Search Results

This chapter seeks to identify the sociological factors that impede receptive ecumenical learning by examining the complex relationship between two sets of processes. The first traces broader changes in British society; the second refers to the Roman Catholic community itself, and outlines the social structures and expectations that have historically emerged within it. It argues that interaction today between these sociological processes has forced the Roman Catholic community into a situation of profound structural crisis.

This chapter identifies and reflects upon the organizational factors militating against receptive ecumenical learning within Roman Catholicism. It argues that Roman Catholicism has reached a plateau on which it will be stuck for some time into the future. This may have been all right in the days when the world changed at a glacial rate, but today political, cultural, and social changes occur at light speed. The church can no longer take decades or centuries to respond to change. The future of the church and any programme of Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning must be based on faith, hope, and love.

This chapter begins with an explanation of the enmity between American evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics, which can be traced back to colonial period. It then discusses scholarly literature on evangelical-Catholic relations, and analyzes three myths: the Protestant myth, Roman Catholic myth, and the Enlightenment myth. An overview of the chapters in this volume is also presented.

This chapter considers the issue of the participation of Roman Catholic laity in church governance from a theological, ecumenical, and political perspective. On the historical path, it looks at where the question of lay governance had generally arrived with the Second Vatican Council's seminal work on the laity. On the theological path, it examines recent developments in thinking on ordained and baptismal priesthood within Catholicism, partially inspired by ecumenical learning. On the political path, it turns to developments in the Roman Catholic Church in the United States in the last five years.

This chapter examines the extent and limitations of the resources that exist within the 1983 Code of Canon Law of the Latin Catholic Church for addressing one particular perceived area of weakness in the internal governance of the Roman Catholic Church, namely: episcopal accountability, as this has come under scrutiny in the light of the sexual abuse scandals in the English-speaking world. The ensuing crisis has given these matters a new and compelling relevance as it becomes obvious that such weaknesses have practical implications and significant consequences for the church's credible preaching of the Good News in a sceptical world. The concern here is to explore how in this specific regard the gap that can open up between the high rhetoric of Roman Catholic self-understanding and the actual reality of practice and structure might be narrowed.

Since 1965, the Roman Catholic Church has issued three official statements on the Jews and Judaism (in 1965, 1974, and 1985). Added to these are numerous statements by the pope and documents issued by local Catholic sources (individual bishops, dioceses, and archdioceses). This chapter examines these statements. It is shown that progress is not always steady, that unofficial statements were often more innovative than official declarations, and that there is still a lot of difference of opinion within the church regarding how far to go in affirming the full validity of contemporary Judaism as what the church would call “a path of salvation”.The new Catechism of the Catholic Church as it incorporates or does not incorporate the changes in Catholic teaching regarding the Jews and Judaism is discussed. The chapter also addresses the question: does the church today view contemporary Judaism as having a divinely ordained mission in the world, and, if so, does it regard Jews as acting in fidelity to God and God's calling by remaining Jews rather than joining the church?

This chapter examines the story of Anglican–Roman Catholic relations since the days following the Second Vatican Council to see what has proved effective and what counterproductive in receptive ecumenical learning. Among the lessons learned is that if there is to be a real reception of one another in faith and life then the personal and relational is prior. There has to be a real getting to know one another at all levels of the life of the two communions, a real appreciation of the gifts the other has to offer, and an inclination to receive as well as to give. Receptive Ecumenism requires the involvement not just of leaders and theologians but of whole communities that desire to get to know one another, are open to learn from each other, and accept that renewal and change is required for the sake of fidelity to the Gospel and for more credible mission and service. Receptive Ecumenism also requires effective leadership. Those charged with a ministry of unity must be committed to the visible unity of the church and prepared, as part of their ministry, to take responsibility, personally and collegially, and increasingly in shared collegiality, for nurturing the communion that already exists and directing the processes of Receptive Ecumenism.

This chapter describes the emergence of the system called “Tridentinism” following the Council of Trent. The Council incorporated, redefined, and updated the norms of the previous centuries to such an extent that it became preferable to view these norms through the lens of the Council's decrees. The body of Tridentine decrees increasingly edged all previous sources out of ecclesiastical use. Thus, it became obligatory to refer to Trent for solutions to every problem that arose, doctrinal or institutional. As a result, post-Tridentine Catholicism gradually took on a uniformity that nobody would have dared to think possible during the acute phase of the Protestant schism. This “Tridentinism” even managed to penetrate, in important ways, certain parts of the Protestant world.

This chapter explores the discrepancy between sound eucharistic theology and the eucharistic theology of several official documents of the Roman Catholic magisterium. Historical research suggests that Robert Bellarmine is one of the “messengers”, if indeed not one of the “villains”, of this story. It is argued that the embarrassing dichotomy between the teaching of the contemporary official Roman magisterium and that of most contemporary liturgical theologians is due to the magisterium's continued acceptance of some of the shortcomings of post-Tridentine Catholic eucharistic theology. If there is to be progress towards a more broadly shared Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, the Roman magisterium must become less attached to explanations of the Mystery of Faith that are less than satisfactory.

Although Gladstone never abandoned his attachment to Christian dogma, he developed distinctly Broad Church sympathies in his later years. One reason for this evolution of his views was a reaction against the rigid state confessionalism of the earlier period. Another was his strong hostility to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church, which he believed to be a threat to liberty, even though he listened appreciatively to the views of more progressive voices within the Roman communion, especially that of Ignaz von Döllinger. A third reason consisted of his preoccupation with ecumenical relations so that the churches could present a united front against infidelity. His personal crisis of 1850-51, forcing him back on basic beliefs, was a fourth reason. The result was a fresh appreciation of the humanity of Jesus that provided a sanction for compassion with the suffering.

This chapter comments on the possible future directions of ecumenism. There are serious problems confronting the Anglican communion, the Orthodox Church, and the Roman Catholic Church. These problems mean that the dream of structural union, born in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, will not be realized in the foreseeable future. Although the path towards reunion will be longer than some had foreseen, the duration of the process is not, in itself, an issue. What is, arguably, first at issue is the model according to which our bilateral dialogues have hitherto been conducted. Equally at issue is the reception of these agreements in the day-to-day life of the churches: the somewhat detached intellectual adhesion generally afforded them does not lead to concrete reforms without which desired unity remains out of reach. The specific responsibility of theologians in this regard is discussed.

The two World Wars profoundly affected the region and its churches, as did the consequences of the great Depression of the 1920s and 1930s. Sectarianism began to decline, but Protestant and Roman Catholic subcultures were still very influential. Protestant denominational commitment was slowly declining and various remedies were offered to regain credibility, some of which were divisive, like Socialism and Liberalism. Pacific Island churches were breaking out of their missionary structures, just as some women were rejecting their exclusion from government and leadership in the churches.

This chapter examines the roots of evangelical critique of Catholicism. The Roman church was viewed as the legion of the Antichrist, a false church, a heretical and apostate church. So evil was its “system”, and so corrupt its doctrine and practice that it can only be dealt with in the language of an apocalyptic invented to pierce through an opaque history to its roots in the infernal mind. The Reformation was thus, inextricably linked to Manichean rhetoric.

Americans generally understand pluralism to be a descriptive term for the multiplicity of religions and cultures in their country. This chapter and the next, however, are concerned with another kind of pluralism, namely the theological response of each faith to the presence of other religions, most specifically how Christians and Muslims look at each other. This chapter considers how some American Christian thinkers have thought about issues of pluralism and the encounter with Islam. Christian evangelicals, moderates, and pluralists, both Roman Catholics and Protestants, have all contributed to the conversation about how Christians might look personally and spiritually at the religion of Islam.

This chapter argues that ecumenism is facing a critical moment and that it is important to seek out ways in which to appropriately move forward. It discusses the concepts of Eucharistic sharing, Eucharistic hospitality, Eucharistic receptivity, the authority of experience, and the two-way process of learning.

Visions of a Christian society in the South Pacific varied within Protestantism, as well as between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Some settlers argued for a secular society, as distinct from one without religious tests or an established church. Primary education was the main area of disagreement, with secular systems established in most colonies by the 1870s, leaving Roman Catholics and Lutherans to finance their own schools. Pressures for political and religious cooperation were strong, leading to Methodist and Presbyterian unions and federation of the Australian colonies. Land wars in New Zealand and New Caledonia left a bitter legacy.

Begins by questioning imperialist misconceptions that overestimate the ability of colonial powers to suppress indigenous cultures. Rather than viewing Kerala's Christian traditions as passive receptacles for foreign influence, this chapter highlights how they, as expressed through Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian sainthood, have managed to refashion colonial traditions. This case is made by viewing how devotees’ approaches to and perceptions of a local almost‐saint, Sr. Alphonsa, reflect challenges to colonial stereotypes of the Indian other, helping construct and congeal a positive Kerala Christian identity. Similarly, this chapter demonstrates how local traditions surrounding St. George, a “foreign” saint brought to the Malabar coast by the Syrians, Portuguese, and British, have come to articulate a type of pro‐Keralite, anticolonial stance.