CNS reports on Walter Cardinal Kasper's swan song — an ecumenical extravaganza with Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and members of the Reformed churches participating. The three-day symposium is unusual in a couple of respects. Generally, the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity (PCPCU) conducts "dialogue" with a single ecumenical partner at a time and then on a particular subject of controversy (e.g. Justification, the Papacy, the role of Mary in the Church, &c.). This week's conference is an ecumenical, multilateral free-for-all where anything goes. Cardinal Kasper addressed the assembly on Monday, but the rest of the time will evidently be spent resolving all of the outstanding differences between the various Christian communions thorough roundtable discussions involving all of the participants.
My emphases and comments in blue.
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.
I wonder what such an "ecumenical catechism" would look like. Would it be a work that pointed out the departures of the Protestant confessions from the Catholic Faith? Or would it be representative of a "lowest common denominator" Christianity?
"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.
And how many are the "first" ecumenical councils exactly?
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.
Now we come to what Cardinal Kasper is really concerned with — his legacy! But what, precisely, are these achievements and what has been accomplished, Your Eminence? The one great ecumenical achievement during your tenure at PCPCU — Anglicanorum Coetibus — was accomplished only by the exclusion of you and your professional ecumenists from the process entirely!
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."
Nor do I. It is best not to try.
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.
This is an interesting point. What good is it if the PCPCU can get church leaders to sign-on to a joint statement with the Catholic Church if the rank-and-file of the sect in question repudiate the agreement — or are simply ignorant of what their denomination actually teaches? Or are such ecumenical agreements just sleight of hand?
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."
That's just rich! Perhaps Bill Gates could give us some practical tips on managing a household budget?
He called for "a people-centered ecumenism" that would support and give new energy to the theological dialogues.
Well, I call for an ecumenism centered on the Catholic Faith! Such an ecumenism would be energized by the Holy Spirit rather than some bankrupt liberal ideology.
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.
Sometimes I wonder whether or not dear Cardinal Kasper himself knows the answer to these questions.
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.
Well there's your problem, Your Eminence. That place where all Christians "learn to grow and mature in their faithfulness to Christ" is known as the Catholic Church.
END
Related posts:
It's time to entrust His Eminence to the tender loving care of Nurse Diesel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FTWSlxQ4aE
Less than half a year since the Pope's offer, and you are already taking it upon yourselves to criticize cardinals for doing something you don't like! You should fit right in as Catholics.
Seriously, isn't this a little "plus royaliste que le roi?" Are you saying that John Paul II was so foolish as to elevate a man to Papal Elector who doesn't even believe in the Catholic Church as such? Why does it make you unhappy that the Church is reaching out to other Christians? The duty that impelled the Pope to accept your offer is the same duty impelling us to seek reconciliation with others – others who are not yet openly asking us for full communion.
Please don't bring more bickering into our church. Did the Pope want anything from you all but an infusion of Christian charity? If you won't bring any additional of that, then hence with your Patrimony.
We've been criticizing this Cardinal — and rightly so, I think — from the very beginning. The simple fact of the matter is that Cardinal Kasper has resisted the genuine ecumenism of Benedict XVI all along. Had he gotten his way, there would have been no outreach to Anglo-Catholics and no Apostolic Constitution! In the lead-up to the release of Anglicanorum Coetibus and in its aftermath, Kasper has done everything in his power to bring the Holy Father's plan to confusion, spreading mischaracterizations and outright falsehoods in the press. It certainly does not make me unhappy that the Catholic Church is reaching out to other Christians, but ecumenism must be founded in the truth of the Gospel and the Revelation which Christ has imparted to his Church. To point out the failure of the professional ecumenists is not "bickering" — it is Christian charity. The wounds of schism are real and souls hang in the balance.
Well Christian, I'm not sure the professional ecumenists have "failed." In fact, I believe they have succeeded in many items. But yes, +Kasper may sometimes let friendships, professional relationships, and dialogue processes (all of which are healthy and wonderful) get in the way of immediately reaping a harvest for the Catholic Church. Perhaps he believes a greater harvest could be reaped with patience; perhaps it might. Nevertheless, I agree with Pope Benedict. The bishop of Rome cannot but make provision for those ready for unity.
Also, we all must remember that Ratzinger was as professional ecumenist as any. He was decisive in the framing of JDDJ, called for a more positive Catholic response to the Augsburg Confession, suggested the salvific, gracing presence of Christ at even invalid Lord's Suppers, etc. However convinced of the absolute claims of the Catholic Church (Dominus Iesus), Ratzinger would never dismiss the fruits of ecumenical dialogue in the manner many people on this comments page seem to.
I don't see any reason to dialogue with this kind of attitude. Were we to try to reason, we would be brought back to the same point. I could remark that Cardinal Kasper and the Pope are on opposite ends of the spectrum, and we prefer the way of Benedict XVI because it is more Catholic.
If Cardinal Kasper is right, then we can just stay in ECUSA (or return there) and accept women's ordination, LGBT and everything else they might bring in until they decline to nothing.
We have been though all this before. Our filial attitude in regard to the Church is not compromised by being frank about a devious-minded Cardinal who has made it his business to keep clergy and people out of the Church – for reasons of ideology rather than pastoral considerations or the good of the Church.
I would have trashed this comment, quite frankly – not because it contradicts any "party line" but because it shows a refusal to reason or even an open mind.
With all due respects, I agree with most everything Card. Kasper has said in this piece!
Incredible strides have been made in ecumenical dialogue. And yes, we need to make more Christians aware of those strides. An ecumenical catechism (of at least what we hold in common) is precisely the sort of bold idea that excites me. Such a text would be such a blessing.
You're kidding, right? This is a joke?
With all due respect, Mr. Mendez, it is no longer possible to say what the Protestants think about anything. The reason is that they have long ago abandoned their own beliefs. For example, a few years ago, the Moderator of the United Church of Canada openly denied the divinity of Christ even though this is supposed to be a 'core belief' of that denomination. Seriously, what they all agree on could be written on the back of an envelope.
P.K.T.P.
No, I'm quite serious; and you may disagree, of course. Still, great achievements have been made in ecumenical dialogues. The Catholic-Lutheran-Methodist JDDJ+Annex has succeeded in reaching agreement on many aspects of justification by faith (e.g., the Vatican delineated an orthodox use of the formula 'by faith alone,' etc.). The ARCIC has produced great statements (e.g., "the teaching about Mary in the two definitions of 1854 and 1950. . . can be said to be consonant with the teaching of the Scriptures and the ancient common traditions" [MGHC 60]; also, the agreement on "a universal primacy, exercised collegially in the context of synodality, as integral to episcope at the service of universal communion; such a primacy having always been associated with the Bishop and See of Rome" [GA 52]).
These convergences cannot, and should not, be lost or hidden. They should be codified for a universal, lay audience. And this is Kasper's point: what use is it for us to reach agreement with the Anglicans that the Immaculate Conception is in harmony with scripture if the average Anglican does not know such a consensus has been reached, or hear it expressed in language that speaks to an Anglican? (Such knowledge could, in fact, propel an individual Anglican closer to entering into full communion with the Church, even if his entire denomination will not ultimately reunite with the Church.)
Also, I think an ecumenical catechism could become a tool precisely to defend about the advances of liberalism.
Mr. Mendez:
It so happens that the only Lutheran communion which signed the agreement on justification just happens formally to endorse a right to abortion. Not all Lutherans do so but that particular gang of them does. I don't think it proper to sit down in the same room with such people. To breathe the same air they breathe is offensive. I don't say Amen when they say Amen; I don't kneel when they kneel; I don't pray when they pray, let alone with them. The only sign of reaction is to shake the dust from one's shoes when leaving them.
As intellectuals in the A.R.C.I.C. sit on divan chairs and 'dialogue' (not a verb)–as they agree in part on our Lady–the Anglican party introduces sexual inversion and pretends to ordain women. After years of such conferences, they are further away from Rome than ever before, despite agreements on some things.
The only œcumenical success since Vatican II has been with the Anglo-Catholics, a group denounced by bodies recognised by Rome, a body also ignored by the Roman liberals and œcumaniacs. If the purpose of these discussions (not 'dialogues': no such thing) is unity, disunity and division has been the outcome.
P.K.T.P.
Yes, AC represents a true success in ecumenism in that it will actually produce corporate unity. But ecumenism is not a zero-sum game. Small advances are still valuable in the greater program of Church unity, even if they only assist the individual (and not corporate) journey.
Many people who might be interested in reuniting on an individual level with the Catholic Church are often impeded by such misrepresentations as 'Catholics do not believe in salvation by grace alone'; the agreements concluded between Catholics and Protestants correct these misunderstandings and create sympathy towards the Church. I know individuals for whom agreements such as JDDJ were critical discoveries in their ultimate reunion with the Catholic Church.
You may not find it appropriate to so much as breathe the air of LWF Lutherans, but Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict do. Cardinal Ratzinger spearheaded and even saved JDDJ, even though he was well aware that most dreams of corporate unity with the LWF (and its many liberal churches) are illusory. Corporate unity, while the ultimate goal, is not the immediate point. I hope all Catholics can share the mind of the holy father on this matter.
Suffice to say: our holy father (who is an incredible blessing to our Church) is a professional ecumenist, and an accomplished one. Let us avoid simply dismissing the work of ecumenists.
I certainly wouldn't dismiss the work of ecumenists. In fact, their work sent me running into the arms of Holy Mother Church!
I did not mean to dismiss the good work that has been accomplished by the ecumenists — only the mentality of folks like Cardinal Kasper who seem to value "dialogue" (whatever that is) above practical steps to achieve corporate reunion of Christians.
Actually, I was being tongue in cheek.
Sorry not to have caught that! Some of our RC commenters get so sensitive when we pick on dear Cardinal Kasper.
Œcumenical Catechism
1. We agree that the best tea is Burmese first leaf.
2. Be kind to animals, unless they are crypto-fascist traditionalists.
3. Do not tolerate the intolerant!
4. Potted plants are better in church than statues.
5. Swimming pools make the best baptisteries.
6. On all else, we agree to disagree.
(This Catechism is short and therefore saves paper. Be green!)
P.K.T.P.
LOL
But, correct me if I am wrong. The purpose of a catechism is to summarize the Truth in a manner so as to teach it to the faithful/enquirers. Right? If so, then what purpose would an 'ecumenical catechism' serve? What, to whom, and to what end/purpose? Is that not what the CCC is available for? If the envisioned 'ecumenical catechism' is but a summary of the agreements and history of the last three decades then is it not better to call it a 'compendium' or a 'historical document', or something else?
Next will be a catechism shared wtih Muslims, Hinudus, Buddhists, Jains, Shintoists. We could agree that the Red Sox have no chance of winning next year and that the moon is spherical in shape.
P.K.T.P.
The most important word in that piece was the last one: "END". As in Finis.
What is man, and what does it mean to be a man or woman in God’s plan?”
Hey, that rhymes! I've got a plan for woman and man, to go kick a can in Afghanistan!
Kasperitis: I disease by whcih a promient man becomes less and less important over time and at a constantly accelerating rate. At the end of it, even his relatives can't remember his name.
P.K.T.P.
The idea of an ecumenical catechism is just utterly stupid, if I may be so bold. (With all due respect to those who disagree.)
But it's basically inviting people to think that they only HAVE to believe about 12.7 things about Jesus and the Church, and everything else can just be chalked up to "differences".
Telling devout Catholics that the most important items of faith are the parts that are unobjectionable to any other Christians would be like telling Calculus professors that arithmetic is the most important kind of math and they should just keep differential equations to themselves.
It's really a way of robbing the Catholic Church of the opportunity of offering the FULLNESS of the faith to other Christians, in exchange for making goalless "dialogue" easier.
Aren't the Creeds sufficient for this purpose? Or, would that offend the Unitarians and the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops?
My bad, I slipped back into StandFirminFaith mode. Seriously, isn't this a return to the "Dutch Catechism"?
You're on the right track.
There already was a "common catechism" drawn up in Germany by Lutheran and Catholic theologians in 1975 ("The Common Catechism", eds. Feiner & Vischer). Maybe that's what got His M&Ms to suggest making another go at it.
Like the Dutch Catechism, "The Common Catechism"'s English translation was published by Seabury, and it had a similar cover design.
The book wasn't really structured properly for catechetical uses: it was more a series of topical essays. It might be worth examining for the sake of the sections in the back where the differences are addressed. Other than that, not so much.
Will Cardinal Kasper employ the indaba format with the "ecumenical catechism" conference?
Benedict XVI himself has said, in no uncertain terms, that true ecumenism is not optional for the Church, but a mandate from Christ, which most directly falls on the Roman Pontiff. He has also voiced an opinion (both as Cardinal and Pope) that in the current circumstances of the world, perhaps the best way to engage in ecumenical activity is at the practical level, a "practical ecumenism". The latter is manifest in such things as the "Manhattan Declaration", the Pro-Life movement, efforts around the world to have people accorded their true human rights, etc. These are all fruits of "ecumenism", though not perhaps of the PCPCU. The journal, First Things, thanks to Fr. Richard John Neuhaus and the caliber of the individuals attracted to his "vision" of ecumenism (more or less of the practical variety), is also a good thing. When Chuck Colson, an Evangelical Christian, can marvel at the quality and depth of the Church's moral theology down the ages, that's a very good thing. The efforts of Blessed Theresa of Calcutta, and the Order she founded, also have had very good ecumenical (or evangelical) results. To say that Anglicanorum coetibus is the only good thing to come out of "ecumenism" since the Second Vatican Council is hyberbolic in the extreme, and says more about the interests of the assertor than it does about reality.
The kind of ecumenical dialogue which occurs at these joint meetings is probably of most benefit to the various scholarly communities: that's not a bad thing, our Church has necessarily been a champion of reason and scholarly effort in all fields down the centuries. Whether that can be summarized by a "catechism" or not seems an open question, but as others have pointed out (Seth G.), how that would be structured and used, and what its content would be, is difficult to comprehend.
I myself confess a lot of impatience with the mentality of "ecumenists" like Cardinal Kaspar or Archbishop Rowan Williams (to mention two names), not because they never wind up with practical results, which they clearly don't seem to do, but because their sense of the importance of "more words" does not impress me. What is really needed is "more Faith". For example, what the Cardinal says needs to be "better explained" by "the Vatican" to her interlocutors HAS BEEN SO EXPRESSED, in the very words he uses, over and over and over again. They are not complex words, or ideas, so if the interlocutors don't get it, or will not have it, repeating it is not evil, but not necessarily a useful activity on the part of the Catholic Church.
Gentlemen, Gentlemen,
While it is obvious that, to be generous, Cardinal Kaspar has not been a supporter of the AC, and that true ecumenism must lead to a return to the faith, lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The agreements reached with various Protestant groups at least give a basis where serious Christians in thaose various bodies can see what the Catholic Church really teaches. I would not be surprised to see some folks look around at their own denomination and realize that while it gives lip service to these teachings it's "practical theology" departs radically from real Christianity. That becomes a teachable moment when they might consider the claims of Holy Mother Church.
Dialogue with folks who don't seem to understand is always going to be frustrating, slow, and seem rediculous for those of us who "get it."
In charity let's just smile and pray that the lightbulb will come on for more and more of our separated brethren.
Hello again,
I beg forgiveness for being curt; but yes, I am a bit sensitive about having a dear old fellow criticized so harshly. It reminds me of the kids in my high school who made fun of veterans with unfortunate disabilities: this Cardinal has "been in the trenches," so to speak, trying to evangelize where few others are willing. I have always believed that God grades on effort; and if he has been unhappy about A. C., well, we are all sinners, no? Is a grudge very Christian? And certainly it is this God who reminds us of the mote and the beam…
And anyway, other denominations are now so difficult to identify as Christian that a common statement of belief is sadly becoming necessary. The Ecumenical Creeds really should suffice – but perhaps they need to be re-introduced through the back door, eh?
Mr. Mendez, Mr. McDonough, Mr. Noble: thank you for saying what I am sadly not able to. Mr. Campbell, thank you for being patient with me; I am just trying to get to know you all better. It's just that so many of our Church's problems today seem to stem from not paying attention to our leadership, and you must understand my wariness of those who seem eager to pick a fight with Rome. Once again, I do apologise for being curt.
Fr. Chadwick, you are about to become a Catholic shepherd of human souls, including mine, and you threaten to "trash" my comment for suggesting Christian charity? Really? Really? Is this how you will be treating Romans when they become your brethren and children, or simply the ones who don't live up to your expectation of "thinking things through" (i.e., looking up dirt on cardinals)? Is this really your idea of being a pastor?
Thank you for the kind words. Perhaps you might like to help our Bishops to draft a letter to the CDF saying that we really would prefer to go through the Secretariate of Christian Unity and back to the old bla-bla. I'm sure we would all love to wait another 20 years and hold our breath for the next ARCIC documents.
In the meantime, we should return to Rome's proper partners in the ecumenical dialogue, that means Ms. Schori for you Americans and the Archdruid for us.
Then we'll have to trash the Pope if he won't "get with the program".
I agree with everything you say and am sorry for raising any point of dispute.
Haha, sorry for the sensitivity.
You're fine, though, again. We live in a big Church, and we will not see every issue the same way. I am glad, though, that our common commitment is to true, visible Christian unity; that is absolutely beautiful, and everything in Christ's eyes.
And really, I think you all are great! So thank you to Christian, PTKP, et al. I am so excited to have you all in the Church (now, or for some of you, eventually).
Well, the fact of the matter is that Cardinal Kasper displayed either extreme ignorance or extreme "creativity" with regard to the facts when he spoke of the genesis and purpose of "Anglicanorum Coetibus" in an interview published in L'Osservatore Romano on November 15, 2009. Below are two links, one of them to Sandro Magister's discussion of the interview (in English); the other the interview itsaelf (in Italian), and then I will reproduce the comments about it which I made in an earlier thread on this blog:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1341020?eng=y
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/interviste/2009/265q07a1.html
As I wrote elsewhere about Kasper’s remarks:
“Cardinal Kasper also spoke about the Traditional Anglican Communion, a group that claims more than 400,000 members and describes itself as ‘a worldwide association of orthodox Anglican churches, working to maintain the catholic faith and resist the secularization of the church’.”
Well, okay.
“The cardinal said that while the TAC leaders asked the Vatican two years ago to find a way for them to join the Catholic Church, they did not participate in the conversations that led to the pope’s recent provision.”
What conversations? They wouldn’t have participated in the intra-Vatican conversations that led to the Ap. Con., but neither would have any other Anglicans. But if he’s referring (and I don’t know that he is) to the conversations in Rome in April 2008 with some FIF/UK bishops and the January 2009 conclave in Vienna, than it’s a peculiar thing for him to say, since all of these things worked together for the good of all, rather than tripping things up, or strewing banana skins all about. Actually, I am inclined to think that FIF/UK’s getting in on the act accelerated things rather a good deal, but, still, it was an addition onto the foundation laid by TAC.
‘”Now, however, they are jumping on a train that already has left the station. If they are sincere, OK, the doors are open. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that they have not been in communion with Canterbury since 1992′ and therefore are not technically leaving the Anglican Communion to join the Roman Catholic Church, he said.”
This is the “say what?” passage; it seems senseless and to lack clear meaning (or perhaps any at all). If “they” means the TAC, certainly the passage is perfectly incomprehensible, and why pull 1992 out of the air? I don’t know when the TAC presence in England began (as I recall, TAC as an entity only began in, when, 1993?), but there was some kind of Continuing Anglican presence there ever since the CofE began to ordain women to the diaconate in 1987. The whole passage seems to be laboring to convey the sense that since the TAC has not been in communion with Canterbury for some years, therefore if it manages to “jump on the train” they will be lucky if the conductors don’t push them off at the next stop, since there are no suitable “third class cars” for the likes of them. One would think that Kasper would want to say the opposite, that all remains fair weather (“Always look on the bright side of life …”) between Rome and Canterbury; we’re just rescuing a few “strays” who haven’t been in communion with Canterbury lo these many years, and so Canterbury shouldn’t be upset with any of this, and if a few stray “kosher Anglicans” get on board, we won;t let that get in the way of our tea party. But to twist the passage to make it say that would be a real triumph of Newspeak. Perhaps something was “lost in the translation.”
I will add now (Feb. 2010) that it was only in February 2009 the representatives of FIF/UK indicated to the Vatican that they wanted to be included in the scheme which the Vatican had prepared as a result of the TAC's petition. That scheme itself was well-advanced at the time, and while FIF/UK's "signing on" may have accelerated its promulgation, it did not hav eany significant impact on its "shape."
Put bluntly, the cardinal's remarks were either ignorant or mendacious. Assuming, charitably, the former to be the case, it does rather indicate how far from any active involvement in the matter he was throughout its conception and gestation.
Point taken. *nod
Found this on the old gasbag!
http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/ef/perspective601.asp
“Ecumenical Follies” Update
The Last Days of Cardinal Kasper
by Christopher A. Ferrara
The National Catholic Reporter’s John Allen recently wrote a piece on the fast-approaching end of the “ecumenical” career of Cardinal Walter Kasper, whose penchant for undermining Catholic dogma (for example, his denial of the historical reality of the apostolic succession and his call to “revisit” Pope Leo XIII’s infallible proclamation on the invalidity of Anglican priestly orders) has been a focus of this column for years.
It seems that Kasper, now 76, is finally — blessedly, mercifully — on the way out, and that the Pope has accepted or will accept his mandatory resignation at age 75. Allen reports the wonderful news that “it’s widely expected that Kasper will hand the reins to a successor sometime in 2010.” But not before Kasper indulges in a few more of the useless meetings and worthless gestures that constitute “ecumenical dialogue.”
Allen reports that “a highly unusual Vatican meeting is taking place this week in the offices of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity” at which “the Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist and Reformed traditions,” will consider “the entire ecumenical project, meaning the effort to put the divided Christian family back together again.”
Yawn. I hope the pasta at lunch is al dente. As for the meeting, what’s so unusual about another “ecumenical” gathering of different “traditions” to “dialogue” about how wonderfully different they are and how none of them has any intention of conforming itself to the teaching of the Magisterium or the authority of the Vicar of Christ?
Ah, but this meeting really is quite different, says Allen. You see, “the Vatican normally conducts ecumenical conversation in bilateral fashion, one church at a time,” and “those dialogues are usually focused on some specific topic – Mary, for example, or the Bible, or authority in the church. This time, the field is wide open.”
In other words, the meeting has no agenda! That would make it even less productive, if that were possible, than all the previous “ecumenical meetings” over the past forty years, which have produced exactly nothing by way of “Christian unity” with non-Catholics.
Allen inadvertently reveals the utter futility of “ecumenism” when he writes that Kasper is “a gifted ecumenical leader” who achieved supposedly “groundbreaking agreements… with various Christian churches,” only to admit in the same paragraph that “when the dust settled it often wasn’t clear what authority those agreements actually enjoy inside the churches which signed them” and that “Meantime, the gap between Catholicism and some branches of Protestantism over hot-button issues such as the ordination of women or the blessing of same-sex unions becomes ever wider, making the venerable ecumenical aim of full structural communion look ever more like a pipe dream…”
So, after forty years of enough ecumenical hot air to hoist a fleet of blimps, the very aim of “ecumenism” — the visible unity of Christians — looks ever more like a pipe dream. That is, the “ecumenical” state of affairs is worse now than when the “ecumenical movement” began. Surprise, surprise.
In another inadvertent admission, Allen mentions “several fairly stunning ecumenical achievements in recent years” — name three, or, for that matter, name one! — but then adds that according to Kasper there are “four categories of problems facing ecumenical dialogue,” which are these —
…How to read the Bible and doctrine…
…what it means to be a human person in light of God’s plan…
…What is the Church, and in particular, what are the sources of authority in the Church?
…Sacramental…the vexed question of inter-communion, the absence of which is usually the most visible index of ecumenical frustration.
I would suggest these additional four topics: Which end is up? What is the meaning of life? What is the sound of one hand clapping? Why is there air?
I mean, really. After four decades of “ecumenical dialogue” the participants are still gabbing about the meaning of the Bible and doctrine, who man is, what the Church is, from whence religious authority derives, and how non-Catholics can partake of sacraments with Catholics (duh: they can’t, until they become Catholics). In other words, “ecumenical dialogue” has gotten exactly nowhere in forty years.
Allen concludes by mentioning Kasper’s latest suggestion of heresy: “The idea of an ‘ecumenical catechism,’ written in consultation with the various Christian traditions and then issued by ‘the competent Catholic authority.’” Kasper declares: “We do not yet have any idea how such a catechism could be structured and written. Perhaps some suggestions on this may emerge also from this symposium.”
Indeed, how does one write a catechism acceptable to both Catholics and those who reject Catholic doctrine? One doesn’t, of course. But in Cardinal Kasper’s Bizarro World of “ecumenical dialogue,” such nonsense is a topic for serious discussion.
Goodbye, Cardinal Kasper. Your exit cannot come soon enough. And let us pray that Kasper’s replacement brings to light again the simple truth Kasper and his collaborators have succeeded in burying for decades in a cloud of obscurantism and double-talk: that, as Pope Pius XI insisted in his landmark encyclical Mortalium animos, “the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.”
Perhaps somebody could persuade Fr. Ian Ker to rewrite and update his devastating indictment of this sort of "ecumenical activity" that originally appeared in the 21 May 1999 issue of *The Catholic Herald:*
**************************************
This is a Church which recently signed with its left hand the Porvoo Agreement accepting intercommunion with Lutheran Churches which do not claim to have retained the Apostolic succession, without which, on any Catholic understanding, there can be no valid orders and therefore no valid sacraments apart from baptism. With its right hand, the same Church's representatives on the Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission (ARCIC) have now signed an agreed statement on the "gift of authority", which has been hailed as a bombshell. I strongly suspect it is nothing of the sort.
The commission has already produced two agreed statements on authority, but that did not stop its co-chairman, Bishop Mark Santer, from supporting the ordination of women at the 1992 General Synod in spite of the very serious warnings from the Roman Catholic Church about the ecumenical implications. The same bishop who caused a stir not long ago by marrying the divorced wife of one of his clergy has now signed a statement which recognises "the primacy of the Bishop of Rome" as a "gift to be received by all the churches." This primacy is not seen as merely honorific: no, the agreed statement has taken on board not just "indefectibility" but the dreaded Roman Catholic concept of "infallibility," by means of which the Pope can fulfil his "duty to discern and make explicit… in certain circumstances" the "faith" of the Church.
But what would the Bishop of Birmingham say if "the universal primate" told him that he could not receive Communion because he was married to a divorcee? Would Bishop Harries of Oxford "receive" a papal condemnation of his speech in the House of Lords justifying "therapeutic cloning," or would Archbishop Habgood have been ready to say amen to a papal condemnation of his advocacy of destructive experiments on human embryos?
[…] Anglicanism is very English in its pragmatism, its dislike of logic, its suspicion of absolute truths, its endless capacity for compromise… The Anglican Communion knows which envoys to send to Porvoo and which to Palazzola, the delightful Alban town where this statement received its final shape. My impression is that ARCIC is good at choosing sunny spots where the wine flows. No doubt there will be many more convivial ARCIC meetings.
Meanwhile those of us who know that the vast majority of Anglicans don't know the Hail Mary, think that the Holy Souls must be the old dears in the parish, have never been to confession in their lives, will regretfully conclude that, impeccable as the Scriptural theology underlying this statement is, the fact is it is totally unreal. [The Catholic Herald 21 May 1999]