From the blog Gregorian Rite Catholic:
Benedict XVI is “on board” with ecumenism, but he calibrates it carefully. It is a refreshing change from the near-indifferentism that characterized the previous pontificate.
The first substantial ecumenical address he gave was in Cologne. And everyone was all aflutter when he said this: “On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!
“It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity: in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature.”
One Fr. Brian Harrison ventured the point that the Holy Father had not included doctrine in his list of those things that could not be uniform:
“The first impression here is that Pope Benedict is right in line with Cardinal Kasper and other ecumaniac luminaries. … But what, precisely, is Benedict ruling out when he rules out so categorically this dreaded, abhorrent, unthinkable ‘return’ of the separated brethren? He answers this question by proceeding to rule out any future requirement of ‘uniformity’ in four distinct and specific areas of the Church’s life: theology, spirituality, liturgical forms, and discipline. Note well that the Pope conspicuously fails to include doctrine among these areas in which uniformity will not be required.
“Now I would suggest that this omission,” continues Harrison, “to the extent that it comes to be taken seriously and implemented at high levels, really amounts to a pulling the rug out from under the feet of heretical ecumenists. It’s the old Catholic orthodoxy creeping in again by the postconciliar back door. For what preconciliar pope ever insisted on uniformity in any of the four areas specified now by Benedict XVI?”
I would go further than Fr. Harrison. Theology, spirituality, liturgical forms, and discipline are not “doctrine free.” They do admit of variety in the sense that the Church grants us a wide field in which to explore legitimate differences of expression of the essence of the faith. But fundamentally liturgy is doctrine, however differently the various rites manifest themselves. The various theological schools, whether in Carthage, Alexandria, Aosta, or Aquino, expressed differently the essence of the faith, but this did not amount to new faiths. The problem of theologies, such as those of Duns Scotus and Gabriel Biel was precisely that they did pose new doctrinal formulations and so were repudiated at the Council of Trent.
So what Pope Benedict is saying here is that while strict uniformity has never been characteristic of Catholicism (and that is true even of the so-called “Tridentine” era; cf. Simon Ditchfield, Liturgy, Sanctity and History in Tridentine Italy: Pietro Maria Campi and the Preservation of the Particular. Cambridge, 2002), doctrinal uniformity is and it affects all aspects of Catholicism. Notice that the Holy Father says: “expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline.” Expressions are ways of explaining the regula fidei and doctrinal essence of Catholicism. They themselves are not the regula fidei and doctrinal essence. The same obtains for liturgical forms and discipline.
On 6 December 2007, the Holy Father addressed the joint international commission sponsored by the Baptist World Alliance and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Among the remarks the Holy Father offered were these:
“The theme which you have chosen for this phase of contacts – The Word of God in the Life of the Church: Scripture, Tradition and Koinonia – offers a promising context for the examination of such historically controverted issues as the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, the understanding of Baptism and the sacraments, the place of Mary in the communion of the Church, and the nature of oversight and primacy in the Church’s ministerial structure. If our hope for reconciliation and greater fellowship between Baptists and Catholics is to be realized, issues such as these need to be faced together, in a spirit of openness, mutual respect and fidelity to the liberating truth and saving power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
How do you think the Holy Father is going to come down on these issues?
Or, when he addressed an ecumenical on his visit to the United States in April, 2008: “Too often those who are not Christians, as they observe the splintering of Christian communities, are understandably confused about the Gospel message itself. Fundamental Christian beliefs and practices are sometimes changed within communities by so-called “prophetic actions” that are based on a hermeneutic not always consonant with the datum of Scripture and Tradition. Communities consequently give up the attempt to act as a unified body, choosing instead to function according to the idea of “local options”. Somewhere in this process the need for diachronic koinonia – communion with the Church in every age – is lost, just at the time when the world is losing its bearings and needs a persuasive common witness to the saving power of the Gospel (cf. Rom 1:18-23). . . . My dear friends, the power of the kerygma has lost none of its internal dynamism. Yet we must ask ourselves whether its full force has not been attenuated by a relativistic approach to Christian doctrine similar to that found in secular ideologies, which, in alleging that science alone is “objective”, relegate religion entirely to the subjective sphere of individual feeling. Scientific discoveries, and their application through human ingenuity, undoubtedly offer new possibilities for the betterment of humankind. This does not mean, however, that the “knowable” is limited to the empirically verifiable, nor religion restricted to the shifting realm of “personal experience. For Christians to accept this faulty line of reasoning would lead to the notion that there is little need to emphasize objective truth in the presentation of the Christian faith, for one need but follow his or her own conscience and choose a community that best suits his or her individual tastes. The result is seen in the continual proliferation of communities which often eschew institutional structures and minimize the importance of doctrinal content for Christian living. Even within the ecumenical movement, Christians may be reluctant to assert the role of doctrine for fear that it would only exacerbate rather than heal the wounds of division. Yet a clear, convincing testimony to the salvation wrought for us in Christ Jesus has to be based upon the notion of normative apostolic teaching: a teaching which indeed underlies the inspired word of God and sustains the sacramental life of Christians today.”
I wonder who he’s talking about here? So far, the Holy Father has adduced religious relativism, the sacraments, doctrine, individual communities organized according to individual tastes, subjectivity, Scripture AND Tradition, and “so-called ‘prophetic’ actions.” In particular, the Pope makes a point of highlighting: “. . . the need for diachronic koinonia – communion with the Church in every age . . . ,” which is precisely where the evangelical Protestant groups (as well as the pentecostals and “independent Christians”) are in arrears.
Traditional Catholics who are always in distress whenever ecumenism comes up would do well to reread the Holy Father’s ecumenical addresses. He is not about to give away the store.
Eirenikon 
I would like to know what is meant by “doctrine”.
Good question, Ev. I was just reading an article the other day in which the author (who is Orthodox) distinguishes between “dogma(ta)”, “doctrine(s)”, and “theology.” I was a bit surprised seeing these distinctions coming from an Orthodox. I am much more familiar with the distinction between “dogmata” and “theologoumena”.
It occurs to me that this confusion over how these terms are being used may contribute to negative impressions of ecumenism among Orthodox and Catholics.
I don’t think any side is interested in “giving away the store”; but I do think that sincere folks on both sides are trying clarify what the real, substantive differences are, after centuries of isolation and polemical distortion.
Much of the work is just each side figuring out what truly constitutes their “store” – this process is tricky enough for Roman Catholics, and about 10 times trickier for Orthodox, because of their extremely dispersed magisterium.
Anyhow, this is the sort of ecumenism I am interested in, despite the way this blog has been characterized by some.
Could you give a reference to the article?
Yes, I do think that quite a bit of the confusion is really based on the fact that, while the terms are common, the definitions aren’t. There needs to be a common dictionary, otherwise discussions just go around in circles.
It’s David Bentley Hart’s “The Myth of Schism” in Ecumenism Today: The Universal Church in the 21st Century (edited by Francesca Aran Murphy and Christopher Asprey). You can read the entire text of Hart’s essay online, courtesy Google Books.
I’ve been meaning to post excerpts here for discussion …
I struck me in reading this – especially the last paragraph – that the focus on what is important is very different between Orthodox and Catholics. Unity itself is not important – it’s not unimportant either. What’s important is fealty to the apostolic faith and this is what Orthodox see lacking in the Roman church – especially since Vatican II, but even since Vatican I and stretching back for some time. Any talk about unity rings hollow to an Orthodox Christian if it is not part and parcel with a commitment to holding to the traditions of the Fathers back to the Apostles.
Exactly what is meant by “fealty to the apostolic faith”, (“fealty” is a nice Latin medieval word)?
I’m always fascinated by Orthodox who argue that Vatican II somehow was an abandonment of the apostolic faith when the very purpose of the Council was the re-statement of the apostolic faith, especially in ecclesiology and liturgy. After all, the notion that the Liturgy should be in the common language of the people, that the laity is indeed a central participant of the Liturgy and not merely a recipient, etc;etc; are themes found also in Orthodoxy. Quite a bit of the foundation for the change in liturgical practice was the result of interchanges between Roman Catholic and Orthodox liturgical theologians/ historians. As for ecclesiology, the renewal of bishops as being more than mere Vatican “arms” also reflected Orthodox understanding of ecclesiology.
All that being said, it must be admitted that Vatican II has not yet really been fully implemented nor understood by the vast majority of Roman Catholics, whether “traditionalist” or “liberal”. But that’s a result of the very poor theological education most clerics, ( let alone the laity), have received.
I think Hart is corect in insisting that seminaries include, as part of the formation of priest, the great works of both Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians. It wouldn’t hurt for them to know, as well, a bit about Protestant, Jewish and Islamic theology as well as some exposure to Hinduism and Buddhism.
To clarify, I’m not arguing anything, just noting the language used and perhaps even the focus is different. Orthodox want to make sure they are preserving and holding to the apostolic faith. Unity is only to be found in this. Unity cannot be a separate, stand alone concept and is not the most important thing. The language used by the Pope seems to argue for unity, even unity in diversity, but not unity in the apostolic faith, in the apostolic tradition, about obedience to the tradition of the Church, etc. That sets off alarm bells for most Orthodox and for most people allergic to faux ecumenism. I don’t know what the Pope meant and I’m not sure of the context of this particular passage – one can’t say everything all at once all the time, after all – but I thought it an interesting example.
Personally, I think more has to be done within Orthodoxy to understand the importance of the continuity of tradition, or lack thereof. Most Orthodox – and most Catholics, actually, despite all the talk of the development of doctrine, etc. – assume that ‘valid’ tradition is surviving, living tradition. This may or may not be valid. If living tradition alone were found to be valid, that would immediately cut out of the discussion all kinds of archeological resuscitations of liturgical and ecclesiastical forms that were used somewhere by someone we think is holy and authoritative, but went out of use in x date though we think it speaks to the needs of the Church today. This is what many feel was wrong about Vatican II – it was a modernist formation from ancient materials of a wholly modern thing that would unrecognizable to ancients (cf., the fox and the emperor mosaic of St. Irenaeus). This is what many Orthodox feel about their own modernists (e.g., New Skete in NY).
Of course, if living tradition is the only tradition, then what is required is conversion to that living tradition from whatever tradition erred from the true faith. That’s where the Orthodox are at. Not sure it’s right, but that is the assumed position. It seems to be held in common by the Copts, BTW, which is why they aren’t in communion with either the Orthodox or the Catholics and won’t accept Chalcedon or beyond.
Everyone agrees in concept that one doesn’t ‘have’ to simply become Greek, Russian, Coptic, etc., but no one understands in practice how to divorce culture, liturgy, tradition, language, etc. enough so that a Roman Catholic doesn’t have to actually become Greek Orthodox to find union. Similarly, no one understands how to understand later ‘differences’ from earlier unity – how can we turn the clock back?
Hart’s piece demonstrates that even within the ecumenical dialogue (if we can call it that, I have my doubts) true communication is extremely difficult if not nearly impossible. For as much as, for instance, 20th century theological developments in the East be summarily dismissed they cannot be as easily denied of their historical significance and consequently must be part of the ecumenical conversation. But this only speaks of the divide between us, a divide that cannot be simply wished away.
Christopher’s remark, “The language used by the Pope seems to argue for unity, even unity in diversity, but not unity in the apostolic faith, in the apostolic tradition, about obedience to the tradition of the Church, etc.” struck me as insightful, but not quite in the sense he probably intended. It had never even occurred to me that such a spin could be put to Bennedict’s observations.
Catholic posters should feel free to correct me, but I don’t see how a Catholic could have read the Pope’s remarks, particularly those relating to the need for “diachronic konoinia,” in any sense other than fidelity to “unity in the apostolic faith, in the apostolic tradition, about obedience to the tradition of the Church”. This may be one of those important subtleties that Catholic discourse does not often explicitly dwell upon because they are essentially taken for granted. Catholic listeners would not share as a point of departure Orthodox notions that Rome has somehow drifted from its apostolic moorings.
Michaël
Michael,
I would be glad to hear that such things are assumed. My point is that the choice of language is such that it seems to underline the Orthodox perception – the RCC is more interested in what Orthodoxy sees as its own set of self-chosen innovations developed since the Schism (on the basis of its own infallible Pope regardless of the ancient apostolic foundations and the Church as a whole). This may or may not be fair or true, but it is part of the problem. In fact, by simply assuming such things, the RCC falls into the ‘asymmetrical ecumenism’ described in David Bentley Hart’s “The Myth of Schism”, pp. 101-102, where a RC can accept in toto the faith of the Orthodox and its Seven Ecumenical Councils, but an Orthodox accepting the remaining dozen plus Ecumenical Councils simply becomes a Roman Catholic. (Hart details it far better than I, it’s a good read).
Christopher,
I agree with your observation that perception is part of the problem (I see it as most of the problem, actually, but unfortunately not all the problem).
I am not entirely sure I follow exactly what you mean by asymmetrical ecumenism. But from what I can understand, the observation has some validity though largely because the two communions understand themselves as ‘the one true Church’ in asymmetrical ways.
Catholicism, either as a whole or in part, has never challenged the validity of Orthodox sacraments, for example. For Catholics, Orthodox are merely Catholics in objective schism who, while otherwise orthodox, hold to fatally distorted and polemicized caricatures of what Western Catholics (and those in communion with them) are actually required to believe. Your reference to “its own infallible Pope” is a case in point.
I tire of mentioning this, but I know of no Catholic formulation describing the Pope as “infallible.” Use of such terminology can only be the product of unfortunate ignorance (generally) or intellectual sloth (all too often, even from Catholics who should know better) or bad faith (sadly).
I am normally more cheerful about prospects for reunion, but reviewing some of the other combox posts since the end of our hiatus has not made me entirely cheerful.
I am normally more cheerful about prospects for reunion, but reviewing some of the other combox posts since the end of our hiatus has not made me entirely cheerful.
Join the club! Depressing, isn’t it?