"Dominus Jesus"

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

The late communication from Card. Ratzinger puts limits to the dialogue with non Catholics and practically kills the ecumenical effort. Kevin

-- Kevin O'Hara (vate@rocketmail.com), September 19, 2000

Answers

What is "dialogue" anyway, in a religious context? We believe certain things, we have always believed certain things, & God willing, we always will. All the "dialogue" in the world isn't going to change what we believe. The Church's statement merely re-iterated what the Church has ALWAYS believed, and anyone familiar with our faith already knows that.

-- what's the (big@deal.anyway), September 19, 2000.

+
Folks,
All can read the new "Declaration" here, to confirm what "big deal anyway" has said.

Kevin, you wrote: "The late communication from Card. Ratzinger puts limits to the dialogue with non Catholics and practically kills the ecumenical effort.

Actually, the document contains a re-statement of doctrines that all Catholics should already know. Unfortunately, many Catholics have been misled (accidentally or intentionally) by school teachers, by the media, and/or by dissenters [even parish priests] to believe improper things -- things contrary to genuine Catholic doctrine, things that may have led you (Kevin) and others to have unrealistic hopes for rapid reconciliation among Christians and unrealistic expectations that the Catholic Church could compromise in certain areas.

The document is not intended to "kill" any "ecumenical effort." Quite the contrary. I am confident that this document will not surprise the leaders and "ambassadors" of the many non-Catholic Christian bodies that have been in dialogue with the Vatican for at least part of the last 35 years. They will continue their dialogue without missing a beat.

In hopes of allaying any fears, I want to quote only paragraph 3 from the document, to emphasize that long-held doctrine is being presented anew:
"3. In the practice of dialogue between the Christian faith and other religious traditions, as well as in seeking to understand its theoretical basis more deeply, new questions arise that need to be addressed through pursuing new paths of research, advancing proposals, and suggesting ways of acting that call for attentive discernment. In this task, the present Declaration seeks to recall to Bishops, theologians, and all the Catholic faithful, certain indispensable elements of Christian doctrine, which may help theological reflection in developing solutions consistent with the contents of the faith and responsive to the pressing needs of contemporary culture."
"The expository language of the Declaration corresponds to its purpose, which is not to treat in a systematic manner the question of the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ and the Church, nor to propose solutions to questions that are matters of free theological debate, but rather to set forth again the doctrine of the Catholic faith in these areas, pointing out some fundamental questions that remain open to further development, and refuting specific positions that are erroneous or ambiguous. For this reason, the Declaration takes up what has been taught in previous Magisterial documents, in order to reiterate certain truths that are part of the Church's faith."

--------------
Kevin, if you disagree with me, please present evidence, to support your point of view, by quoting directly from the document.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), September 21, 2000.

The above answers seem to look at "Dominus Jesus" from a western perspective, i.e. Catholics versus other Christians. Perhaps one of the targets of "Domunus Jesus" is a particular book by the eminent Jesuit theologian, Jacques Dupius s.j.: "Towards a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism" (Orbis Books, Maryknoll, 1997, 2nd ed.) which caused a stir in Rome and prevented him from continuing to teach in the Gregorian University there.

In the last chapter, he argues that a theology of religious pluralism is not a question of "de facto" but a matter of principle (de jure). He writes not so much with reference to the Catholic/other Christian dichotomy but against the background of the broader religious traditions, especially of the East, v.g. Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc., and places them in the context of the "Kingdom of God" and the work of the Holy Spirit.

This is not the place to quote the book in extenso. One should read this book.

What the other "warnings" refer to I have not yet worked out.

Happy hunting.

-- John Nelson Turner (nelsontj@visto.com)

-- John Nelson Turner (nelsontj@visto.com), January 19, 2001.


Jmj

"Happy hunting," you say, Mr. Turner?
Thank you, no. Jesus said, "Seek and you shall find." Those of us here who are faithful ("orthodox") Catholics have already found. The "hunting" is over.

I'd be willing to bet that each of us in the orthodox wing has a huge list of excellent orthodox books, magazines, prayerbooks, etc., waiting for us to read.
Although it is barely possible that some one or two of us has a slight interest in reading the book you mention (Dupuis, "Toward ..."), it would probably have to be something of lowest possible priority. Why? Because, as you said, the author was determined to be a dissenter, perhaps losing his faculties as a theologian, and definitely losing his teaching position in Rome.

Father Dupuis is a Jesuit. Though there are still many gallant men in the Society of Jesus, they are in a small minority (as compared to the dissenters), because the order fell into great disrepair in the 1960s. [I assure you that this is true, having read much about the subject, having attended a Jesuit university for five years, and having lived within thirty minutes of the spiritual desert known as "Georgetown University" for most of the last 25 years.] Adding frosting to the heterodox Dupuis cake is the fact that the book is published by yet another religous order that was overrun in the 1960s by dissenters -- the Maryknollers (many of whom have cozied up to Marxism throughout Latin America and elsewhere) [As with the Jesuits, Maryknoll has some heroic old-timers who still cling to orthodoxy.]

In light of all of this, my opinion is that few prudent people can or should spare the time to read a book that would try to persuade good Catholics to believe in "religious indifferentism" (a sort of "salvation-through-Shiva" mentality).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 20, 2001.


John:

I am just now getting caught up in my reading of these threads. I could have written a book (and I usually do) and not said it as well as you have in these few words. Thank God we have you! St. James, and Mary, Immacualate, pray for us and send a dozen more John Geciks, no matter the cost!

Ed

PS. You are quite correct about some of us not having the time to read every piece of tripe recommended to us. I am up to my Ying Yang now and can't keep up!

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), January 28, 2001.



One of the formative works I read, at a time when I had the greatest spiritual renewal of my life was, ''The Everlasting Man,'' by G.K. Chesterton. Aside from having been just great reading; Chesterton being a master of poetic prose and humorous insights, the book is a landmark in the field of Comparative Religion. Every one of the world's great religions is treated fairly.

He confronted the arguments of one of that era's most influential atheist free-thinkers, H.G. Wells; and reduced that (now read mostly as a science-fiction novelist) author's prestige and credibility enormously. What Chesterton had to say about the various religions of ancient times and our own day is truly enlightening. He was a convert to the Catholic faith from Anglicanism, BTW.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 28, 2001.


Oh, Ed! You are too much!
When I have gotten too angry or mean here, I think that just one "John Gecik" is too many.
You don't want to wish a dozen more of me on my adversaries! That would be worse than Purgatory.
God bless you.
John
PS: I look forward to reading Chesterton after I retire, Eugene.

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 28, 2001.

OK, John-- You will be meeting a friend for life. He'll be our mutual friend. This forum though, will not hear of your retirement. There's no rest for the weary.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 28, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ