Italian vaticanista Andrea Tornielli is reporting that, in the coming days, the Bishop of Basel, Kurt Koch, will be named President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, succeeding our favorite ecumenist, Walter Cardinal Kasper.
I must admit that I know little of Bishop Koch, but a Google search did turn up a few promising signs. In his July 2009 newsletter to priests, the bishop was critical of an unqualified acceptance of the reforms conducted in the name of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.
Many people have signed a petition for the unqualified acceptance of the council. Right from the start, the expression "unqualified acceptance" irritates me because I don’t know anyone — myself included — to whom it would apply. A few arbitrarily chosen examples will suffice:
– The council did not abolish Latin in the liturgy. On the contrary, it emphasized that in the Roman Rite, apart from exceptional cases, the use of the Latin language must be maintained. Who among the vocal defenders of the council wishes "unqualified acceptance" of that?
– The council declared that the Church regards Gregorian Chant as the "music proper to the Roman Rite," and that it must therefore "be given primary place." In how many parishes is this implemented "without qualification?"
– The council expressly requested that governmental authorities voluntarily give up those rights to participation in the selection of bishops, that had arisen over the course of time. Which defender of the council advocates "without qualification" for that?
– The council described the fundamental nature of the liturgy as the celebration the paschal mystery and the eucharistic sacrifice as "the completion of the work of our salvation." How can that be reconciled with my experience, made in many different parishes, that the sacrificial understanding of the Mass has been completely eliminated from the liturgical language and the Mass is now understood only as a meal or "the breaking of bread?" In what way can one justify this profound change by reference to the council?
In July 2007, Bishop Koch also defended a document published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ("Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church") which clarified the expression of "subsistit in" in the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium. While acknowledging that the Church's teaching might be offensive to Protestants (and even some Catholics who wrongly have become accustomed to refer to Protestant communities as "churches"), he upheld the CDF clarification.
The new Vatican document, he said, is looking at the term in a "strictly theological" way, explaining that if the Catholic Church believes apostolic succession and valid sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, are essential aspects of the church established by Christ it cannot recognize as "church" those communities who do not have them.
Bishop Koch also said the document and reactions to it underline a clear difference in the Catholic and Orthodox ecumenical goal and the ecumenical goal of the Protestants.
Do our readers have anything to share about Bishop Koch? If Mr. Tornielli is correct and the Bishop of Basel gets the PCPCU nod, what does this portend for the advancement of true ecumenism and Christian unity?
Related posts:
Poor old Kasper. Oh well, I'm sure he'll still be invited to take tea and cake at Lambeth. He still has a friend in ++Rowan.
Kasper the friendly œcumenist is hanging up his mitre? Well, we could do worse. No, on second thought, we could not.
P.K.T.P.
Bishop Koch wrote an article in the German edition of Communio, 4/2007, on the ordinary and the extraordinary forms of the roman rite (complete title: "Zwei Formen des einen Römischen Messritus. Liturgietheologische Hinführung zum Motu Proprio von Papst Benedikt XVI"). (See content here.)
In this article, bishop Koch – among other things – warns against speaking of the "pre-conciliar" in opposition to the "post-conciliar" church. Not only is this a good advise in general, I think, but it also lies at the heart of what pope Benedict is "saying" with Summorum pontificum.
Hence, as far as I can see, if the news is accurate, it is good news, indeed!
Thank you for this insightful article, Mr. Campbell. I always enjoy your posts.
Yes, thanks for this bit of research. Very heartening. Much of the negative criticism of Cardinal Kasper was undeserved – eg. criticising a bloke in his position for being friendly with protestants is silly – he was just doing his job (my own motto is "We're not fussy, we'll talk to anyone!). But whereas we know that Kasper and Ratzinger were not theologically on the same page ecclesiologically speaking, the information you provide us with here makes it clear that Koch is completely in line with the Benedictine Kirche-Anschauung!