The Nature and Purpose of Ecumenical Dialogue
by Walter Kasper
The Ecumenical Review
July 2000
Basic presuppositions
1. To speak about ecumenical dialogue, and to start a dialogue on dialogue, pre-supposes that we first know what dialogue is. Dialogue is one of the most fundamental concepts in contemporary philosophy and is related to today's personalist way of thinking (compare Buber, Rosenzweig, Ebner, Levinas and others). This fresh start of philosophical thinking with a dialogical philosophy in the 20th century means the end of monological thinking, and the self-transcendence of the person towards the other. The starting-point and the fundamental principle of dialogical philosophy is: "I do not exist without thou"; "We don't exist for ourselves". "We not only have encounter, we are encounter; we are dialogue." The other is not the limit to myself; the other is a part of, and an enrichment of, my own existence. Dialogue is an indispensable step along the path towards human self-realization. Personal identity is a dialogical identity and not an identity closed in upon itself.
Dialogue therefore is not only dialogue by words and conversations; it is much more than a theological or academic exercise. Dialogue encompasses all dimensions of our being human; it implies a global, existential dimension and the human subject in his or her entirety. Dialogue is communication in a comprehensive sense and means ultimately living with one another and for each other.
2. Such dialogue is not only necessary for individuals. Dialogue concerns also nations, cultures, religions, each of which has its own riches and gifts. But it becomes narrow and ideological when it closes itself off and absolutizes itself. Then the other nation, culture and religion becomes the "enemy". The "clash of civilizations" (Huntington) would be the result. Even today, in a world of globalization, nations, cultures, religions must open themselves and enter into dialogue. This presupposes mutual tolerance, mutual respect, mutual understanding and acknowledgment of our own limits and of the riches of the other, as well as the willingness to learn from each other. Today dialogue among cultures, religions and churches is a presupposition for peace in the world. It is necessary to pass from antagonism and conflict to a situation where each party recognizes the other as a partner. In all this, reciprocity is required.
3. This dialogical vision of the human being is rooted in the biblical and Jewish tradition. God did not create us as isolated individual beings. He created us as man and woman, as social beings who can and must see in the other the image and likeness of God, who must respect and love each other. Even revelation is a dialogical process. In revelation God addresses us and speaks to us as to friends and moves among us in order to invite and receive us into his own company (Dei Verbum 2). The highpoint of this dialogue is the Christ-event itself. In Jesus Christ, who is true God and true man, we have the most intensive and totally unique dialogue between God and man. For Christians Jesus Christ is the centre and the criterion of any dialogue, and the common reference point of dialogue.
4. Christianity claims that Jesus Christ is the fullness of time and that in him the ultimate truth is revealed. The logos who shone in all creation appeared in Jesus Christ in its fullness. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. Dialogue means common listening to truth revealed in Jesus Christ, common listening to the will of God as revealed in Jesus Christ and witnessed in holy scriptures and Tradition. Dialogue does not produce truth; dialogue discovers the truth, which is given to us once for all in Jesus Christ. Therefore concrete, firm and decisive affirmations belong to Christian witness: Tolle assertiones et christianismum tulisti (Luther). The Christian message withstands every relativization, also every relativization in the name of a wrongly understood dialogue. But this once and for all given truth -- according to the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom -- "is to be sought after in a manner proper to the dignity of the human person and his social nature. The inquiry is to be flee, carried out with the aid of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue ... in order thus to assist one another in the quest for truth" (Dignitatis Humanae 3).
So we bear the truth "in earthen vessels". All our concepts are limited, culturally and historically conditioned. Thus the encounter and the dialogue with other cultures can help to discover new aspects of the truth, which is Jesus Christ. Dialogue helps us to know all the depths and heights of Jesus Christ. Only when we bring in all the riches of all cultures can we know the fullness of truth in its fullness. Mission therefore is not a one-way process; mission -- as it understands itself today -- realizes itself in a dialogical way and is connected with inculturation.
5. Thus the fundamental starting-point for all Christian theology is that Jesus Christ is the fullness of God's revelation and that Jesus Christ is present for ever in the church through word and sacrament. Each church believes, and must believe, that it is the true church of Jesus Christ. In a certain sense every church is convinced that the church of Christ subsistit in it. This is especially the conviction of the Catholic church, expressed in Lumen Gentium 8. But in the same context, the Second Vatican Council says that outside the Catholic church there are many ecclesial elements, especially baptism (LG 15; Unitatis Redintegratio 3). This implies that the Catholic church under the conditions of division cannot realize fully her own catholicity (UR 4). The Catholic church, therefore, needs dialogue and exchange with the other churches and church communities. Being catholic and being ecumenical are not contradictory but are two faces of the one and same coin. So ecumenical dialogue is -- as Pope John Paul II says -- "an outright necessity, one of the church's priorities" (Ut Unum Sint 31).
Such dialogue between the churches is founded in the very nature of the church as communion. Communion means, first, communion with God through Jesus Christ within the Holy Spirit and, only secondly, communion among Christians themselves through word, sacraments and diaconia, but also by communication, information, prayer, exchange, cooperation, living together, mutual visits, friendship, celebrating and worshipping together, witnessing together, suffering together.
Historical background
Thus it becomes obvious that dialogue is a fundamental issue in our ecumenical relations. But this was not always acknowledged by the Catholic church. The encyclicals Satis Cognitum of Leo XIII (1896) and Mortalium Animos of Pius XI (1928) condemned ecumenical dialogue. Only with Vatican II was there a shift. The Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio opened the way for the Catholic church to engage the ecumenical movement, and highlighted the dialogue both with the separated brothers and sisters and with the separated churches and church communities (UR 4,9,11,14,18,19,21-23).
This line was taken up in a document of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (SPCU), "Reflections and Suggestions Concerning Ecumenical Dialogue" (1970), then in the Ecumenical Directory (1993) and finally in the encyclical of Pope John Paul II Ut Unum Sint (1995).
Nevertheless the new beginning was not easy. One of the questions raised by Dr Visser 't Hooft at the first meeting of the SPCU and the WCC in Milan was whether the Catholic church and the WCC understood ecumenism in the same way. Related to this question was also the meaning of ecumenical dialogue, which the Decree on Ecumenism had proposed as one way of contributing towards unity.
Therefore one is not surprised that the very first task which the Joint Working Group (JWG) had to take up was "dialogue about dialogue" -- to examine together the nature of ecumenical dialogue and to test if both sides actually understood ecumenism in the same way: the assumption was that there was a Catholic "ecumenism" and a Protestant "ecumenism".
The nature of ecumenism was therefore taken up at the second meeting of the JWG in November 1965, in Ariccia, near Rome. Two papers were presented at that meeting, one by a staff member from each side: Father Jerome Hamer, on the side of the Secretariat for Unity, presented "The Ecumenism of the WCC", while Lukas Vischer on the side of the WCC presented "The Roman Catholic Understanding of Ecumenism and the WCC". Both papers revealed a clear divergence on the principles and nature of ecumenism.
Vischer argued that the Catholic church's understanding of ecumenism was based on its own self-understanding and tended to have a graduated understanding of those outside itself on the basis of Lumen Gentium 14-15, which says, first, that the Catholic faithful are fully incorporated, and then, in [sections] 15, that "the church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter". Obviously Vischer did not like this understanding of ecumenism which gives a special position first to Eastern churches, then to the churches of the West which separated from the see of Rome at the time of the Reformation and gave among them a special place to the Anglican communion. According to Vischer, "the understanding of unity as seen in the conciliar texts suggests a perspective indicating that the Roman Catholic Church is the origin and the end of dialogue".
Hamer did not think it appropriate that the relation between the two partners could be based on the concept of a fellowship (communion or koinonia). He argued that to accept such a criterion would necessarily attribute to the WCC an ecclesial character it does not have. He did not recognize any positive ecclesial reality in the relationship among the divided member churches of the WCC.
By the time of the second report (1967), there was some progress in the dialogue on the nature of ecumenism. The very fact that two partners were now engaged in dialogue helped to place both the Catholic church and the WCC in the wider context of the ecumenical movement, in other words, as partners within the one ecumenical movement. The report said: "It is important for us to clarify the criterion which fixed these relations in the past, and according to which they must now become increasingly close in the future. This criterion must be sought in the service of the one and only ecumenical movement". These relations would therefore not be based on the Basis of the WCC (that is, as a fellowship of churches), but on the basis of service to the one ecumenical movement (Hamer).
The JWG continued discussion on this important topic through a study group which prepared a common text(1) on ecumenical dialogue. Both sides were now in agreement that the accent would be placed on the concept of "an equal footing" of partners in dialogue in the sense of the Decree on Ecumenism, 9. "Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides -- especially for discussion of theological problems -- where each can treat the other on an equal footing, provided those who take part in them under the guidance of the authorities are truly competent."
The text produced revealed a continuing growth of consensus. Both partners agreed that the goal of dialogue was "growth together in koinonia"; that true dialogue required a real exchange which surpassed the separateness of the partners and which springs forth from the need for common witness; that "dialogue is ... a continuous mutual exchange and enrichment which springs forth from an effort to cooperate, in order to undertake together everything that we are not obliged to do separately . It is their meeting and collaboration in a common task ... that they should be one so that the world may believe." The report underlined the fact that participation in dialogue gives witness to a bond already uniting the partners, in this case expressed in the will of God for the unity of the church.
Some concrete consequences
1. The goal of dialogue: The ultimate goal of the ecumenical dialogue is of course the same as the goal of the ecumenical movement itself: the visible unity of the church. Since Vatican II we understand this visible unity as unity in plurality, and as communion of churches. But we cannot reach this goal in one bound. There are intermediate goals: overcoming misunderstandings, eliminating words, judgments and actions which do not correspond to the actual conditions of the separated brethren, reaching better mutual understanding, deepening what we have already in common, growth in one's own faith and renewal of one's own church, mutual enrichment and exchange of charismas, partial or differentiated consensus, human and Christian friendship. Rediscovered brotherhood is one of the most important fruits of ecumenical dialogue.
2. Dimensions of dialogue: In the Decree on Ecumenism of the Council we find three dimensions of ecumenical dialogue. The first one is the dialogue of experts, where each side explains the beliefs of one's own church, so that its characteristics become clearer, fostering a better mutual understanding. The second dimension is practical cooperation and especially common prayer, the latter being the heart of the ecumenical movement. The third dimension is renewal and reform of one's own church so that she becomes more of an authentic sign and witness of the gospel and an invitation for the other Christians (UR 4). So dialogue ad extra presupposes dialogue ad intra, a readiness for reform and renewal. Theological rigidity and fundamentalism are the very opposite of dialogue.
Often the distinction is also made between dialogue of love and dialogue in truth. Both are important, they cannot be separated; both belong together. For we must do the truth in love and love can be authentic only when it is an expression of truth. So the dialogue encompasses not only academic theological dialogue groups but the whole life of the church and of all the faithful.
3. Structures of dialogue: Ecumenical dialogue must be done not only on the universal level, but is also the duty of individuals at the local or particular level. It has to be realized in each Christian's personal life when he or she meets Christians of another church, in families, particularly in mixed marriages, in local communities, but also in non church-related institutions as youth movements, professional organizations, and so on; it has to be realized also on the level of dioceses and bishops' conferences. Of particular importance is the ecumenical dialogue in theological faculties and academies.
4. Methods of dialogue: In this context I do not wish to deal with all methods and with a whole ecumenical methodology. I limit myself to two points:
a) The Council admonishes us to pay attention to the hierarchy of truths (UR 11). When comparing doctrines theologians should remember that among Catholic teachings there exists a "hierarchy" of truths -- meaning an order or a structure, since the various truths vary in their relationship to the foundation of the Christian faith. So Christian faith has a structure, in which different degrees have different functions. Ultimately all doctrines refer to the mystery of Christ and the Trinity. This principle is not a principle of reduction -- or even elimination -- of certain so-called "secondary" truths, but is a principle of interpretation of the secondary truth in the light of the basic doctrines on the Trinity and Christology.
Another important hermeneutical principle is the distinction between the content of faith and the expression of faith (Gaudium et Spes 62). There must be binding common formulations of basic truths, especially the creed, but there can be also different formulations of the same faith. This has been ascertained in the case for example of recent common declarations by Eastern and Oriental Orthodox dealing with centuries-old disputes about Christology. In a similar way Catholics and Lutherans have stated, in the joint declaration on justification, a consensus in basic truths which is not destroyed by different approaches, languages, theological elaborations, and emphases in understanding.
5. Personal presuppositions: Especially the encyclical Ut Unum Sint describes the essence and the personal presuppositions of dialogue. Since dialogue is more than an exchange of ideas but has a global and existential dimension it presupposes not only theological expertise, but also personal engagement. It presupposes a common quest for the truth which is Jesus Christ himself. Its soul is prayer. So dialogue has not only a horizontal but also a vertical dimension; it cannot take place merely on a horizontal level of meetings, exchanges of points of view or even sharing of gifts but has a primarily vertical thrust directed towards the One who is himself our reconciliation. This is possible inasmuch as dialogue also serves as an examination of conscience and is a kind of "dialogue of conscience" permeated by the spirit of conversion. This means purification of memories and prayer for forgiveness of sins: not only personal sins but also social sins and sinful structures which have contributed, and still contribute, to division and the reinforcing of division.
Fundamental questions
On all points mentioned up to now more or less all churches can agree. But problems remain. The main problem is whether the Catholic church through dialogue with other churches can be open for criticism and change in regard to its binding tradition (dogmas). Here Protestant churches and the Catholic church have different convictions. While Protestant tradition speaks of the ecclesia semper reformanda, the Catholic church holds to the infallibility and irreversibility of dogmas. So often the question arises whether there can be still a true dialogue or whether dialogue for the Catholic church is only a means to convince and to convert other Christians.
I will try to give a double answer. First: Lumen Gentium 8 speaks of the church as ecclesia semper purificanda. This affirmation is not precisely the same as the Protestant ecclesia semper reformanda, but both affirmations correspond. For Catholic theology knows the concept of doctrinal development (consider J.H. Newman). According to the conciliar constitution Dei Verbum, the Holy Spirit introduces us ever more deeply into the once-for-all revealed truth. The joint declaration on justification is a good example of a growth in the deepening of understanding of truth. In this joint declaration Catholics did not give up the council of Trent and Lutherans did not give up their confessional writings. But by studying together the scriptures and our two traditions we reached a new level of understanding, becoming able to see and interpret our two traditions in a new light. We did not "give up" anything, but we were enriched. The joint declaration was not the victory of the one over the other; it was the victory of the truth through a deeper understanding of the gospel.
A second remark: immediately related to the concept of development of dogmas is the concept of reception of dogmas. "Reception" -- an important concept of the ancient church -- becomes anew an important theme today. A dogma must be received in and by the whole body of the church and must become fruitful in the life of the church and the faithful. Such a reception is not a one-way process of a type of mechanical takeover. It is a dynamic process which implies interpretation and enrichment by new aspects as well. In a different sense reception matters for dialogue documents also. The dialogue documents are the work of ecumenical experts. The paper on which they are written must become "flesh" in the churches. This is (or can be) a long and complicated process, implying not only the authorities in the churches but also the life, the hearts of the faithful. The new views must be mediated with the traditional patterns. This process needs patience, which is, according to the New Testament, a fundamental attitude of Christian hope, and according to Peguy the "little sister of hope". Patience -- and, I will add, active patience -- is the true strength of Christian faith.
There is therefore no reason for disillusion about our dialogues because they have not reached, up to now, their final goal, and the reception process is still going on. What is necessary is a reflection on methods and structures which help and support such reception processes. But what we have already reached, following centuries of fruitless polemics, is brotherhood and this certainly is not nothing. There is therefore no reason to give up dialogue in exchange for an ecumenical paradigm directed to some forms of secular ecumenism. On the contrary, according to the will of our Lord, visible unity of the church is still the binding aim, and there is in our world no alternative to ecumenism. There is therefore no alternative to ecumenical dialogue in love and truth; both are essential to the nature of the church. When we do what we can do in faith, we can be sure that God's Spirit does his work too, leading us together to one flock under one shepherd (John 10:16). It is my experience, and my conviction, that we are already gifted with many fruits of the Spirit. Certainly ecumenical dialogue needs patience, but when we discover the gifts of the Spirit in other churches, that is to say, in our brothers and sisters, dialogue becomes even more a source of joy and hope.
NOTE
(1) Information Service, vol. 1, 1967, pp.33-36.
* Bishop Walter Kasper, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church, gave this paper at the meeting of the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC at Antelias, Lebanon, 29 May 2000.
This document provided by HighBeam Research at http://www.highbeam.com
The Ecumenical Review
July 2000
Basic presuppositions
1. To speak about ecumenical dialogue, and to start a dialogue on dialogue, pre-supposes that we first know what dialogue is. Dialogue is one of the most fundamental concepts in contemporary philosophy and is related to today's personalist way of thinking (compare Buber, Rosenzweig, Ebner, Levinas and others). This fresh start of philosophical thinking with a dialogical philosophy in the 20th century means the end of monological thinking, and the self-transcendence of the person towards the other. The starting-point and the fundamental principle of dialogical philosophy is: "I do not exist without thou"; "We don't exist for ourselves". "We not only have encounter, we are encounter; we are dialogue." The other is not the limit to myself; the other is a part of, and an enrichment of, my own existence. Dialogue is an indispensable step along the path towards human self-realization. Personal identity is a dialogical identity and not an identity closed in upon itself.
Dialogue therefore is not only dialogue by words and conversations; it is much more than a theological or academic exercise. Dialogue encompasses all dimensions of our being human; it implies a global, existential dimension and the human subject in his or her entirety. Dialogue is communication in a comprehensive sense and means ultimately living with one another and for each other.
2. Such dialogue is not only necessary for individuals. Dialogue concerns also nations, cultures, religions, each of which has its own riches and gifts. But it becomes narrow and ideological when it closes itself off and absolutizes itself. Then the other nation, culture and religion becomes the "enemy". The "clash of civilizations" (Huntington) would be the result. Even today, in a world of globalization, nations, cultures, religions must open themselves and enter into dialogue. This presupposes mutual tolerance, mutual respect, mutual understanding and acknowledgment of our own limits and of the riches of the other, as well as the willingness to learn from each other. Today dialogue among cultures, religions and churches is a presupposition for peace in the world. It is necessary to pass from antagonism and conflict to a situation where each party recognizes the other as a partner. In all this, reciprocity is required.
3. This dialogical vision of the human being is rooted in the biblical and Jewish tradition. God did not create us as isolated individual beings. He created us as man and woman, as social beings who can and must see in the other the image and likeness of God, who must respect and love each other. Even revelation is a dialogical process. In revelation God addresses us and speaks to us as to friends and moves among us in order to invite and receive us into his own company (Dei Verbum 2). The highpoint of this dialogue is the Christ-event itself. In Jesus Christ, who is true God and true man, we have the most intensive and totally unique dialogue between God and man. For Christians Jesus Christ is the centre and the criterion of any dialogue, and the common reference point of dialogue.
4. Christianity claims that Jesus Christ is the fullness of time and that in him the ultimate truth is revealed. The logos who shone in all creation appeared in Jesus Christ in its fullness. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. Dialogue means common listening to truth revealed in Jesus Christ, common listening to the will of God as revealed in Jesus Christ and witnessed in holy scriptures and Tradition. Dialogue does not produce truth; dialogue discovers the truth, which is given to us once for all in Jesus Christ. Therefore concrete, firm and decisive affirmations belong to Christian witness: Tolle assertiones et christianismum tulisti (Luther). The Christian message withstands every relativization, also every relativization in the name of a wrongly understood dialogue. But this once and for all given truth -- according to the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom -- "is to be sought after in a manner proper to the dignity of the human person and his social nature. The inquiry is to be flee, carried out with the aid of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue ... in order thus to assist one another in the quest for truth" (Dignitatis Humanae 3).
So we bear the truth "in earthen vessels". All our concepts are limited, culturally and historically conditioned. Thus the encounter and the dialogue with other cultures can help to discover new aspects of the truth, which is Jesus Christ. Dialogue helps us to know all the depths and heights of Jesus Christ. Only when we bring in all the riches of all cultures can we know the fullness of truth in its fullness. Mission therefore is not a one-way process; mission -- as it understands itself today -- realizes itself in a dialogical way and is connected with inculturation.
5. Thus the fundamental starting-point for all Christian theology is that Jesus Christ is the fullness of God's revelation and that Jesus Christ is present for ever in the church through word and sacrament. Each church believes, and must believe, that it is the true church of Jesus Christ. In a certain sense every church is convinced that the church of Christ subsistit in it. This is especially the conviction of the Catholic church, expressed in Lumen Gentium 8. But in the same context, the Second Vatican Council says that outside the Catholic church there are many ecclesial elements, especially baptism (LG 15; Unitatis Redintegratio 3). This implies that the Catholic church under the conditions of division cannot realize fully her own catholicity (UR 4). The Catholic church, therefore, needs dialogue and exchange with the other churches and church communities. Being catholic and being ecumenical are not contradictory but are two faces of the one and same coin. So ecumenical dialogue is -- as Pope John Paul II says -- "an outright necessity, one of the church's priorities" (Ut Unum Sint 31).
Such dialogue between the churches is founded in the very nature of the church as communion. Communion means, first, communion with God through Jesus Christ within the Holy Spirit and, only secondly, communion among Christians themselves through word, sacraments and diaconia, but also by communication, information, prayer, exchange, cooperation, living together, mutual visits, friendship, celebrating and worshipping together, witnessing together, suffering together.
Historical background
Thus it becomes obvious that dialogue is a fundamental issue in our ecumenical relations. But this was not always acknowledged by the Catholic church. The encyclicals Satis Cognitum of Leo XIII (1896) and Mortalium Animos of Pius XI (1928) condemned ecumenical dialogue. Only with Vatican II was there a shift. The Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio opened the way for the Catholic church to engage the ecumenical movement, and highlighted the dialogue both with the separated brothers and sisters and with the separated churches and church communities (UR 4,9,11,14,18,19,21-23).
This line was taken up in a document of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (SPCU), "Reflections and Suggestions Concerning Ecumenical Dialogue" (1970), then in the Ecumenical Directory (1993) and finally in the encyclical of Pope John Paul II Ut Unum Sint (1995).
Nevertheless the new beginning was not easy. One of the questions raised by Dr Visser 't Hooft at the first meeting of the SPCU and the WCC in Milan was whether the Catholic church and the WCC understood ecumenism in the same way. Related to this question was also the meaning of ecumenical dialogue, which the Decree on Ecumenism had proposed as one way of contributing towards unity.
Therefore one is not surprised that the very first task which the Joint Working Group (JWG) had to take up was "dialogue about dialogue" -- to examine together the nature of ecumenical dialogue and to test if both sides actually understood ecumenism in the same way: the assumption was that there was a Catholic "ecumenism" and a Protestant "ecumenism".
The nature of ecumenism was therefore taken up at the second meeting of the JWG in November 1965, in Ariccia, near Rome. Two papers were presented at that meeting, one by a staff member from each side: Father Jerome Hamer, on the side of the Secretariat for Unity, presented "The Ecumenism of the WCC", while Lukas Vischer on the side of the WCC presented "The Roman Catholic Understanding of Ecumenism and the WCC". Both papers revealed a clear divergence on the principles and nature of ecumenism.
Vischer argued that the Catholic church's understanding of ecumenism was based on its own self-understanding and tended to have a graduated understanding of those outside itself on the basis of Lumen Gentium 14-15, which says, first, that the Catholic faithful are fully incorporated, and then, in [sections] 15, that "the church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter". Obviously Vischer did not like this understanding of ecumenism which gives a special position first to Eastern churches, then to the churches of the West which separated from the see of Rome at the time of the Reformation and gave among them a special place to the Anglican communion. According to Vischer, "the understanding of unity as seen in the conciliar texts suggests a perspective indicating that the Roman Catholic Church is the origin and the end of dialogue".
Hamer did not think it appropriate that the relation between the two partners could be based on the concept of a fellowship (communion or koinonia). He argued that to accept such a criterion would necessarily attribute to the WCC an ecclesial character it does not have. He did not recognize any positive ecclesial reality in the relationship among the divided member churches of the WCC.
By the time of the second report (1967), there was some progress in the dialogue on the nature of ecumenism. The very fact that two partners were now engaged in dialogue helped to place both the Catholic church and the WCC in the wider context of the ecumenical movement, in other words, as partners within the one ecumenical movement. The report said: "It is important for us to clarify the criterion which fixed these relations in the past, and according to which they must now become increasingly close in the future. This criterion must be sought in the service of the one and only ecumenical movement". These relations would therefore not be based on the Basis of the WCC (that is, as a fellowship of churches), but on the basis of service to the one ecumenical movement (Hamer).
The JWG continued discussion on this important topic through a study group which prepared a common text(1) on ecumenical dialogue. Both sides were now in agreement that the accent would be placed on the concept of "an equal footing" of partners in dialogue in the sense of the Decree on Ecumenism, 9. "Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides -- especially for discussion of theological problems -- where each can treat the other on an equal footing, provided those who take part in them under the guidance of the authorities are truly competent."
The text produced revealed a continuing growth of consensus. Both partners agreed that the goal of dialogue was "growth together in koinonia"; that true dialogue required a real exchange which surpassed the separateness of the partners and which springs forth from the need for common witness; that "dialogue is ... a continuous mutual exchange and enrichment which springs forth from an effort to cooperate, in order to undertake together everything that we are not obliged to do separately . It is their meeting and collaboration in a common task ... that they should be one so that the world may believe." The report underlined the fact that participation in dialogue gives witness to a bond already uniting the partners, in this case expressed in the will of God for the unity of the church.
Some concrete consequences
1. The goal of dialogue: The ultimate goal of the ecumenical dialogue is of course the same as the goal of the ecumenical movement itself: the visible unity of the church. Since Vatican II we understand this visible unity as unity in plurality, and as communion of churches. But we cannot reach this goal in one bound. There are intermediate goals: overcoming misunderstandings, eliminating words, judgments and actions which do not correspond to the actual conditions of the separated brethren, reaching better mutual understanding, deepening what we have already in common, growth in one's own faith and renewal of one's own church, mutual enrichment and exchange of charismas, partial or differentiated consensus, human and Christian friendship. Rediscovered brotherhood is one of the most important fruits of ecumenical dialogue.
2. Dimensions of dialogue: In the Decree on Ecumenism of the Council we find three dimensions of ecumenical dialogue. The first one is the dialogue of experts, where each side explains the beliefs of one's own church, so that its characteristics become clearer, fostering a better mutual understanding. The second dimension is practical cooperation and especially common prayer, the latter being the heart of the ecumenical movement. The third dimension is renewal and reform of one's own church so that she becomes more of an authentic sign and witness of the gospel and an invitation for the other Christians (UR 4). So dialogue ad extra presupposes dialogue ad intra, a readiness for reform and renewal. Theological rigidity and fundamentalism are the very opposite of dialogue.
Often the distinction is also made between dialogue of love and dialogue in truth. Both are important, they cannot be separated; both belong together. For we must do the truth in love and love can be authentic only when it is an expression of truth. So the dialogue encompasses not only academic theological dialogue groups but the whole life of the church and of all the faithful.
3. Structures of dialogue: Ecumenical dialogue must be done not only on the universal level, but is also the duty of individuals at the local or particular level. It has to be realized in each Christian's personal life when he or she meets Christians of another church, in families, particularly in mixed marriages, in local communities, but also in non church-related institutions as youth movements, professional organizations, and so on; it has to be realized also on the level of dioceses and bishops' conferences. Of particular importance is the ecumenical dialogue in theological faculties and academies.
4. Methods of dialogue: In this context I do not wish to deal with all methods and with a whole ecumenical methodology. I limit myself to two points:
a) The Council admonishes us to pay attention to the hierarchy of truths (UR 11). When comparing doctrines theologians should remember that among Catholic teachings there exists a "hierarchy" of truths -- meaning an order or a structure, since the various truths vary in their relationship to the foundation of the Christian faith. So Christian faith has a structure, in which different degrees have different functions. Ultimately all doctrines refer to the mystery of Christ and the Trinity. This principle is not a principle of reduction -- or even elimination -- of certain so-called "secondary" truths, but is a principle of interpretation of the secondary truth in the light of the basic doctrines on the Trinity and Christology.
Another important hermeneutical principle is the distinction between the content of faith and the expression of faith (Gaudium et Spes 62). There must be binding common formulations of basic truths, especially the creed, but there can be also different formulations of the same faith. This has been ascertained in the case for example of recent common declarations by Eastern and Oriental Orthodox dealing with centuries-old disputes about Christology. In a similar way Catholics and Lutherans have stated, in the joint declaration on justification, a consensus in basic truths which is not destroyed by different approaches, languages, theological elaborations, and emphases in understanding.
5. Personal presuppositions: Especially the encyclical Ut Unum Sint describes the essence and the personal presuppositions of dialogue. Since dialogue is more than an exchange of ideas but has a global and existential dimension it presupposes not only theological expertise, but also personal engagement. It presupposes a common quest for the truth which is Jesus Christ himself. Its soul is prayer. So dialogue has not only a horizontal but also a vertical dimension; it cannot take place merely on a horizontal level of meetings, exchanges of points of view or even sharing of gifts but has a primarily vertical thrust directed towards the One who is himself our reconciliation. This is possible inasmuch as dialogue also serves as an examination of conscience and is a kind of "dialogue of conscience" permeated by the spirit of conversion. This means purification of memories and prayer for forgiveness of sins: not only personal sins but also social sins and sinful structures which have contributed, and still contribute, to division and the reinforcing of division.
Fundamental questions
On all points mentioned up to now more or less all churches can agree. But problems remain. The main problem is whether the Catholic church through dialogue with other churches can be open for criticism and change in regard to its binding tradition (dogmas). Here Protestant churches and the Catholic church have different convictions. While Protestant tradition speaks of the ecclesia semper reformanda, the Catholic church holds to the infallibility and irreversibility of dogmas. So often the question arises whether there can be still a true dialogue or whether dialogue for the Catholic church is only a means to convince and to convert other Christians.
I will try to give a double answer. First: Lumen Gentium 8 speaks of the church as ecclesia semper purificanda. This affirmation is not precisely the same as the Protestant ecclesia semper reformanda, but both affirmations correspond. For Catholic theology knows the concept of doctrinal development (consider J.H. Newman). According to the conciliar constitution Dei Verbum, the Holy Spirit introduces us ever more deeply into the once-for-all revealed truth. The joint declaration on justification is a good example of a growth in the deepening of understanding of truth. In this joint declaration Catholics did not give up the council of Trent and Lutherans did not give up their confessional writings. But by studying together the scriptures and our two traditions we reached a new level of understanding, becoming able to see and interpret our two traditions in a new light. We did not "give up" anything, but we were enriched. The joint declaration was not the victory of the one over the other; it was the victory of the truth through a deeper understanding of the gospel.
A second remark: immediately related to the concept of development of dogmas is the concept of reception of dogmas. "Reception" -- an important concept of the ancient church -- becomes anew an important theme today. A dogma must be received in and by the whole body of the church and must become fruitful in the life of the church and the faithful. Such a reception is not a one-way process of a type of mechanical takeover. It is a dynamic process which implies interpretation and enrichment by new aspects as well. In a different sense reception matters for dialogue documents also. The dialogue documents are the work of ecumenical experts. The paper on which they are written must become "flesh" in the churches. This is (or can be) a long and complicated process, implying not only the authorities in the churches but also the life, the hearts of the faithful. The new views must be mediated with the traditional patterns. This process needs patience, which is, according to the New Testament, a fundamental attitude of Christian hope, and according to Peguy the "little sister of hope". Patience -- and, I will add, active patience -- is the true strength of Christian faith.
There is therefore no reason for disillusion about our dialogues because they have not reached, up to now, their final goal, and the reception process is still going on. What is necessary is a reflection on methods and structures which help and support such reception processes. But what we have already reached, following centuries of fruitless polemics, is brotherhood and this certainly is not nothing. There is therefore no reason to give up dialogue in exchange for an ecumenical paradigm directed to some forms of secular ecumenism. On the contrary, according to the will of our Lord, visible unity of the church is still the binding aim, and there is in our world no alternative to ecumenism. There is therefore no alternative to ecumenical dialogue in love and truth; both are essential to the nature of the church. When we do what we can do in faith, we can be sure that God's Spirit does his work too, leading us together to one flock under one shepherd (John 10:16). It is my experience, and my conviction, that we are already gifted with many fruits of the Spirit. Certainly ecumenical dialogue needs patience, but when we discover the gifts of the Spirit in other churches, that is to say, in our brothers and sisters, dialogue becomes even more a source of joy and hope.
NOTE
(1) Information Service, vol. 1, 1967, pp.33-36.
* Bishop Walter Kasper, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church, gave this paper at the meeting of the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC at Antelias, Lebanon, 29 May 2000.
This document provided by HighBeam Research at http://www.highbeam.com
posted by Eric Nicolai @ 5:30 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home