman Catholic Church might want to respond to your comment, but I found a web site that provides useful information about Annulments:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0044.html
February 15th, 2010 | 1:55 pm | #18
I believe that Rome can always be counted on to be Rome. This is not something about which it can say about many, if any, of its dialogue partners. And Rome knows that. As much as I strongly disagree with the Roman Catholic Church, I have far more respect for it, when it comes to being consistent to its historic doctrinal positions, than I do with, for example, the Lutheran World Federation, which continues to compromise away everything distinct about the historic Lutheran doctrinal position. I cite the LWF as but one example, among many, of such worldwide organizations of Christian Churches.
Rome never compromises its basic doctrinal positions. It can therefore make magnanimous gestures, such as this one, and such as the one the Pope made several months ago toward disaffected Anglican clergy in England.
Back to the Catechism. I do not regard Cardinal Kasper’s statements about it to be very realistic, but it was and is a magnanimous gesture, and, from the perspective of Rome, a very smart move.
I can only but think that when you examine the liberal mainline protestant churches and the state of doctrine in these church bodies, such a Catechism would probably be an improvement.
Rome will never enter into any kind of full communion relationship with church bodies that ordain women and homosexuals and that support abortion rights. These two points, alone, would be “deal breakers.” But Rome has learned the art of patience and has many years of practice at it.
Historically, many points of view can come under the umbrella of Roman Catholicism, as long as they all concede to the claims of Papal primacy. It is very much akin to the old Roman Empire’s way of doing things.
February 15th, 2010 | 2:11 pm | #19
This “ecumenical catechism” idea is not original.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,879494,00.html
It will never leave the ground officially because it contradicts the Church’s long held teaching that authentic ecumenism addresses our differences, it does not simply celebrate common ground.
This is a perfect example of confirming another in their error and the equivalent of offering the hungry stones instead of bread.
If anyone is interested in my most recent Catholic News Agency column on the topic, it can be viewed here:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1120
February 15th, 2010 | 2:13 pm | #20
BTW – notice how both Ms. Wooden of CNS and Cardinal Kasper both insist upon referring to ecclesial communities as “churches.” We should expect better of both of them.
February 15th, 2010 | 2:14 pm | #21
I would say the difference between what Cardinal Kasper said, and what this article from 1975 describes, is rather dramatic. The 1975 was an ad hoc informal effort by a self-appointed group, without sanction by the Vatican.
February 15th, 2010 | 2:18 pm | #22
I noticed that too.
February 15th, 2010 | 2:27 pm | #23
Yes, Rev. McCain, but truth be told, this most recent suggestion by Cd. Kasper is essentially on the same order, i.e. it has no more official backing from Rome than the 1975 project did. The story gets blurry only because a Prince of the Church made these unfortunate remarks.
I think we can reasonably expect this idea to quietly and quickly fade away.
February 15th, 2010 | 3:00 pm | #24
I suspect it was a very intentionally made remark, all part of Rome’s general approach these days. I too think it doesn’t stand a ghost of a chance of coming to fruition in any genuinely meaningful sense, and frankly, I see no point to it anyway. Besides, I have a much better suggestion for the Roman Curia. If they would but simply grant the points made in this document, that would go a very long way in healing the Roman Church’s self-inflicted wounds in the 16th century. I suspect you might demur.
February 15th, 2010 | 7:48 pm | #25
LOL! You’re right, Reverend, I would demur, but the notion of a Lutheran pastor suggesting that the Catholic Church simply accept the Augsburg Confession makes a whole lot more sense to me than the idea that Cardinal Kasper floated. I’m not sure, however, that Cd. Kasper’s idea had much in the way of official influence as you suggest. This wouldn’t be the first time the cardinal spoke out of turn. I could be incorrect, but I suspect he did so once again.
February 15th, 2010 | 8:38 pm | #26
I could see the possibility of an ecumenical catechism that would attempt to synthesize four decades of agreements primarily through bilateral dialogues. The problem behind Kasper’s statement is real enough. Most people simply do not know how much agreement has been reached. The catechism could be connected, as most are, to doctrinal agreements already reached and thus cite those agreements as legitimate doctrinal statements.
One need only look at the volumes Jeff Gros et al. have published under the title “Growth in Agreement” to see how much is already there. I personally like the idea.
February 16th, 2010 | 10:01 am | #27
Cardinal Kasper is a holdover – and somewhat of an ecumaniac as well. At 77, he is certainly not the face of ecumenism (whatever the heck that is) going forward anyway. IMO, if he weren’t a fellow countryman of that guy whose name escapes me, he would already be long gone.
February 18th, 2010 | 5:01 am | #28
[...] via Vatican Official Proposes Ecumenical Catechism » Evangel | A First Things Blog. [...]
February 20th, 2010 | 8:34 am | #29
[...] is a Ecumenical Catechism - is that even possible, one must [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact