EAA3
In view of the Third European Ecumenical Assembly due to be held in Sibiu from 3 to 9 September, we offer a reflection by SIR in the light of the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” and of the document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church”.
Two recent documents of the magisterium of the Catholic Church, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum on the “Roman liturgy anterior to the reform of 1970” (7 July 2007), which permits the celebration of the [Latin] Mass of St. Pius V in the edition approved by John XXIII in 1962, and the “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church” issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (dated 29 June but not published till 10 July 2007), though very different in nature and object, have had a strong impact in the vast world linked to ecumenical dialogue, in particular among our Evangelical Christian brothers, who have expressed bitterness and disappointment, considering them to apply a brake to the process of ecumenical rapprochement begun with Vatican Council II. Without entering directly into the merits of the observations expressed on various sides, it seems to me possible and useful to point out a different interpretation of the documents in question. As far as the liturgy is concerned, it is clear to everyone that when the Pope celebrates mass in St. Peter’s Square in front of thousands of faithful everyone can follow the words, gestures and significance of the rite.
That is the way of celebrating of the Catholic Church, regulated by the norms inspired by the liturgical reform of Vatican Council II (1962-1965). That rite can also be celebrated in Latin, the official language of the Roman Church, especially when the congregation is multilingual. That a minority should vindicate, with (in my view) excessive determination, their right to celebrate mass in the form of the Roman rite preceding the reformed liturgy of Vatican II, and that Benedict XVI should have permitted this rite as an “extraordinary” form, is a purely internal affair of the ecclesiastical discipline of the Roman Church. So why has there been such a furore in national and international public opinion, both ecclesial and lay? Journalists and intellectuals who never go to mass, and who declare themselves atheists or agnostics, show a passionate interest in the question and write for or against it, according to the camps to which they belong. And these camps are for the most part not theological, but political, or both together.
Something similar has happened in reaction to the “Responses” of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Conservatives, hardliners and diehard traditionalists interpret all this as a halt to dialogue with other Churches and religions, a stop to openings to other faiths, like that of the meeting in Assisi, and any ecumenical venture aimed at taking a sympathetic look at the world of the non-Catholics, non-Christians and non-believers who throng the earth. It is interpreted as a kind of isolationist syndrome that seems to be gaining ground among some sections of the Catholic faithful, whether practising or not. Progressive circles interpret the situation with the same viewpoint and protest. But other aims and different scenarios can be ascertained in the intentions and thoughts of Benedict XVI, which are expressed in the letter that accompanies the Motu proprio and which throw light on the two documents in question.
In particular, we can read in it the re-affirmation and trust in the ecumenical process, and in the validity of the conciliar documents, which are called guidelines for the life and thought of the Church. These thoughts can be situated in the light of what we might call the ecumenical strategy of Benedict XVI: preventing further divisions, acting to heal those that have already occurred with concrete gestures, and laying new foundations for a dialogue that risks exhausting itself by inertia or running into the sand. “The ecumenism of concrete gestures” that is posed beyond good intentions and the exercise of good manners was spoken of by Benedict XVI at the start of his pontificate. He adopted it as his programme of action. As a first point, therefore, he has tried to prevent any further distancing of the traditionalists, initiated and taken to extreme consequences by Lefebvre, and if possible restore to full unity the fringe groups of Catholics nostalgically attached to the past. According to the Pope, this can be done without sacrificing anything of the acquisitions of Vatican Council II.
The only reservation that Ratzinger intends to express not vis-à-vis the Council, but its commentators, is to insist that the Council be not considered a breach with the past, but a renewal in continuity with the bimillennial tradition of the Church. This is a clear message to all those who fear that the Church is yielding to relativism or succumbing to the spirit of the times. The other concrete sign is that of the clarity of the positions, and the discovery of diversities. If in the first phase of the ecumenical dialogue, reconciliation and communion were sought by putting together the things that unite us rather than those that divide us, the time now seems to have come to find ways of reconciliation and communion through the things that diversify us, in the hope that they may be known, understood, explained, recognized and appreciated by both sides. Bilateral and multilateral dialogue between the Churches and Christian communities has especially been developed in the work of the mixed groups. But perhaps so far it has been insufficient and also too reticent.
The clear rediscovery of individual identities is not to the detriment to dialogue, indeed it makes it sincere, credible and effective if it rests on the common confession of the apostolic faith professed by all and by the common recognition of baptism that make intrinsically and objectively possible and effective what many ecumenists call the reconciliation of diversities, strongly supported by the Evangelicals. If we are to go forward in this direction, however, it’s not enough to know and recognize our differences: we need to evaluate and gauge their compatibility with a communion of faith according to the criterion introduced by the conciliar Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio n.11) of the hierarchy of truths of Catholic doctrine.
An indication in support of this strategy we can ascertain in the declared esteem and willingness of dialogue, full of understanding, that Ratzinger has expressed for the Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner (author of a book recounting an imaginary disputation between a rabbi and Jesus) who contests the teaching of Jesus and declares that he would not have followed him if he had been one of his contemporary interlocutors, though showing he had well understood the teaching of the rabbi of Nazareth. Neusner’s thought is repeatedly cited in Benedict XVI’s book on Jesus of Nazareth (p. 29 ff.). This dialogue between the rabbi and Jesus, he says, “allows us to gauge all the harshness of the differences between them, but it occurs in a climate of great love”.
Ratzinger speaks with admiration of this rabbi who “takes his leave from Jesus with a detachment that knows no hatred and, albeit in the rigour of the truth, never loses sight of the conciliatory power of love”. It’s true we are in different fields, here it’s Christian-Jewish dialogue, there it’s inter-confessional dialogue, but the analogy is deep, always referring to a project of unity and communion, of the possibility of understanding and of dialogue in respectful recognition of the differences perceived through the autonomous self-consciousness of individual subjects. In this perspective the different identities are made clear and to each is given its intrinsic dignity, avoiding in this way possible confusions, the counterfeit solutions that do not satisfy the need for sincerity and truth and that are inadequate to found a free choice.
Mutual understanding, moreover, instead of the theological ironing out of interpretations, can promote a better understanding of the reasons that have given rise to the different traditions and their historical modifications that resist in time and thus constitute an enrichment of the knowledge of the Christian mystery and its understanding in time and in space. It is legitimate to think and at least to hope that this process of profound mutual understanding, overcoming suspicions and prejudices, and going to the heart of the faith of believers in Christ, may foster reconciliation and illuminate differences, enabling us to discover in them paths of reconciliation rather than barriers to communication.
A last analogy is proposed to us by the dialogue between the rabbi and Jesus suggestively cited by Ratzinger, and indicative of a new approach to inter-Christian dialogue: “faith in the word of God present in Holy Scriptures creates contemporaneity through time: on the basis of Scripture the rabbi may enter into the present time of Jesus and on the basis of scripture Jesus is present in our life today”. And this is more than an invocation. If this interpretation of the intention of Benedict XVI and of the Roman See is plausible, we can expect that concrete gestures will be made also in relation to other aspects of the life of the Church, taking into consideration all the directions in which the people of God is moving.
SIR
(27 July 2007)
